UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal, the judgment and order dated 14. 3. 2000 passed by the Special Judge (S. C. /s. T. Act) Basti, is under challenge.

( 2 ) THE appellant Udai Bahadur was charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 376 I. P. C. , 3 (i) (xii)and 3 (2) (v) S. C. and ST. (Prevention of atrocities) Act, on the allegation that the prosecutrix, a minor girl about 11 years of age when had gone to see her mother working in the field at about 11. 00 a. m. on 12. 11. 1996, she met the appellant. It was near the field of one Manohar that the accused caught hold of the minor girl and forcibly took her inside the standing sugarcane field and raped her. On the cries and shrieks of Km. Puneeta, Smt. Samundara Devi (P. W. 1) reached there and she also started raising alarm. This hue and cry so raised on the spot attracted other witnesses also there. On having seen the witnesses reaching the spot, the appellant tried to run away from there but he was immediately arrested after a little chase. The prosecutrix, Km. Puneeta was in precarious condition on account of the injuries sustained in the process. She was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment by her father ram Sumiran. The written report of the incident was lodged by P. W. 2 Visram, the uncle of prosecutrix. Since Km. Puneeta belonged to the scheduled caste community, the case under Sections 376 I. P. C. and 3 (i) (xii) and 3 (2) (v) S. C. and ST. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was registered against the appellant.

( 3 ) P. W. 6 - Dr. Seema Chaudhary, the then Medical Officer of Womens Hospital, Basti, admitted Km. Puneeta on 12. 11. 1996, in the hospital on a reference made from the District Hospital. She was bleeding from her vagina and perennial tear was present. She was given treatment and remained admitted in the hospital till 19. 11. 1996.

( 4 ) ON 16. 11. 1996, P. W. 5, Dr. Renu roy examined Puneeta in the hospital and prepared her medical report (Ext. Ka-4 ). Her axillary and pubic hair were neither found developed nor there was any development of her breast. Though, there was no external injury present on her body but a perennial tear with small laceration in its healing phase was noticed. There was tenderness in her vagina, which admitted the tip of little finger with difficulty. Dr. Renu Roy also prepared the slide of her vaginal smear for pathological test and referred her for ossification test in order to determine her approximate age. The C. M. O. Dr. Ram Chandra, p. W. 4 on the basis of x-ray examination conducted upon Km. Puneeta gave his report about her age (Ext. Ka-3) and in his estimation Km. Puneeta was found only 11 years of age.

( 5 ) THE case after its registration at the police station was investigated. The Investigation was first taken up by p. W. 8, Sub-Inspector-Vijay Pal Singh, who recorded the statement of the accused at the police station itself where he had been taken after his arrest on the spot by the witnesses and the complainant. The next day i. e. 13. 11. 1996 P. W. 8 recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses and went to the place of occurrence, prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-10) and took blood stained panty (material ext.-1) of the prosecutrix in his possession and got it sealed before the witnesses after preparing its memo (Ext. Ka-2 ). The later part of the investigation was taken over by the Circle Officer, vansh Lochan Pandey, who after concluding it submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka 11) in this case.

( 6 ) THE appellant accused did not submit to the charges and pleaded not guilty to the same. He has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 cr. P. C. that he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. He has however, admitted that the prosecutrix belongs to the community of chamar, a scheduled caste.

( 7 ) THE prosecution in this case has examined P. W. 1, Smt. Samundra Devi, p. W. 2 - Visram, the complainant, P. W. 3- Km. Puneeta, the prosecutrix, P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document