By the Court.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and punishment dated 10.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 14/2004 State v. Kartar Yadav, crime No. 242/2006, Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) The Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST Act”].

2. Sri M.P. Yadav, Advocate appeared on behalf of appellant. Sri Chadrajeet Yadav, AGA appeared on behalf of the State.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that complainant Mamta Devi (PW-1) belong to ‘chamar’ caste and is resident of village Lakhraiya, p.s. Sarpataha, Jaunpur with her mother-in-law. Accused Kartar Yadav also belong to same village. On 5/6.9.2006 at about 2:00 a.m. in the night, complainant Mamta Devi (PW-1) was sleeping in Courtyard of her house, then accused Kartar Yadav entered her house and raped her. Then complainant raised alarm, due to which her mother-in-law Savitri Devi (PW-2) and many other person of the village came on the spot and had seen that Kartar Yadav had raped the complainant and fled away. Since accused Kartar Yadav was flashing knife and therefore he could not caught on spot. Complainant went to police station but her report was not lodged. Then complainant got herself medically examined by doctors and moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate Court had allowed the said application, therefore case crime No. 242 of 2006 under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act was registered in police station Sarpatha, Jaunpur. After investigation the police has submitted charge-sheet for offence under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, for which accused-appellant was charged. In trial accused pleaded no guilty and claimed to be trial.

4. In trial Court the prosecution side had examined PW-1 Mamta Devi (complainant-victim), PW-2 Savitri Devi, PW-3 Dr. Daya Shankar, PW-4 C.O. Anil Kumar Singh (Investigating Officer), PW-5 Dr. Rita Dubey, PW-6 constable Uma Shankar Mishra and PW-7 Dy. S.SP. Om Prakash Singh (Investigating Officer). These witnesses had proved prosecution documents.

5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused-appellant had stated that false evidence had been adduced against him and he was falsely implicated in this case. The defence side had examined DW-1 Hira Lal Maurya, Chief Pharmacist, who had proved three documents, which were exhibited.

6. After affording opportunity of hearing to prosecution and defence side, the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Jaunpur had convicted the accused Kartar Yadav for offence under Section 376 IPC read with 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 506 IPC. After that trial Court had afforded opportunity of hearing to appellant on the point of quantum of sentence, and thereafter convicted the accused Kartar Yadav with punishment of life imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/- as fine (in default of payment three months additional imprisonment), and sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment for the charge under Section 506 IPC. Learned trial Court had directed that both punishment would run concurrently. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and punishment dated 10.12.2009 accused Kartar Yadav had preferred present appeal.

7. The argument of learned counsel for the apellant was that there is contradiction in evidence of witnesses, therefore they should not be treated believable; and the impugned judgment based on such evidence should be quashed.

8. In this case two witnesses of facts were examined by prosecution side which are PW-1 Mamta Devi complainant-victim and PW-2 Savitri Devi who is complainant’s mother-in-law. We have examined the statement of victim (PW-1), she has specifically stated that at the time of incident appellant had committed rape with her when she was sleeping in her Courtyard. At that time accused inserted cloth in her mouth so she could not shout, but during course of rape that piece of