The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the victim's testimony, the significance of medical evidence, and the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR in proving the offense of rape.

Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent. This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions/Fast Track Court No. 10, District Pratapgarh in case of State v. Ramu Tiwari, Sessions Trial No. 102 of 2009, crime No. 67 of 2008, under section 376 IPC and section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act, Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh by which the appellant was convicted under section 376(2)(f), IPC and was acquitted under section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act, and was directed to undergo 10 years RI and to pay fine of  Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo 6 months RI.

2. As per prosecution version, FIR was lodged by Sukhram in Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh on 24.3.2007, at about 7.35 A.M., through an application that the informant had gone to work of brick kiln at Moradabad. He had four daughters; one was married, and his three daughters and wife were living at home in village Kutalia Majre Raigarh, Police Station Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh. On 8.5.2008, his wife had gone to Shrengverpur Ghat to participate in the last rites of one villager, and his daughter No. 2 had gone to school to appear in the examination. Daughter No. 3 (the victim) and daughter No. 4 were at home. When his wife returned in the evening, she found the victim in a bad condition, then she went to sorcerer. When there was no improvement, she went to hospital at Kunda. The doctors raised their hands for treating her. As she had no money, she came back and informed him on telephone. He came back on 13.5.2008, and admitted her daughter in a hospital at Kunda where swelling in the intestine was found in the ultrasound. After some treatment, when her condition improved, he asked from his daughter, then she told him that on 8.5.2008, at about 9 A.M., when she was washing utensils out side the house, the accused Ramu son of Kedarnath Tiwari called her and tried to give her money, but she refused, then he dragged her towards back side of the house, near the bush. When she tried to raise alarm, he gagged her by hand and raped her due to which her condition worsened. On this, a case under section 376 IPC and section 3(1)(12) of the SC & ST Act was registered. The Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of sessions for trial. The Trial Court framed charge under section 376 IPC and section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. The prosecution examined Sukhram, the informant as PW-1, the victim as PW-2, Prema Devi as PW-3, Dr. R.A. Verma as PW-4, Shivbaran Singh, Circle Officer as PW-5, Jangi Lal, Constable as PW-6 and Dr. Reena Prasad as PW-7. After the statement of accused, he was asked to enter into defence, but he did not adduce any evidence and stated that he has wrongly been implicated to partibandi and enmity.

4. The Court below, after going through the record and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, found the appellant guilty and convicted him under section 376IPC and the appellant was acquitted under section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act. After conviction, he was directed to undergo sentence, as mentioned above.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that no case under section 376 IPC is made out. He further submitted that the appellant is innocent and he was implicated due to enmity on the behest of other villagers, and lastly, it was argued that if, at all, any case is made out against the appellant, it will be of attempt to commit rape. Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that FIR is delayed and there is no eye-witness of the incident. As there is no injury on the private part of the victim, occurrence appears to be doubtful, and thus, the appellant is liable to be acquitted. Alternatively, it was prayed that the appellan