1. Heard Smt. Nisha Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae for appellant and Mr. Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.2010 delivered by the then learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No.30, Baraanki. Accused-appellant Jagdish Kori is detained in jail and he forwarded on 27.05.2010 this appeal through Jailer, district- Barabanki. The accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5000/- along with default stipulation. In default of deposit of fine the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3. The Amicus-curiae Sri Raghvendra Pandey, Advocate was appointed by order dated 05.12.2011 and he was discharged vide order dated 28.08.2017. Smt. Nisha Srivastava, Advocate filed her Vakalatnama on behalf of appellant. Afterwards, on 19.09.2017, she was appointed as Amicus-curiae on behalf of appellant.

4. It is pleaded by the appellant that he is very poor person. There is nobody in his family to do pairavi on his behalf. He has falsely been implicated in this crime. The record of the trial court be summoned and justice be done in this appeal.

5. Learned Amicus-curiae has argued that the victim is deaf and dumb, aged 13 years, whereas her radiological age was found 12 years and below 14 years. Her statement was not recorded during the course of trial with aid of expert. The trial court itself put questions and victim allegedly answered by signs and gestures. The statement of victim is not legally admissible in evidence. It is further argued that PW-1 Dr. Nivedita Kaur has accepted that no external injury was found by her on private part of the victim. She found hymen torned and redness was there around it. No bleeding was found by the doctor, when she medically examined the victim on 07.10.2010.

6. Learned Amicus-curiae has further stated that PW-2 Samsuddin, father of the victim, is not the eye witness and PW-3, mother of the victim- PW-5 have been posed as eye witness, whereas she has not seen the incident as narrated by her. It is further submitted by learned Amicus-curiae that PW-4 Dr. S.K. Singh is Radiologist and formal witness. PW-7 Sub-Inspector Sri Jang Bahadur Singh, Investigating Officer, has conducted investigation, which is tainted and not impartial. The appellant has falsely been implicated in this crime. It is also argued by the learned Amicus-curiae that semen was not found on the clothes provided to the Investigating Officer. There is contradiction in statements of PW-3 and PW-5 regarding the fact, who provided clothes to the Investigation Officer PW-5 either PW-3 or Dr. PW- 1. There is delay in lodging the First Information Report of this case, which has not been properly explained.

7. I have perused the record of S.T. No.1487 of 2009; State vs. Jagdish Kori, Crime No.1587 of 2009, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Haidargarh, District-Barabanki.

8. As per prosecution version, the complainant-Samsuddin, lodged written report (Ext.Ka-3) at Kotwali-Haidargarh, Barabanki on 06.10.2009 at 13:30 hrs. On the basis of this written report, check F.I.R. (Ext.Ka-9) was registered at Police Station-Haidargarh, District-Barabanki of Crime No.1587 of 2009. G.D. Ext. Ka-10 and Ext. Ka-11 registration of crime were also prepared.

9. The complainant has mentioned in the written report that he is Tailer by profession. On 05.10.2009, at about 5:00 p.m., he was present at his shop. The accused-appellant Jagdish Kori son of Ram Charan lured his daughter, aged 13 years, who is deaf and dumb, and he brought her daughter forcibly at his house, where he committed rape with her. It is also mentioned in the First Information Report that wife of the complainant traced her daughter and reached at the place of occurrence and saw the incident. The neighbours also