JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 19.10.2011 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in Special Sessions Trial No.48 of 2006 titled (State vs. Ram Rataan Batham and another) arising out of Case Crime No.1133 of 2005 for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 Indian Penal Code & 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989, (herein after to be referred as 'SC/ST Act') Police Station-Kannauj, District-Kannauj, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence committed under Section 363 IPC read with Section 3(2) (v); for five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 366 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (v) in default of payment of fine, one month additional rigorous imprisonment; for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and in default of payment of fine, one year additional rigorous imprisonment. Except the sentence of defaulted fine, all the sentences were to run concurrently as per direction of the Trial Court.

2. The brief facts as per prosecution case are that on the evening of 23rd October, 2005, prosecutrix aged about 13 years of age and Neetu (her sister) aged about 9-10 years went for the natural call and at that time, Ram Ratan s/o Guljari, Brijesh s/o Ramswaroop, Jaipal s/o Chunnulal and one unknown person, namely four persons in number, having countrymade pistol reached the daughters of the complainant and gauged both the girls and kidnapped them. Ram Kishore saw the two girls going with the four persons named in the FIR and at about 8-9 p.m., Neetu was sent back. The prosecutrix was taken to an unknown place, the accused had threatened the girl with dire consequences. When they started searching, they found the daughter-Neetu, Ram Ratan on seeing Neetu recognized her to be along with four persons of the village. The complainant went to the police station on the same night at Kannauj but the police did not ascribe his report and, therefore, he sent what can be said to be registered post AD as the accused were head strong people. This report was given on 31.10.2005, which is at Ex.ka-6 and has been described as FIR. The Written Report (Ex.ka-2) dated 24.10.2005 is also on similar terms. The prosecutrix was found after a period about two months. The evidence of the witnesses would have to be considered. On 1.12.2005, her statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj, was recorded. The prosecutrix was medically examined and, thereafter, as she gave version against the accused, he was arrested.

3. C.O. City, Kannauj, R.D. Yadav, tookup the investigation visited the spot, prepared site plan, recorded statements of the prosecutrix and witnesses and after completing investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused.

4. As the case was triable by court of session, the Magistrate committed the case to court of session.

5. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges examined ten witnesses as under:-

6. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading evidence: