The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient evidence to prove the commission of offenses under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act and Section 376 of IPC, highlighting the importance of corroborating evidence and the limitations of proving offenses based on caste identity.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Non-following of the decision of Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2022 (Saudan Singh vs. State of U.P.) decided on 25.2.2022 and non-considering the case of accused for remission seems to be the natural administrative conduct of the officers and the jail authority. We once again pained to show our anguish.

3. This appeal was listed in the year 2004. Unfortunately, as the order sheet shows, the matter was listed only after few years and the delay came to be condoned in the year 2008. From 2008 till 2022, the matter was never listed for hearing as is clear from the order sheet and it was only after the listing application was filed that the matter was listed. The lower Court's records were there in the year 2004 but the office has not prepared the paper book. As the matter is pending since long and the accused-appellant is in jail for more than 21 years with remission, we dispense with the paper book. We have requested learned counsels to go through the record. We have also perused the record.

4. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 23.10.2003 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat in Special Sessions Trial No.50 of 2001 (State vs. Aftaf alias Nafees alias Pappu) wherein the learned Special Judge has convicted & sentenced accused-appellant, Aftaf alias Nafees alias Pappu, under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') read with Section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-and, in case of default in payment of fine, further to under go one year's simple imprisonment.

5. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that Kamlesh Kumar, the husband of prosecutrix, made a complaint to Police Station Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat stating that on 9.2.2001, at about 12.00 noon, when the prosecutrix went to her field for bringing silage for the cattle, the accused-appellant, Aftaf alias Nafees alias Pappu, caught her from behind, knocked her down and started committing rape on her. On raising alarm by the prosecutrix, the informant along with his brother, Dinesh Kumar who were cutting silage in the adjacent field reached at the place of incident where they saw that accused was committing rape on her. It was alleged that the prosecutrix sustained injuries, her glass bangles got broken and the informant, his brother and one Darogi Lal brought her to the Police Station. On basis of the written report, the F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 36 of 2001 under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act came to be lodged against the accused.

6. After lodging of the F.I.R, the investigation was moved into motion. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The Investigating Officer, after taking statements of witnesses, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 376 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act.

7. The accused was committed to the Court of Sessions as the case was triable by the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges on the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

8. So as to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses who are as under :

9. In support of ocular version following documents were filed: