The court upheld the conviction for rape under IPC by confirming the credibility of the victim's testimony and medical evidence establishing the accused's guilt.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Durg District Durg in Special case No. 276 of 1997 whereby learned Special Judge after holding the appellant guilty for committing rape of a woman when she was under 16 years of age, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under S.376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the Prosecutrix Chandrika (PW - 1) was the resident of village Khairikhar. She belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. On the date of incident, the prosecutrix along with her friend namely Mohini and Prabha (PW - 2) had gone to field for gleaning the seeds of soyabeen, then the accused / appellant came from her and escaped the friends of the prosecutrix, thereafter, the appellant forcefully caught hold the hands of the prosecutrix and dragged to the field of Rahar and lifted up her underwear and committed rape with her. The prosecutrix (PW - 1) lodged First Information Report vide Ex.P - 1 in Police Station Navagarh. The prosecutrix (PW - 1) and the appellant were sent for medical examination to District Hospital, Durg vide Ex.P - 9. Dr. Smt. Madhu Shrivastava (PW - 10) examined her and gave her report vide Ex.P - 9A. In Ex.P - 9A, she found that the prosecutrix was minor girl with sparsely developed breast auxiliary and pubic hair was not developed. The appellant was also sent for medical examination vide Ex.P - 14.

4. In further investigation, underwear was seized from the prosecutrix (PW - 1) vide Ex.P - 2. Underwear of the appellant was also seized from the appellant vide Ex.P - 7. 2 slides of vaginal swab were prepared which were seized vide (Ex.P - 2) from constable Pahluram vide Ex.P - 12. Seal packed articles were seized vide Ex.P - 10A. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. - P / 4. Seized articles were sent to FSL, Raipur for examination vide Ex . - P / 21.

5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under S.3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and S.376(2)(f) IPC, in which Learned Special Judge acquitted the appellant under section under S.3(i)(xii) of the and convicted the appellant under S.376(2)(f) of IPC.

6. To hold the appellant guilty, the prosecution examined the prosecutrix Ku. Chandrika (PW - 1), Ku. Prabha (PW - 2), Sumitrin Bai (PW - 3), Patwari Baldau Prasad Tiwari (PW - 4), Kotwar Krishna Kumar (PW - 5), head constable Khemlal Sahu (PW - 6), head constable Durga Prasad Chandrakar PW - 7), Vidyacharan Baghel (PW - 8), Dr. N.K. Tiwari (PW - 9), Dr. Madhu Shrivastava (PW - 10), DSP P.R. Kashyap (PW - 11).

7. Smt. Smriti Shrivastava learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR. It is submitted that in respect of the alleged incident of 09.11.1997, the FIR has been registered on 11.11.197 after a delay of three days which has not been explained satisfactorily. She further submits the case is of the year 1998 and the appellant has already suffered 2 years and 8 months of jail sentence. Therefore, the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. Ms. Shobha Kashyap, Dy. Government Advocate for the State / res