JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been directed against the Judgment dated 10.8.94 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Preventions of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jhunjhunu, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offences under section 363 IPC and under section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the Act) and sentenced him to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 500/-'and in default to further undergo S.I. for one month on the first count and to life imprisonment on the second count and directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated, the relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that PW 6 Km. Maya, whose date of birth as per Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate Exb. P. 14 & P. 15 respectively, is 5th June, 1983, was a student of class VI in Govt. Middle School, Barvasi. In April, 1993 her annual examinations were going on. In the morning of 27.4.93, she left her house situated in a 'dhani' of village Barvasi for going to her school, where she reached around 3.30 a.m. and by that time the examination had already commenced. She, therefore, did not go to the Examination Hal and was loitering near the school. It is alleged that on that day around 9.30 a.m. appellant-Kishore Singh aged about 1.9 years kidnapped her, boarded in a bus and took her to the town of Nawalgarh without the consent of her guardian. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant took the prosecutrix-Maya, to a cinema hall, where they visited two cinema shows on that day. Thereafter he took her to a that chet situated near Primary School village-Barvasi, where he committed rape upon her. On 28.4.93 the appellant again took her to the 'town of Nawalgarh, brought her back to the same thatchet and in the night where he again committed rape upon her. Next day morning he left Km. Maya, who came to her house, where she narrated her woeful tale to PW 2 Smt. Bagwani, PW 1 Smt. Gyarsi and others. It is the case of the prosecution that since Km. Maya's father-Boduram had gone to Hissar to earn his livelihood, Smt. Bhagwani and others had made a search for the prosecutrix but her whereabouts could not be ascertained. It is the case of the prosecution that since Km. Maya's father-Boduram had gone to Hissar to earn his livelihood, Smt. Bhagwani and others had made a search for the prosecutrix but her whereabouts could not be ascertained. On 29.4.93, PW 7 Jabhar Mal the elder brother of Bodhuram alongwith the prosecutrix went to Police Station, Nawalgarh, where he submitted a written report Ex.P. 3, whereupon formal FIR Ex.P. 4 was drawn. PW 9 Dr. Renu Sharma medically examined Km. Maya but did not find any injury on her body and private parts. However for ascertaining her age, the said doctor advised for ossification test. PW 8 Dr. Satish Vyas, Radiologist conducted 'the ossification test and vide his report Ex.P. 8 opined that the age of Km. Maya was above 15 years but below 17 years. Sealed packets containing the skirt of the prosecutrix, which had stains and her vaginal swab were sent to the State F.S.L. for chemical examination and detection of spermatozoa but no report of the State F.S.L. was filed by the prosecution. After completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant in the court of learned Additional, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge cum-Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases Jhunjhunu. 3. The learned trial judge framed charge for the offences under section 363 IPC and under section 3(2)(V) of the Act for committing rape with the prosecutrix, who is a member of Scheduled Caste. The appellant denied the indictment and claimed trial. To prove its case the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. The appellant denied all the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he has been falsely implicated.. However he did not adduce any evidence in his defence. The learned trial judge after scrutinising the evidence recorded in this case held that on the day of incident the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years, that the appellant had kidnapped and committed rape with her though she was a consenting party but since she was below 16 years of age and a minor, her consent was meaningless. He further held that the prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Caste. He therefore, by his impugned judgment dated 10.8.94 convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. He further held that the prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Caste. He therefore, by his impugned judgment dated 10.8.94 convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence this appeal. 4. We have heard Shri A.K. Gupta, the learned advocate for the appellant and Shri M.L. Goyal, the learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the trial court in extenso. 5. Shri A.K. Gupta has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He has vehemently contended that the alleged Scholar Register and Transfer Certificate Ex.P. 14 & P. 15 respectively do not inspire confidence, that the oral evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix is vague, inconsistent and unworthy of credence and that the opinion of Dr. Satish Chandra Vyas (PW 8), regarding the age of the prosecutrix is not exact and conclusive. The said doctor has opined that the age of Km-. Maya was between 15 and 17 years and there is always a variation of age of 2 years on either side. In such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has committed an illegality of fact as well as of law in determining the age of the prosecutrix as below 16 years. His next thrust of argument is that firstly, the appellant was not charged for the offence under section 376 IPC and secondly the alleged rape was not committed with the prosecutrix on the ground that she was a member of scheduled caste. The learned trial judge has not convicted the appellant under section 376 IPC and, therefore, his conviction for the offence under section 3(2)(V) of the Act is bad in law. Shri Gupta has asserted that the testimony of the prosecutrix is self contradictory, inconsistent and untrustworthy. Moreover her testimony does not find corroboration from the statement of PW 7 Dr. Renu Sharma, who examined her but did not find any external or internal injury on the person and private part of the prosecutrix. Besides this the FIR in this case was lodged after an inordinate delay of three days and that this delay has not been explained. Shri Gupta has canvassed that from the prosecution evidence it also does not stand proved that the appellant had kidnapped the prosecutrix out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and as such even the offence under section 363 IPC has also not been made out. 6. Shri Gupta has canvassed that from the prosecution evidence it also does not stand proved that the appellant had kidnapped the prosecutrix out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and as such even the offence under section 363 IPC has also not been made out. 6. On the other hand Shri M,L. Goyal, the learned P.P. has contended that from the voluminous, oral as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the age of the prosecutrix was between 15 and 17 years and that she was positively a minor and that she was kidnapped and abducted by the appellant out of the keeping of her lawful guardian without their consent. He has asserted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained, that the appellant has been specifically charged for committing rape upon the prosecutrix, which was punishable with imprisonment for 10 years or more, that the prosecutrix was a member of scheduled caste and, therefore, charge for the offence under section 3(2)(V) of the Act was rightly framed against him and by non-mentioning Section 376 IPC in the charge the appellant has not been prejudiced because during trial he very well knew the charge levelled against him. The learned P.P. has also supported the impugned judgment and reiterated the reasonings enumerated therein. 7. We have given our most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. 8. In this case the most important and vital question, which attracts our attention is about the age of prosecutrix Km. Maya. The evidence recorded on this count consists of oral evidence namely the testimony of PWs-1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 and documentary evidence comprising of entries of Scholars Register of Govt. Middle School, Barvasi Ex.P. 14 and the Transfer Certificate Ex.P. 15 of prosecutrix Maya and the medical evidence. Boduram, the father of the prosecutrix has not been examined. PW 1 Smt. Gyarsi aged 50 years is the mother of prosecutrix. She deposed that on the day of incident the age of Km. Maya was 12 years. In cross-examination she stated that she gave birth to two sons and two daughters, that her sons are aged 19 and 16 years and that thereafter Maya was born to her. She admitted that there was a gap of about 3 to 31/2 years in her each issue. Maya was 12 years. In cross-examination she stated that she gave birth to two sons and two daughters, that her sons are aged 19 and 16 years and that thereafter Maya was born to her. She admitted that there was a gap of about 3 to 31/2 years in her each issue. She further stated that Maya initially studied in an english medium school upto Vth Class in the village and that thereafter she was got admitted in the Govt. School, where her date of birth was got entered. The prosecution has however not filed the Scholars Register of the said private english medium School, wherein Maya had studied upto Vth Class. As per statement of PW 1 Smt. Gyarsi, the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged incident works out to around 13 years. Smt. Gyarsi has not stated that she had reported the date of birth of the prosecutrix to the Head Master of the Govt. Middle School, Barvasi. The admission form of the prosecutrix has also not been produced by the prosecution. 9. PW 2 Smt. Bhagwani, aged 40 years, is the Aunt (Tai) of the prosecutrix. She deposed that on the date of incident Maya was aged about 11 years. In cross-examination, she pleaded her ignorance as to for last how many years Maya was studying in Barvasi Middle School. She denied the suggestion that Maya was aged 18 years. However she pleaded her ignorance about the age of Maya's brothers and sisters. Therefore, her statement is quite vague regarding the age of the prosecutrix. 10. PW 3 Surendra aged 16 years is the elder brother of the prosecutrix. He stated that on the day of incident the age of Km. Maya was 11 years. PW 6 Maya deposed that her age was 11 years, that she was admitted in VIth Class in the year 1993 in Govt. Middle School and prior to that she studied in a private school for a year. She told that when she left the private school, the School Authorities had issued a Transfer Certificate in her favour and on that basis she was admitted in the Govt. School. In such. circumstances, the Certificate issued by the private school was a material and important document for ascertaining her date of birth. But the prosecution has with-held the said Certificate, which raises on adverse inference against the prosecution. School. In such. circumstances, the Certificate issued by the private school was a material and important document for ascertaining her date of birth. But the prosecution has with-held the said Certificate, which raises on adverse inference against the prosecution. PW 6 Maya has categorically denied the suggestion that on the date of incident she was 19 years of age. 11. PW 7 Jhabar sated that on the date of incident the age of the, prosecutrix was 11 years. In his written report ExP. 3, he has mentioned that the age of the prosecutrix was 11 years. The aforementioned witnesses are uneducated villagers and their testimony regarding the age of the prosecutrix is quite vague and uncertain and as such no reliance can be placed on their testimony and it cannot be held that on the day of incident the age of the prosecutrix was 11 years. 12. PW 9 Dr. Renu Sharma, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 29.4.93, estimated latter's age in the Medical Certificate Ex.P. 9 as 12 years. On external examination she found that Kni. Maya was asthenic built and average nourished, that her height was 4 feet 4.5, inches and her weight was 29.5 kg. & that she had only 28 teeth. Her axiliary hair were not developed. However she had black coloured and developed public hair. Her breasts were in developing stage. Her areola was dark brown having 1 cm. diameter. Her nipples were not developed. As per version of the prosecutrix to the lady doctor, she had started menstruation about three months back. Dr. Renu Sharma advised for ossification test and reserved her opinion about the age of Km. Maya. 13. PW 8 Dr. Satish Vyas, Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Nawalgarh, radiologically examined Km. Maya vide X-Ray Plate Exb.P. 7 and found that both condula epiphyses of her elbow joints had appeared and just fused, that head of radius bone and olicram were present and fused and that epiphyses of the lower end of radius and ulna had appeared but not fused. However epiphyses for metacarpal had appeared and fused except first metacarpal. Dr. Satish Vyas, therefore, vide his ossification test report (Ex.P. 8) opined that on 1.5.93 radiologically the age of Km. Maya was about 15 years and below 17 years. He proved ossification report Ex.P. 8. However epiphyses for metacarpal had appeared and fused except first metacarpal. Dr. Satish Vyas, therefore, vide his ossification test report (Ex.P. 8) opined that on 1.5.93 radiologically the age of Km. Maya was about 15 years and below 17 years. He proved ossification report Ex.P. 8. In his cross-examination, he firmly stated that there could be a variation of only 5 to 6 months in his estimation of the age of Km. Maya. Thus from the statement of Dr. Vyas, it stands fairly established that on the date of incident the age of Km. Maya was between 151/2 years to 171/2 years. 14. PW 15 Rajendra Pratap, Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Barvasi deposed that as per entry in the Scholars Register (Ex.P 14) of the School, the date of Birth of Km. Maya was 5th June, 1983. He also proved the Transfer Certificate (Ex.P. 15) which was issued by him on 27.1.94 on the basis of the entries in the Scholar Register (Ex.P. 14). He admitted that he had not made entries pertaining to Km. Maya in the Scholar Register. He admitted that there was a cutting at portion A to B in the entry (Ex.P. 14). A perusal of the Scholar Register (EX.P. 14) unmistakably discloses that in the column of "name, occupation and address of father or guardian" there is a cutting and that thereafter name of Boduram has been mentioned therein. In Column No. 5 of the said Register, which relates to the entry of the last school, if any, which the scholar attended, Km. Maya has been shown as a private student whereas as per her testimony as also that of PW 1 Smt. Gyarsi she had studied in a private school having English medium upto Vth Class. PW 15 Rajendra Pratap has clearly admitted that he did not know as to how many students by name Maya Kumari were studying in the said school in the year 1992. He pleaded his ignorance as to who had made an over-writing at portion C to D, which relates to date of passing standard or class from the school. A bare look to portion C to D indicates that previously 10.5.93 was written as date of leaving the school which was later on interpolated and made as 27.4.93. In Ex.P. 14 the caste of Maya Kumari has also not been mentioned. A bare look to portion C to D indicates that previously 10.5.93 was written as date of leaving the school which was later on interpolated and made as 27.4.93. In Ex.P. 14 the caste of Maya Kumari has also not been mentioned. As mentioned earlier the prosecution has not examined the father of Km. Maya or any other person, who got her admitted in the said school nor who filed her admission-form wherein her date of birth was initially mentioned. In such circumstances, the entries in Scholars Register Ex.P. 14 and Transfer Certificate Ex.P. 15 appear to be doubtful and no reliance can be placed thereon. 15. In Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 1993(2) CLR 395 and Jora Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984(2) Crimes 837 , it has been held that an entry in the school leaving certificate regarding date of birth of a student is not a conclusive proof or high probity evidence because it is a matter of common knowledge that the date of birth given at the time of the admission of a boy or girl in a school is seldom correct and more often than not the age given is less than the actual age of the child. 16. In Balbir Singh v. State of Harayana, 1989(1) Crimes 417 it has been observed that it is common knowledge that parents very often mention a lesser age of the child at the time of admission in school. 17. In Vipin Kumar v. The State of Harayana, 1985(1) Crimes 105 , the entry in the Register of birth of the prosecutrix was found to be suspect. Though the prosecutrix had passed the matriculation examination but her certificate was not placed on record to prove her age. The doctor, who medically examined the prosecutrix opined that her age was 17 years. It was held that, in such circumstances the medical evidence on the point should be given preference. 18. In State of Karnataka v. Sureshbabu Pukhraj Porral, 1994 SCC Cri. 435 ; entry in School Register made on the basis of the information given by the parents show that her age was below 16 years. The prosecutrix stated that her age could extend to 16 or 17 years also. While the medical evidence based on ossification test indicated that her age was below 18 years. 435 ; entry in School Register made on the basis of the information given by the parents show that her age was below 16 years. The prosecutrix stated that her age could extend to 16 or 17 years also. While the medical evidence based on ossification test indicated that her age was below 18 years. It was held that the evidence regarding age of the prosecutrix was doubtful and not very convincing and as such her age on the'date of incident was not below 16 years. 19. In Lalta Prasad v. State of M.P., 1979 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1141 , the copy of the School Certificate was that of a private school and not of a Govt. School. It was held by the Apex Court that the date of birth mentioned in that copy could not be an evidence of the statement of the deceased father of the girl that he had mentioned her date of birth as 1.1.1956 in the application form when the girl was admitted in January, 1962. That application form was also not produced. In such circumstances the evidence of deceased Bansi Lal was not accepted and it was held that it can not be said that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years. 20. In the instant case the prosecution has not care to get Km. Maya identified from PW 15-Rajendra Pratap, icad Master, Middle School, Barvasi. In the entries of the Scholar Register (Ex.P. 14) the father's name at portion A to B was scored out and name of Boduram was entered thereafter. Similarly, at portion C to B the date of leaving the school has also been altered. The prosecution has thus miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the entries of Scholars Register Ex.P. 14 pertain to PW 6 Km. Maya. The oral testimony of PW 1 Gyarsi, PW 2 Bhagwani and PW 7 Jhabar regarding the age of the prosecutrix, is also inconsistent, vague and unworthy of credence. In such circumstances, the opinion given by PW 8 Dr. Satish Vyas, who conducted the ossification test of the prosecutrix should be given preference to the oral evidence and school certificate Ex.P. 14 & Ex.P. 15. According to PW 8 Dr. Satish Vyas on 1.5.93 the age of Km. Maya was between 15 to 17 years and that this estimation of age could have a variation of about 5-6 months only. According to PW 8 Dr. Satish Vyas on 1.5.93 the age of Km. Maya was between 15 to 17 years and that this estimation of age could have a variation of about 5-6 months only. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion the learned trial judge has not correctly scanned and evaluated the evidence recorded on this count and committed grave error of fact in holding that on the date of incident the age of Km. Maya was below 16 years. As a matter of fact this finding is faulty and clearly against the record, which can not be sustained. From the evidence recorded in this case, in our considered opinion the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident the age of Km. Maya was about 17 years and that she was positively below 18 years. 21. Now the next question which poses our attention is whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 3(2)(V) of the Act is justified and legal ? The learned trial judge did not specifically framed charge for the offence under section 376 IPC against the appellant. However in the charge it was clearly mentioned that the appellant had committed rape upon the prosecutrix, who is a member of scheduled caste and that such an offence was punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years or more and as such he had committed an offence under section 3(2)(V) of the Act. Thus it is abundantly apparent that the appellant very well knew that he was also charged with the offence for committing rape upon the prosecutrix. During trial also the prosecutrix Km. Maya during cross-examination has been grilled at length for the offence of rape. Hence it can not be said that the appellant did not know that he was also charged for the offence under section 376 IPC. Therefore, omission to mention Section 376 IPC in the charge is not material and fatal. 22. During trial also the prosecutrix Km. Maya during cross-examination has been grilled at length for the offence of rape. Hence it can not be said that the appellant did not know that he was also charged for the offence under section 376 IPC. Therefore, omission to mention Section 376 IPC in the charge is not material and fatal. 22. The learned trial judge after discussing, analysing and assessing the prosecution evidence has rightly held that prosecutrix PW 6 Maya knew the appellant prior to the incident, that on 26.4.93 she had gone to the school but reached there late, therefore, she did not appear in the examination, that appellant met her near the school and induced and took her to Nawalgarh after boarding in a bus where she visited cinema shows and also went to the market and that thereafter the appellant took her in a that chet where-she was subjected to sexual intercourse on the night intervening 27 & 28 April, 1993, but she did not complain to anybody and in such circumstances, she was a consenting party. The learned trial judge however held that since the age of Km. Maya was below 16 years on the date of incident, therefore, her consent was immaterial. As mentioned earlier, in our considered opinion, the age of Km. Maya was not below 16 years but was about 1.7 years. In such circumstances the present case does not fall within the VIth description to Section 375 IPC, which proclaims that a man is said to commit rape with or without consent of a woman when she is under sixteen years of age. 23. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewal Chand, JT 1990 (1) SC 658 the Apex Court has observed that a woman who is a victim of a sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. Therefore corroboration of her testimony is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. Therefore corroboration of her testimony is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. It is equally important that why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion as has been held by the Apex Court in Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 and also in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 JT (6) S 437 . But in the case on hand PW 9 Dr. Renu Sharma, who examined the prosecutrix on 29.4.93 did not find any mark of external injury on her person or private parts nor detected any bleeding from vagina. She found that the labia majora & labia minora of the prosecutrix were developed and her hymen was represented by small tags of tissue. She also found that the vagina of the prosecutrix admitted one finger easily and two fingers with difficulty. The said doctor did not find recent rupture of the hymn of the prosecutrix. Dr. Renu Sharma stated that she had preserved the vagina swab of the prosecutrix, sealed and handed over to the police for sending the same for chemical analysis and detection of spermatozoa. The said sealed packet was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory but the prosecution did not produce the report of the State FSL and as such it utterly failed to establish that the vaginal swab taken out from the vagina of Km. Maya contained spermatozoa. Thus there was no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with her against her consent. Since the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she was not below 16 years of age; offence under section 376 IPC does not stand proved against the appellant. 24. There is not a fringe of evidence to suggest that the appellant had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix on the ground that she was a member of scheduled caste. 25. Since the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she was not below 16 years of age; offence under section 376 IPC does not stand proved against the appellant. 24. There is not a fringe of evidence to suggest that the appellant had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix on the ground that she was a member of scheduled caste. 25. Section 3(2)(V) of the Act laid down that a person, who commits an offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. Therefore, simply because the appellant, who is by caste Daroga and PW 6 Smt. Maya, who is Chamar by caste and belongs to scheduled caste, it can not be inferred by any stretch of imagination that she was subjected to sexual assault on the ground that she was a member of scheduled caste. In such circumstances, the basic ingredient of Sub-section 2 (V) of Section 3 of the Act has also not been proved by the prosecution in this case. Hence refracted from any angle the appellant's conviction for the offence under section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(V) of the Act is neither based on the evidence recorded in this case nor it is justified and legal, hence the same can not be sustained. 26. From the voluminous' oral, documentary and medical evidence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident prosecutrix Km. Maya, was about 17 years of age and was positively below 21 years and as such she was a minor. In the morning of 27.4.93 she was coming from her house and reached Govt. Middle School, Barvasi for appearing in the examination but since she was late she could not appear in the examination. While she was in the school campus, the appellant induced her to accompany him to visit the town of Nawalgarh and without the consent of her parents he kidnapped her. Since the prosecutrix was a minor her consent for accompanying him was immaterial. 27. While she was in the school campus, the appellant induced her to accompany him to visit the town of Nawalgarh and without the consent of her parents he kidnapped her. Since the prosecutrix was a minor her consent for accompanying him was immaterial. 27. In State of Karnataka v. Suresh babu ; (cited supra) by various tests and evidences the age of the prosecutrix was not clearly established and estimated or indicated variously to be under 18 years, below 20 years, about 16 years & about 18 years but was estimated or indicated to be below 20 years. The prosecutrix had willingly gone with the accused to visit places, moved together for 10-11 days days in different towns and stayed with him in lodges. In such circumstances it was held that the age of the prosecutrix was in doubt and that the accused could not be held to have taken her out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and that some thing more like inducement should have been shown and that the accused was rightly acquitted of the offence under section 366 IPC by the High Court and the same did not warrant any interference. Apparently the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable with Suresh Babu's case and same does not come to the assistance of the appellant. 28. In our considered opinion the learned Sessions Judge has correctly scrutinised, assessed and evaluated the evidence on this count and not committed any illegality either of fact or of law in convicting the appellant for the offence under section 363 IPC. 29. The prosecutrix was kidnapped in the morning of 27.4.93. As per statements of PW 1 Smt. Gyarsi and PW 3 Surendra they frantically made search of the prosecutrix, that in the forenoon of 29.4.93 Km. Maya returned to her house and narrated about the incident and thereupon PW 7 Jhabar went to Police Station. Nawalgarh, which is situated at a distance of 16 kms. from village-Barvasi and lodged the written report Ex.P. 3 the same day at 5.00 p.m. In such circumstances, there was no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the delay stands well explained. 30. No other point was pressed before us. 31. Hence in. Nawalgarh, which is situated at a distance of 16 kms. from village-Barvasi and lodged the written report Ex.P. 3 the same day at 5.00 p.m. In such circumstances, there was no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the delay stands well explained. 30. No other point was pressed before us. 31. Hence in. the premise of above discussion, the net result is that we partly allow this appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence of appellant-Kishore for the offence under section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(V) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, the appellant's conviction and sentence for the offence under section 363 IPC are hereby maintained. The appellant has been under detention since date of his arrest on 28.6.93 except for a brief spell of period, when he was granted interim bail. Thus he has already suffered sentence for a period of about three years and one month. Therefore, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The jail authorities be informed accordingly.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******