JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated, 16.12.1997 passed by the Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore (Camp Bhinmal), whereby he convicted the appellant of the offence under Sec, 376 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act' and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to further undergo two years' regorous imprisonment, the Court also directed that on depositing the amount of fine the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix Mst. Ramila as compensation. 2. Succintly stated the relevant facts are that on 24.11.1996, RW. 8 prosecutrix Mst. Ramila had gone to ease herself in an open field of the village Dhamsin alongwith her aunt's daughter Gavri, RW.1. Accused Manoher Singh arrived there, carrying a knife in his hand. He threatned to kill and, pinned her down on the ground and committed rape. The accused took bites on the neck, cheeks and breasts. She made a cry, which attracted her uncle father-in-law Sona and Gavri. They came and rescued her. Mst. Ramila lodged. First Information Report of the incident of Police Station, Raniwada. On this, police registered a case for the offences under Secs. 341, 323,324,342 and 376 IPC and under Section 3(2) (v) of the Act. She was examined by the medical officer, who prepared the report Ex.R9. The doctor opined that looking to the injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, the act of rape cannot be denied. The smear and swab were taken from the vagina, which were sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The site was inspected. After dsual investigation police laid a chargesheet in the Court of the learned Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore (Camp Bhinmal) for the aforesaid offences. 3. The accused denied the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined twelve witnesses and produced certain documents. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC., the accused pleaded that Raghu Nath Singh, nephew of Anop Singh, had assaulted him and, as such, his father had got a case registered against him. Anop Singh was pressurising for the compromise. He did not agree for the Compromise. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC., the accused pleaded that Raghu Nath Singh, nephew of Anop Singh, had assaulted him and, as such, his father had got a case registered against him. Anop Singh was pressurising for the compromise. He did not agree for the Compromise. He also stated that Pabu Bhil, husband of prosecutrix, used to work in the field of Anop Singh and it was at the instance of Anop Singh and it was at the instance of Anop Singh that a false and fabricated case has been framed against him. In support of his case, the accused examined his father Tag Singh as D.W. 1. The learned trial Judge, relying on the testimony of P.W. 8 Mst. Ramila corroborated by the medical and other evidence, held the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 376 IPC and 3(2) (v) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. 4. We have heard Mr. PN. Mohanani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ramesh Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the learned Trial Court in extenso. 5. It is contended that the testimony of P.W.8 Mst. Ramila is self contradictory inconsistent and untrustworthy. Her testimony does not find corroboration from any other reliable evidence. It is submitted that even P.W. 1 Gavri has not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that no injury on her private parts has beerrfound. Challenging the conviction under Sec.3(2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act, it is contended that there is not evidence that appellant made a sexual assault on P.W.8 Ramila on the ground that she is person belonging to scheduled Caste. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is overwhelming oral and documentary evidence to show that the accused committed rape on RW.8 Mst. Ramila, With respect to conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 3(2) (v) of the Act, it is submitted that there is no dispute that the accused is a person not belonging to S.C./S.T. and the prosecutrix belongs to S.C./S.T. and as such, he has been rightly convicted for the offence under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Act. 7. We have given our most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. 8. Mst. 7. We have given our most anxious and careful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. 8. Mst. Ramila, RW.8, in her statement before the Court has narrated the incident as given in the FIR. She also stated that her cry attracted Gavri and Sona. When they arrived there, the accused was lying on Her. On seeing them, he ran away. She narrated the incident to both of them. From village Dhamsin, She went to Badgaon and then boarded the bus for Raniwada. She lodged the FIR Ex. R11 at Police Station, Raniwada. She put her thumb mark on the report after it was read over to her. In the cross examination, she has stated that her husband was tied by the accused and kept in another house. The next day when police arrived, her husband and father-in-law could arrive. She also admitted that she is known to Anop Singh but she denied that FIR was drafted by him. She also denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of Anop Singh. Nothing has been elicited from the cross examination to discredit her testimony. 9. RW.7 Dr. Raj Singh Bhandari stated that he examined Mst. Ramila on 24.11.1996 and prepared the injury report Ex.P.9.Dr. Bhandari found the following external injuries on her person : "1. Teeth bite-Abrasion mark, elliptical two marks caused by upper front teeth, red in colour, on Rt. cheek; 2. Teeth bite-Abrasion mark elliptical two marks by lower front teeth, red in colour on Rt. lower jaw. The intervening space is bruised; 3. Teeth bite-Abrasion mark elliptical four marks caused by upper & lower front teeth, red in colour on Lt. cheek; 4. Multiple small abrasion of 2 to 3 mm size on Rt. side of neck; 5. Multiple small abrasion of 1 to 2 mm size on Lt. side of neck; 6. Teeth bite-Two on lower middle side of Lt. Breast; 7. Multiple small abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm size on all over back; 8. Contusion-3x2 cm size below outer angel of Lt. eye." 10. The doctor opined that from the external injuries, the possibility of rape being committed, cannot be denied. The doctor also seized the 'ghaghra' of the proscutrix on which spots of semen were detected. He further stated that the accused Manoher Singh was also examined on 19.12.1996. Contusion-3x2 cm size below outer angel of Lt. eye." 10. The doctor opined that from the external injuries, the possibility of rape being committed, cannot be denied. The doctor also seized the 'ghaghra' of the proscutrix on which spots of semen were detected. He further stated that the accused Manoher Singh was also examined on 19.12.1996. He was found fit for indulging in sexual intercourse. The prosecution has produced the FSL report date 2.9.1997, which shows that human semen was found on the 'ghaghra'. Thus, on careful consideration, we find the testimony of RW.8 Mst. Ramila as trustworthy. The learned Judge has rightly held the accused appellant guilty of rape. 11. The next question, which arises for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant under Sec.3(2) (v) of the Act is justified and legal? 12. We have, recently in a case of Pappu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, ''D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 722/98 decided on 2.9.1999 ", examined the scope and ambit of Sec.3(2) (v) of the Act. It is held therein that for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, beside the ingredients of respective offence of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is further required to establish that the accused being a person of non S.C./S.T. has committed the crime on a person of S.C./S.T. for the reason that such person belonged to such community or tribe. 13. In the instant case, there is no material on record indicating that the accused made a sexual assault on the prosecutrix RW.8 Mst. Ramila on the ground that she was a member of Scheduled Caste. It is not in dispute that RW.8 Mst. Ramila is a member of Scheduled Caste but in absence of material that the offence has been committed on the ground of her being a member of Scheduled Caste, the conviction under Sec.3(2) (v) of the Act can not be sustained. 14. On the point of sentence, Mr. Mohanani submitted that though Section 376 IPC provides a minimum sentence of seven years but the Court has a power under the proviso to award a lesser sentence than seven years for adequate and special reasons. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh reported in 1996 (1) Crimes 37 (SC) . In that case, the incident, was of the year 1984. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh reported in 1996 (1) Crimes 37 (SC) . In that case, the incident, was of the year 1984. The accused persons were acquitted by the High Court. Thus, the Supreme Court considering the fact that the accused were acquitted and the incident was of more than eleven years back, reduced the sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment. No such circumstance exists in the instant case. Thus, we find no adequate and special reasons for invoking the proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 376 IPC to award the lesser sentence that the minimum sentence of seven years. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sec.3(2) (y) of the Act is quashed and set aside. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC is maintained. He is sentenced to undergo seven years' R.l. and to pay a fine to Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment, to further undergo one year's R.l. Order of payment of fine to complainant remains intact.Appeal allowed. *******