JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta convicting the appellant-Chailu Singh, Koju Singh of offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for offence u/s. 366/34 IPC and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted for offence u/s. 342/34 IPC. All the three appellants have been convicted for offence u/s. 376 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated that prosecution case is that on 27.8.1987 PW-3 Kumari Sairi lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Panchori stating inter alia that on the last Friday when she was grazing cattle in the field the accused persons took her to near by 'Jhopda' (hut). The first and second appellant committed rape on her. Thereafter, the third appellant entered in the 'Jhopda' and he also committed rape on her. She was kept in the Dhani for whole night. In the morning all the three appellant, left the Dhani. Some how, she managed to reach the house and reported the incident to her parents. Her 'Ghaghri' and 'Necker' were stained with blood. Her father and mother are blind. Therefore, they waited for her brother PW-6 Madan Lal. On his arrival, the entire incident was narrated to him. On this information, Police registered a case for offence u/ss. 376, 342 IPC and u/s. 3(i)(xii) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the very day, the prosecutrix was examined by the Medical Officer. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for offence u/ss. 376, 366-A/34, 342/34 IPC and u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. The appellant denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 10 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellants in their statement u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. 3. The appellant denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 10 witnesses and produced certain documents. The appellants in their statement u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The Trial Court found the prosecution case proved. Accordingly he convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner noticed above. 4. Assailing the conviction, it is contended by Mr. G.M. Khan learned counsel for the appellants that learned Judge has committed an error in considering that the prosecutrix was a minor. It is submitted that the delay of 3 days in filing the FIR is fatal. It is also contended that the statement of the prosecutrix does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. It is further submitted that the conviction of the appellants for offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not maintainable in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in Pappu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000(1) RCC page 274 . On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the Trial Court. 5. We have scanned, scrutinised and evaluated the prosecution evidence exhaustively and considered the rival contentions. PW-3 Kumari Sairi is a minor aged 14 years. She being a child witness, the learned judge undertook "voir dire" before recording her evidence. He has noted that she was capable of understanding and answering the questions. Narrating the incident, she stated that while she was grazing cattle, appellants-Chain Singh and Kaju Singh arrived. They caught her and took her to the field of Jats. She was brought inside the hut. She was lost raped by Chailu Singh and thereafter Koju Singh committed rape on her. Raju Naik also committed rape on her. It was a dark rainy night and as such no body heard nor out cry. She was kept in the 'Jhupa' for whole night. The accused persons left the 'Jhupa' at about 4.00-5.00 a.m. Her clothes were spoiled. On account of rape, her clothes were stained with blood. She went to the house and narrated the incident to her parents and her brother. Her parents being blind did not go out. She was kept in the 'Jhupa' for whole night. The accused persons left the 'Jhupa' at about 4.00-5.00 a.m. Her clothes were spoiled. On account of rape, her clothes were stained with blood. She went to the house and narrated the incident to her parents and her brother. Her parents being blind did not go out. The report of the incident was lodged after 3 days of the incident for the reason that the villagers intervened and tried to settle the matter. Nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. PW-1 Dr. S.C. Mathur stated that he examined Miss Sairi on 28.7.1997. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/1. On the radiological examination, he opined that her age was about 15 years. PW-6 Madal Lal has supported the statement of the prosecutrix to the extent that she narrated the incident of rape to him. Her clothes were also found blood stained. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel that the statement of Mst. Sairi does not find corroboration from.the medical evidence. There are no injury of resistance. There is no substance in the contention when a girl is made helpless by the rapist. She may surrender under compulsion and in such an eventuality, there may not be injury of resistance. It is next contented that there is delay of 3 days in filing the FIR. It appears from the statements of the prosecution witnesses particularly PW 6 Madan Lal that some villagers intervened and tried to per se the prosecutrix not to take up the matter to the police. The proceedings shows that the accused persons have tried at various levels to win over the prosecutrix. He that as it may be do not find any reason to discard the statement of prosecutrix PW-3 Sairi. The statement of the prosecutrix PW-3 Sairi is corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus, the appellants have been rightly convicted for offence u/s. 376 IPC and other allied offence. 7. The learned counsel relying on a decision of this Court in Pappu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000(1) RCC page 274 has contended that in absence of the evidence of accused bias the conviction of the appellants for offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. 7. The learned counsel relying on a decision of this Court in Pappu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2000(1) RCC page 274 has contended that in absence of the evidence of accused bias the conviction of the appellants for offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. The learned Public Prosecutor has failed to point out any evidence to show that the accused persons committed rape on PW-3 Sairi for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. In view of this, the conviction of the appellants for offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants for the offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is quashed and set aside. They are acquitted of the said offences. However, the conviction of the appellants for offence u/ss. 376, 366/34, 342/34 IPC is upheld. The sentence for the minor offences will run concurrently with the sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence u/s. 376 IPC. The appellants are in Jail, thvill serve out the remaining part of the sentence.Appeal partly allowed. *******