JUDGMENT (L.Narasimha Reddy) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No.60 of 2002, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"), Mahabubnagar, in a judgment rendered by that Court on 11-07-2005. 2. The appeal, insofar as it related to A2 was allowed by this Court through judgment, dated 27-02-2007, on the ground that he was a juvenile, as defined under the Juvenile Justice Act, as on the date of the commission of the alleged offence. Now the appeal is confined to A-1 and A-3. 3. The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 376(g) IPC alleging that they committed gang rape on one Mala Dasari Mahalaxmi-P.W.1, on 25-02-2002, near a stream at the outskirts of Rakonda village of Mahabubnagar District. Since the victim belongs to scheduled caste, the provisions of the Act were invoked and the case was tried by the Special Court constituted under that Act. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence alleged against them and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 4. The gist of the allegation against the accused is that: P.W.1, who was studying at Mahaboobnagar, by residing in a social welfare hostel, came to the house of her grandmother sometime in January, 2002 and on 25-02-2002 she along with P.W.3 proceeded to the nearby stream, to wash clothes. The accused accompanied both the girls up to the stream. When the girls were returning after attending nature calls, A-1 is asked A-2 to lift P.W.1 and on that A-2 lifted and took her to nearby bushes. Thereafter, the accused have raped P.W.1, one after the other, and in the meanwhile, P.W.3 had fled away. P.W.2, the maternal aunt of P.W.1, came from the village towards the stream, and there she met P.W.1 as well as the accused. On hearing about the incident from P.W.1, when P.W.2 questioned the accused they have threatened her, and scolded in filthy language in the name of her caste. 5. P.Ws.1 and 2 returned to the house and revealed the occurrence to P.W.4, the maternal uncle of P.W.1. On hearing about the incident from P.W.1, when P.W.2 questioned the accused they have threatened her, and scolded in filthy language in the name of her caste. 5. P.Ws.1 and 2 returned to the house and revealed the occurrence to P.W.4, the maternal uncle of P.W.1. P.Ws.1, 4 and others proceeded to the police station and submitted a complaint, marked as Ex.P1, in the midnight of 25/26-02-2002. FIR, marked as Ex.P8, was registered and P.W.1 was initially sent to the Government Area Hospital at Narayanapet, and thereafter to the Government General Hospital, Mahabubnagar. Medical test was conducted and subsequently, the accused were nabbed. After conducting due investigation, charge was framed. All the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court held that the charge levelled against the accused was proved and sentenced them with life imprisonment and also with fine. 6. Sri C.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the case against the accused is foisted by P.W.4, to wreak political vengeance and that there is no reliable evidence to sustain the conviction. He submits that there are several contradictions not only between Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.1; but also in her oral evidence itself, which clearly discloses that the witness is not speaking truth; and that she was forced to speak falsehood, to implicate the accused. He contends that several admissions as to falsehood were elicited from P.W.1, but the trial Court did not take the same into account. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the circumstances under which P.W.2 is said to have met P.W.1, the uncertainty about the time of the occurrence, non- examination of the mother of P.W.1, the admissions as to falsehood made by P.W.1 and the delay in submission of the complaint are important factors which need to be taken into account. He further submits that even if there remains any doubt as to the innocence of the accused, the medical evidence in the case clinchingly proved the same, particularly, as regards the group of the blood, the traces of which, were found on the petticoat of P.W.1. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the accused have committed a heinous crime of gang rape on P.W.1, who was a minor girl, hailing from scheduled caste. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the accused have committed a heinous crime of gang rape on P.W.1, who was a minor girl, hailing from scheduled caste. He submits that the inconsequential discrepancies in the evidence are attributable to the ignorance or the social backwardness of the witnesses and that there is clear evidence to sustain the conviction against the accused. He further points out that the delay in submission of the complaint was on account of the distance as well as the social stigma, which the victim and her family members were afraid of. 9. The proceedings against the accused commenced with the submission of a complaint by P.W.1 in the early hours of 26-02-2002. This was followed by necessary steps, such as sending the victim for medical examination, arresting the accused and subjecting them to medical test etc. On its part, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11. Out of them P.W.1 is the victim. P.Ws. 2 and 4 are the maternal aunt and uncle respectively of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the girl who is said to have accompanied P.W.1 to the stream. P.W.5 is an auto rickshaw driver. P.Ws.6 and 7 were examined to speak to certain circumstances, but both of them turned hostile. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who examined P.W.1 at 11.15 a.m one day, subsequent to the occurrence. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who examined the accused, with reference to their potency. P.W.10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case and took preliminary steps. P.W.11 is the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, who conducted the investigation. 10. In a case of this nature, the evidence of the victim assumes great importance. Over a period, the law on the subject has evolved to such a level that if the evidence of the victim of an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is found to be true and reliable, the Court does not have to look to any corroborative evidence. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to how far the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy. Here again, we are conscious of the fact that necessary margin needs to be given to P.W.1 having regard to the fact that she hails from a scheduled caste community and has to bear the brunt arising out of the crime purported against her. After keeping these parameters in view, we propose to examine the evidence of P.W.1. Here again, we are conscious of the fact that necessary margin needs to be given to P.W.1 having regard to the fact that she hails from a scheduled caste community and has to bear the brunt arising out of the crime purported against her. After keeping these parameters in view, we propose to examine the evidence of P.W.1. 11. The complaint submitted by P.W.1 is somewhat brief, in content, and we propose to extract the same in its entirety. "I, Mahalaxmi, D/o Venkataswamy is studying 7th Class. Due to some reasons one month back I stopped going to school. I was going to lake to wash clothes along with one girl on 25-02-2002 afternoon; three persons were coming from back side from the village. I have attended calls of nature near vagu (lake) and kept the bundle of clothes in the lake. The said three persons came and asked me to satisfy their lust for sex. I refused for it. Then Nagender (A1) directed saying lift the girl. Ramu (A2) lifted me and threatened with dire consequences if I shout. Nagender, S/o Thippanna (Musti) firstly raped me. Thereafter, Ramu S/o Gadam Narsimulu and thereafter Ramulu (A3), S/o Dondra Kistanna, these three persons rape me forcibly. I sustained injuries, invisible injuries and pains all over the body. While I was proceeding to village in order to go home, my junior maternal aunt, Govindamma (P.W.2), W/o Anjaneyulu came across me. I informed the incident to her. She has seen Nagender, Ramu going home. We came home. There were none in the house. After arrival of my mother and paternal uncle we came to Marikakl. Hence, I request you to take legal action against these offenders." 12. It may be noted that Ex.P1 is silent about the exact time at which the incident had taken place. In her deposition in the Court, P.W.1 stated that she knows all the accused and that she was studying 7th class at Mahabubnagar when the incident took place. She stated that her father died when she was in womb and that herself and her mother were residing in the house of her grandmother. This witness and P.W.3 are said to have gone to a stream known as 'Kolisagar' for washing the clothes, as directed by her grandmother. She stated that her father died when she was in womb and that herself and her mother were residing in the house of her grandmother. This witness and P.W.3 are said to have gone to a stream known as 'Kolisagar' for washing the clothes, as directed by her grandmother. While in Ex.P1 it was stated that all the accused followed them from the village to the stream, in the chief examination, it was stated by P.W.1 that A-1 and A-2 came to the stream and asked her to satisfy their demand. While in Ex.P1 it was stated that A-1 instigated A-2 to lift P.W.1 and that A-2 lifted her, the roles attributed to the said accused by the witness, in the chief examination, are just the opposite. In Ex.P1 there is no mention as to P.W.1 becoming unconscious, but in her deposition, she stated that she became unconscious after all the three accused have raped her. Certain other improvements are also noticed in the chief-examination of P.W.1; such as the accused tearing her petticoat, putting pieces of the clothe in her mouth, to prevent her from shouting etc. The complaint is silent as to the role played by P.W.3 when the occurrence was going on. In her deposition, the witness stated that P.W.3 left the site due to fear. It is important to note that P.W.3 stated that herself and P.W.1 went to the stream for washing clothes and after washing the clothes she alone returned to her house. She further stated that P.W.1 continued to wash the clothes, by the time she left the place and that she does not know anything about the alleged incident. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.3, to the contrary, except suggesting that her evidence is at variance with her statement, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 13. The contradictions and variations that were noticed between Ex.P1 and the evidence in chief-examination of P.W.1 were confronted to P.W.1 in the cross- examination. The cross-examination started with the question as to whether P.W.1 has taken bath before proceeding to the police station. The answer reads as under- "I had my bath before starting at the house to the police station. (Again witness says) I have not taken bath. It is not true to say that I have changed the dress." She admitted that Ex.P1 was not scribed by her. The answer reads as under- "I had my bath before starting at the house to the police station. (Again witness says) I have not taken bath. It is not true to say that I have changed the dress." She admitted that Ex.P1 was not scribed by her. She also admitted that she did not receive any injury on cheeks and the relevant portion of her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, marked as Ex.D1, was brought to her notice. It was also elicited from her that P.W.4, her maternal uncle, went to the house of the Sarpanch of the village at 3.30 p.m on the date of occurrence and the Sarpanch, in turn, enquired about the incident. The Sarpanch was not examined as a witness. She stated that she regained consciousness 2 or 3 hours subsequent to the incident and thereafter P.W.2 came to her. As to the instigation by one of the accused about lifting her, the witness stated in the cross-examination as under- "It is mentioned in the report that A-1 instigated for lifting me and that Ramu (A-2) lifted on his shoulder. I falsely stated in the Court that A-1 lifted me and that A-2 instigated A-1. All the three accused came to the spot. I falsely stated before the Court that A-1 and A-2 came to the spot. I stated before the police that A-1 and A-2 obstructed me and they forcibly took me to trees." It is noteworthy that in the chief-examination, the witness stated that A-3 was guarding when A-1 and A-2 were committing rape. She also stated that for nearly three hours, the accused committed rape on her and that the incident has taken place in the stream itself. This version does not accord with the other evidence where she stated that the incident took place in the thorny bushes and in the process she sustained injuries. 14. One important admission on the part of P.W.1 is about the status of her father. It has already been pointed out that in the chief-examination she stated that her father died when she was in the womb. However in the cross-examination, she stated, "my father's name is Venkataswamy and he is alive. He is residing at Pedda Rajamooru. I have not met my father. It has already been pointed out that in the chief-examination she stated that her father died when she was in the womb. However in the cross-examination, she stated, "my father's name is Venkataswamy and he is alive. He is residing at Pedda Rajamooru. I have not met my father. I falsely stated in the Court that my father died." She admitted that P.W.4, her uncle is a leader of a political organization and that the accused belong to different political parties. The nature of the support given by P.W.4 on the one hand and the accused on the other in the contemporary elections was also elicited from the witness. 15. Before forming an opinion as to the truthfulness of the evidence of P.W.1, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, the maternal aunt and uncle respectively of P.W.1. 16. There is some controversy as to the place at which P.W.2 had met P.W.1. In Ex.P1 it was stated that while P.W.1 was returning home, P.W.2 came across and that the latter had seen A-1 and A-2 going home. The complaint is silent as to whether any discussion or altercation has taken place between P.W.2 on the one hand and A-1 and A2 on the other. P.W.1, in her deposition, stated that by the time P.W.2 came across to her, when she was returning, all the accused were there. She proceeded to state that when P.W.2 questioned the accused, all of them abused her in vulgar language on caste basis. The sentence reads as under- "my aunt questioned the accused. All the accused abused my aunt in vulgar language on caste basis." P.W.2, on the other hand, stated that she found all the accused in the stream and she questioned them. The evidence is silent as to whether she has proceeded to the stream even after meeting the accused on the way. It is noteworthy that in Ex.P1, it is stated that P.W.2 has seen A-1 and A2 alone while they were going home. From both the witnesses, it was elicited that the stream is visited by number of villagers. P.W.2 stated that neither herself nor P.W.1 have informed the incident to any villager, till 7.30 p.m. According to her, the first person to be informed of the incident was mother of P.W.1. From both the witnesses, it was elicited that the stream is visited by number of villagers. P.W.2 stated that neither herself nor P.W.1 have informed the incident to any villager, till 7.30 p.m. According to her, the first person to be informed of the incident was mother of P.W.1. As to the time at which she has seen P.W.1, P.W.2 stated, "I have seen P.W.1 at about 1.30 p.m near vagu. Except the accused no other villager was present at vagu. P.W.1 was in conscious. I stated before the police that P.W.1 has not returned to the house till 2.30 p.m and that I was proceeding towards vagu and that on the way P.W.1 met me. The statement is true. Previously, what I stated in the cross-examination is not correct". 17. On her part, P.W.1 stated in the chief examination that the rape on her continued for three hours from 11.30 a.m onwards at the stream. From this it becomes somewhat improbable that P.W.2 has seen P.W.1 in the manner, stated by her. 18. P.W.4 stated that he returned to the house at around 8.00 p.m from agriculture works and that the incident was informed to him by his elder sister Meenamma, the mother of P.W.1. Thereafter, he is said to have come to the house where Meenamma and P.W.1 were staying, and took both of them to the Sarpanch. He stated that, he took P.W.1 and others to police station on the advise of the Sarpanch. It may be recalled that P.W.1 stated that P.W.4 informed the incident to the Sarpanch at 3.30 p.m. He admitted that he drafted Ex.P1. Neither Meenamma nor the Sarpanch of the village were examined. In the cross-examination, he admitted that at about 8.00 p.m himself, P.Ws.1, 2 and Meenamma went to the house of one Mr. Chennaiah. In her chief-examination, P.W.1 stated that her mother Meenamma came back from work at 9.00 p.m on that day. If that is so, the question of Meenamma informing P.W.4 about the incident at 8.00 p.m does not arise. Such variation is not insignificant. 19. P.W.4 admitted that there is a criminal case against him and seven others alleging that they committed theft. He pleaded ignorance that A1 in this case is one of the witnesses in that case. If that is so, the question of Meenamma informing P.W.4 about the incident at 8.00 p.m does not arise. Such variation is not insignificant. 19. P.W.4 admitted that there is a criminal case against him and seven others alleging that they committed theft. He pleaded ignorance that A1 in this case is one of the witnesses in that case. Suggestions were made to the effect that Meenamma is a jogini and the whereabouts of her husband are not known. 20. The deposition of P.W.11, the investigating officer, is also relevant. He stated that as per Ex.P10, the seizure report, the victim went to the stream at about 1.30 p.m and that in Ex.P10 it was not mentioned that P.W.3 accompanied the victim. 21. If one examines the various aspects mentioned above, it emerges that the evidence of P.W.1 is neither consistent nor truthful. Even on material aspects, such as the status of her father, the persons who accompanied her, or the one, whom the information about the alleged incident was furnished, there are material contradictions. Nothing common exists in the oral or documentary evidence to enable this Court to ascertain the exact time at which the incident is said to have taken place. A ghastly incident of this nature, if in fact has taken place, cannot be kept as a closely guarded secret, till the night, awaiting the arrival of the mother of P.W.1 and sister of P.W.2. When that lady was the first person to be informed of the incident, it was but essential, that she is examined as a witness. The averment that the incident was first informed to Meenamma, mother of P.W.1, is belied with the statement of P.W.1 herself that the matter was brought to the notice of the Sarpanch of the village at 3.30 p.m on the same day. The statement reads as under- "My Uncle Surya Babu (P.W.4) went to the house of Sarpanch at 3.30 p.m and informed the incident on the same day." It falsifies the statement of P.W.4 that he came to know about the incident for the first time, from Meenamma at about 8.00 p.m, after he returned from the work. 22. We are conscious of the fact that even if there are variations, be them somewhat material, in the oral evidence, the Court should not hesitate to bring the culprits to book if there exists clinching medical evidence. 22. We are conscious of the fact that even if there are variations, be them somewhat material, in the oral evidence, the Court should not hesitate to bring the culprits to book if there exists clinching medical evidence. Therefore, it becomes essential to verify the medical evidence. 23. P.W.1 was initially sent to the Area Hospital, Narayanapet and thereafter, to the Government General Hospital at District Head Quarters, Mahabubnagar. P.W.8, the doctor, who examined P.W.1, noticed the following injuries: 1. 4 abrasions on inner aspect of rt.forearm measuring above 21/2 " x 1/4" redish crust 2. 3 abrasions on inner aspect of left forearm measuring about 2" x 1/4" reddish crust 3. 5 to 6 abrasions on inner aspect of rt thigh measuring about 2 1/2" x 1/4" reddish crust. 4. 3 abrasions on inner upper aspect of rt calf 1"x1/4" reddish crust. She rendered her opinion as under- "Age of injuries is within 12 to 24 hours. On local examination I found the hymeneal tear at 5 o' clock position. I preserved vaginal smears taken from posterior vaginal fornix of victim girl Mahalaxmi on 6 glass slides and sent for semen analysis. As per the semen analysis report, semen and spermatozoa are not detected on the glass slides preserved for semen analysis. Blood stains on the white colour polyster langa rea of 'o' group as per the report of Assistant Director, Red Hills, Hyderabad. The blood group of the victim girl is 'B' positive. My final opinion is that victim girl might have been sexually assaulted. I issued a certificate to the above effect. Wound cum final opinion certificate is marked as Ex.P3. The F.S.L. report is marked as Ex.P4." 24. From this it becomes difficult to hold that P.W.1 was subjected to forcible rape, by the accused. 25. In her evidence P.W.1 stated that she suffered blood injuries and the stains thereof were present on the clothes worn by her. The clothes recovered from P.W.1 were subjected to chemical examination and the report thereof is marked as Ex.P4. P.W.8 took this into account and had categorically stated that while the group of the blood traces which were found on the M.O were of 'O' group, the blood group of the victim, P.W.1, is 'B' positive. Not even an attempt was made by the prosecution to explain such a glaring variation. P.W.8 took this into account and had categorically stated that while the group of the blood traces which were found on the M.O were of 'O' group, the blood group of the victim, P.W.1, is 'B' positive. Not even an attempt was made by the prosecution to explain such a glaring variation. Obviously, the blood, stains of which were noticed on the petticoat, is not that of P.W.1. 26. The delay in submission of the complaint is another important circumstance. It has already been mentioned out that there is no certainty about the point of time, at which the alleged crime has taken place. Even assuming that it has taken place sometime during midday, the information thereof, is expected to reach the police at the most, within one hour. P.W.1 categorically stated that the matter was informed to the Sarpanch at 3.30 p.m. Even if that is taken as the starting point, for communication to the police or submission of a complaint, it becomes evident that there is inordinate delay, since the complaint was submitted to the police at 0.30 hours on the next day. It is not as if the distance between the village of P.W.1 and the police station is prohibitive. The fact that P.W.4 on the one hand and the accused on the other belong to different political affiliations and there are pending cases between them, assumes significance. Such a long delay of almost half a day, is certainly capable of being utilized in planning a course of action, to settle scores. The unfortunate part of the whole episode is that P.W.1 was utilized as a tool. 27. While the Court must not leave the culprits of such a heinous crime even if half of what is revealed by the victim is true, it must also be cautious to ensure that the lives of innocent persons are not shattered on the basis of unreliable evidence. 28. The meticulous discussion undertaken by us in the previous paragraphs leaves no doubt in us that the case against the accused was a foisted one and the architect behind it is none other than P.W.4. Either to settle his political scores with the accused or to gain sympathy or popularity in the area, he has used P.W.1, his niece, as a tool. Either to settle his political scores with the accused or to gain sympathy or popularity in the area, he has used P.W.1, his niece, as a tool. The machinery of law, and in particular, the provisions of the Act, which are meant to protect the weaker sections of society, were misused. 29. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against A-1 and A-3. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them.