JUDGMENT : This criminal appeal is filed by the ap­pellant being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 21/10/2005 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Pre­vention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Chhattarpur in Special Case No.21/2004 whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 506-B & 376 (1) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "Spe­cial Act, 1989"), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, an additional RI for six months. 2. It is admitted that the prosecutrix is a member of scheduled caste, whereas the appellant is neither a member of scheduled caste nor scheduled tribe. 3. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 29/1/2004 the prosecutrix (PW-4) was weeding in the field. At about 5:00 p.m. in the evening the appellant came and told her that he would do intercourse with her. He also abused her by denoting her caste, then he dragged the prosecutrix towards his field and committed rape. On her shouting, her elder brother-in-law, who was irrigating the field came to the spot and after looking at him the appellant-accused ran away. Before leaving the spot, the appellant-accused threatened that he would kill her if she in­forms anyone regarding the incident. Harish Chandra, husband of the prosecutrix also came to the spot. The prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her husband. On 30/1/2004, the prosecutrix submitted a writ­ten report Ex.P-4 to SHO, Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur and a crime was regis­tered. The prosecutrix was sent for the medical examination. Dr. Sangeeta Choubey (PW-1) found some scratches on cheek of the prosecutrix and two scratches on her left arm. The said doctor also found that the prosecutrix was carrying for eight months. No internal injury was found. Dr. Sangeeta Choubey prepared two slides of her vaginal swab. She also recovered one yellow petticoat of the prosecutrix and handed over those things to the concerned Constable after sealing them. The appel­lant-accused was also arrested and directed for medical examination. His semen slides were prepared. His underwear was also taken by the doctor and handed over to the concerned Constable after sealing it. She also recovered one yellow petticoat of the prosecutrix and handed over those things to the concerned Constable after sealing them. The appel­lant-accused was also arrested and directed for medical examination. His semen slides were prepared. His underwear was also taken by the doctor and handed over to the concerned Constable after sealing it. After due investigation, the police has filed a charge sheet against the appellant-accused for commission of offence punishable un­der Sections 376, 294, 506-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(1 )(x) of the Special Act, 1989. 4. The appellant-accused abjured his guilt and took the defence that he was falsely implicated in the case. He stated the rea­son of false implication that the husband of the prosecutrix chopped a tree from the field of the appellant-accused due to which a quarrel took place between them. Also there are two different parties in the vil­lage, and therefore due to rivalry between those parties, the appellant-accused was falsely implicated. In support, he examined one Ajuddi Patel (DW-1) as a defence wit­ness. 5. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Special Judge, Chhattarpur acquitted the appellant-ac­cused for commission of offence punish­able under Section 294 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Special Act, 1989, but has convicted him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 506-B, 376 (1) of IPC read with Section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act, 1989 and inflicted the afore­said sentence. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-ac­cused has submitted that due to enmity al­leged by the appellant, he was falsely im­plicated by the complainant party. He has further submitted that there is a grave con­tradiction between the evidence of the pros­ecutrix and her elder brother-in-law Santosh (PW-5). At the time of incident, the prosecutrix was carrying for eight months, and therefore it was not possible for any one to commit intercourse with such a woman, with or without her consent. The FIR was lodged in delayed manner and it was a typed FIR, which was prepared with the help of some law knowing person, therefore, it was a cooked case for getting compensation from the Government. 8. On considering the evidence adduced by the parties, it is clear that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was carrying for eight months. 8. On considering the evidence adduced by the parties, it is clear that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was carrying for eight months. The prosecutrix (PW-4), Santosh (PW-5) and Harish Chandra (PW-6) were examined as eye-witnesses, who have stated before the Trial Court that when the prosecutrix was weeding in a field, then the appellant-accused came and told the prosecutrix that he wanted to do intercourse with her. Thereafter he committed rape with the prosecutrix. On shouting of the pros­ecutrix, Santosh reached at the spot and after seeing him, the appellant-accused ran away. Santosh saw him when he was more than 10-15 feet away from the spot, then Harish Chandra, husband of the prosecu­trix came to the spot and he found that the appellant-accused was running. However, in the cros-examination, material contra­diction arose. The prosecutrix (PW-4) has stated that she started shouting from the very beginning. The appellant-accused committed rape within 15 minutes, whereas her brother-in- law came within three min­utes of her shouting. Santosh (PW-5) states that when he came to the spot, the appel­lant-accused started running and he was 15 feet away from the spot when he saw him for the first time. If Santosh, brother- in-law of the prosecutrix came within 2-3 minutes, then it would not be possible for the appellant-accused to complete inter­course and get ejaculated. Either the pros­ecutrix did not shout or Santosh did not come within 2-3 minutes of the incident. The same situation is with Harish Chandra (PW-6). He deposed that when he arrived at the spot, the appellant-accused was al­ready going away from him. The conduct of Harish Chandra and Santosh seems to be suspicious. If they have seen someone, who committed rape with the prosecutrix, then certainly they must have caught the culprit immediately. The distance of 10 feet is not much to catch any culprit, therefore it appears that both of them did not reach the spot and did not see the accused, but they are cooking the story to claim themselves to be eye-witnesses. 9. The evidence of the prosecutrix is con­tradictory and different from her previous version given in the FIR. In the FIR Ex.P-8, she has mentioned that the appellant-accused committed rape with her in the field, in which she was working, whereas in her evidence in the Trial Court she has stated that the appellant-accused took her to his field. 9. The evidence of the prosecutrix is con­tradictory and different from her previous version given in the FIR. In the FIR Ex.P-8, she has mentioned that the appellant-accused committed rape with her in the field, in which she was working, whereas in her evidence in the Trial Court she has stated that the appellant-accused took her to his field. In the spot map Ex.P-5, the place of incident is shown to be the field of the appellant-accused, which is contradic­tory with the FIR Ex.P-8. It appears that looking to the spot map, the prosecutrix has changed her version. If she was taken by the appellant-accused, from that field in which she was working, then certainly she must have been dragged by the appellant-accused and there must be some injuries on her person due to that dragging, but no such injury was found on her person. Sec­ondly, the prosecutrix claimed that she was working in some field and was weeding. Santosh (PW-5) and Harish Chandra (PW-6) have stated that crop of gram (chana) was standing in the field, whereas in Ex.P-5, the Investigating Officer did not find any crop at the spot. The prosecutrix as well as Santosh and Harish Chandra were asked that in whose field the prosecutrix was working, but any of them could not tell the name of the field owner, therefore this fact seems to be hypothetical that the prosecutrix was working in a field of someone near the field of the appellant-accused, therefore, a doubt is created that the prosecutrix was cutting thorny bush of the ber from the field of the accused and defence version seems to be correct. If corroboration from the FIR may be seen, then the prosecutrix, Santosh and Harish Chandra have stated that the incident took place at 5:00 p.m. in the evening and because of the night they had gone to the Police Station Rajnagar on the next day, then Head Constable Moharrir (Munshi) of that Police Station refused to write any report, therefore they went to the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur and they lodged a written report there. 10. The prosecutrix in para 8 has admit­ted in her case diary statement Ex.D-1 that they directly visited the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur, but now the prosecutrix states that such portion of her case diary state­ment Ex.D-1 is not correct. 10. The prosecutrix in para 8 has admit­ted in her case diary statement Ex.D-1 that they directly visited the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur, but now the prosecutrix states that such portion of her case diary state­ment Ex.D-1 is not correct. Case diary state­ment Ex.D-1 regarding the aforesaid fact is contradictory to the fact mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-8. Harish Chandra (PW-6) had admitted in para 10 of his statement that they did not approach the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur directly. It was not the case that they approached the Police Sta­tion AJK, Chhattarpur and they were di­rected to get a written report from the Dis­trict Court, Chhattarpur, therefore it seems that they reached the District Court Chhattarpur first without approaching the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur. This witness could not inform the place where petition writer was sitting at the time of preparation of that report. He could not name that petition writer. The similar fac­tual position is narrated by Santosh (PW-5). By the conduct of these three witnesses, it is clear that they did not approach the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur first, but they approached some law knowing per­son to get the FIR prepared by typing and after affixing the thump impression, the prosecutrix handed over the report to the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur. 11. The prosecutrix has deposed in para 9 that they reached Chhattarpur at about 8:00 in the night and they directly visited the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur, whereas her husband Harish Chandra has admitted in para 10 that they got a bus from their Village to Chhattarpur at about 8:00 a.m. and they reached within 1½ hours to Chhattarpur, therefore if they reached at Chhattarpur at 9:30 a.m. and the FIR was lodged at Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur at about 9:10 p.m. in the night, then cer­tainly the FIR is not only delayed, but it is well prepared by some law knowing per­son, who has mentioned that they ap­proached the Rajnagar Police Station and since the FIR was not written there, they approached the Police Station AJK, Chhattarpur, whereas the prosecutrix has admitted in her case diary statement that they did not approach the Police Station, Rajnagar. 12. The conduct of the prosecutrix and her family members appears that after the incident, they did not care to lodge an FIR in the evening. 12. The conduct of the prosecutrix and her family members appears that after the incident, they did not care to lodge an FIR in the evening. They did not go to the nearest Police Station, Rajnagar, but they di­rectly visited the District Court, Chhattarpur, where they got the FIR writ­ten and prepared by typing and lodged that FIR after delay of one day and six hours. It is settled view that when if FIR prepared with the help of law knowing person, then prosecution story comes in the clouds of doubt, therefore in the present case the FIR does not corroborate the testimony of prosecutrix. On the contrary, the delay in lodg­ing the FIR and the FIR which is prepared by some law knowing person, creates a doubt in the prosecution story. 13. Dr. Sangeeta Choubey (PW-1) had ex­amined the prosecutrix and submitted the medical report Ex.P-1. She found no inter­nal injury to the prosecutrix, whereas she found some scratches on her cheeks and two scratches on her left arm. In cross ex­amination she was suggested that such scratches could be caused to that person, who was working in the thorny bush. It is alleged by the defence that the prosecutrix was cutting the branches of thorny bush of ber from the field of the appellant-accused. However, it is a defence story, which can­not be accepted without any confirmation, but injuries found on the body of the pros­ecutrix must be explained by the prosecu­tion that such injuries could be caused in the incident. 14. The prosecutrix has deposed before the Trial Court that she could not resist, be­cause the accused held his hands and legs forcefully. She has accepted that she sus­tained no injuries on her back or buttock. She has further deposed that due to the incident, green crop of that place was pressed to the earth, therefore there was nothing by which such scratches and abra­sions could be caused to the prosecutrix. On the contrary, when she was carrying for eight months, due to the alleged rape some injuries could be caused to her private part. Similarly, due to pressure on her abdomen, some pain etc. must have started to her, if such an act has been committed by the ap­pellant-accused. On the contrary, when she was carrying for eight months, due to the alleged rape some injuries could be caused to her private part. Similarly, due to pressure on her abdomen, some pain etc. must have started to her, if such an act has been committed by the ap­pellant-accused. She must have sustained some injuries on her back and buttock in such an event, if she was carrying for eight months, but no such injury was found on her person, which could occur due to the alleged rape. Under these circumstances, it appears that the story of the prosecution is nowhere supported by the medical evi­dence. The injuries are not co-related to the incident, and therefore, it is possible that the injuries found on the body of the pros­ecutrix could be caused due to some other reasons. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has placed his reliance on the judg­ment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Radhu vs. State of M.P., [2007 (4) Crimes 1 (SC)J, in which it is laid that the evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrep­ancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her state­ment will normally be accepted. The Hon'ble Apex Court again observed in the same case that medical evidence being in­sufficient to establish rape and evidence of the prosecutrix being not trustworthy, and therefore, acquitted the accused. 16. Similarly, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused has also placed his reli­ance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of "Rajoo vs. State of M.P., ( AIR 2009 SC 858 ), in which it is laid as under:- "The evidence of prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the great­est distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the great­est distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are in­volved". 17. In the light of the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if the testimony of the present prosecutrix is assessed, then it would be clear that her evidence is not trustworthy. She was carrying for eight months at the time of incident and it was not possible for the appellant-accused to commit rape with the prosecutrix in such a situation. If the appellant-accused had com­mitted rape with the prosecutrix, then there must be some co-related injuries on her person whereas the injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix are not clearly related to the circumstances of alleged of­fence. Presence shown of her brother-in-law and her husband seems to be after thought. If they approached within 2-3 min­utes of her shouting, then it was not pos­sible for the appellant-accused to commit rape with the prosecutrix and if they did not come within 2-3 minutes, it means that the prosecutrix did not shout at the time of incident. The conduct of the prosecutrix and her relatives is highly doubtful, as the FIR was lodged after delay of 18 hours and the same was well prepared by some law know­ing person at the District Court, Chhattarpur after covering all possibilities of shortcom­ings. There was a dispute between the com­plainant party and the appellant-accused, and therefore it was possible for the rela­tives of the prosecutrix to create a false case against the appellant-accused. Also the complainant party must have been inter­ested in getting the compensation from the State Government for the alleged offence. 18. The most important factor is that from the very beginning the entire story seems to be cooked. The prosecutrix was alleged to be working in a field of someone, whereas she was found in the field of the appellant-accused at the time of alleged offence, whereas there was no allegation that the appellant-accused dragged her to his field, also no injury of dragging was found on her person. The prosecutrix was alleged to be working in a field of someone, whereas she was found in the field of the appellant-accused at the time of alleged offence, whereas there was no allegation that the appellant-accused dragged her to his field, also no injury of dragging was found on her person. No explanation was given by her husband and brother-in law as to how the appellant-accused took the prosecutrix to his field or the prosecutrix was found in the field of the appellant-ac­cused. 19. In view of the above facts and cir­cumstances of the case, it is clear that the entire prosecution case comes in the clouds of doubt and it appears that a false case was prepared against the appellant-accused. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has further submitted that it is nobody's case that the rape was committed with an intention to do it, because the prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Caste, then the learned Special Judge erred in con­victing the appellant- accused for the of­fence punishable under Section 3 (2)(v) of the Special Act, 1989. He has further sub­mitted that once the learned Special Judge has acquitted the appellant- accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Special Act, 1989, then no intention of the appellant-accused could be presumed to do anything merely on the basis of the caste. 21. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-accused seems to be accepted. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the appellant-accused for the of­fence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act, 1989, that means that he found that no offence was committed on the basis of the caste, therefore the learned Special Judge erred in holding the appel­lant-accused guilty for the offence punish­able under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act, 1989. 22. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the appellant-accused can­not be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act, 1989. The evidence of Santosh and Harish Chandra seems to be concocted and prepared, whereas the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is not worthy to be be­lieved. Therefore, the testimony of the pros­ecutrix is doubtful, hence the appellant-ac­cused cannot be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (1) or 506-B of IPC or any inferior offence of such nature. In such circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 23. Therefore, the testimony of the pros­ecutrix is doubtful, hence the appellant-ac­cused cannot be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (1) or 506-B of IPC or any inferior offence of such nature. In such circumstances, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 23. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the Court below under Sections 506-B & 376 (1) of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Special Act, 1989 are hereby set aside. He is acquitted from all the charges appended on him. He would be entitled to get the fine amount back from the Trial Court, if he has deposited any. 24. At present the appellant is in custody, therefore he be released forthwith by issu­ing a release warrant without any delay.