JUDGMENT Per : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Since the above-captioned appeals have been preferred by the same accused convict against the same judgment and order of conviction, these are being decided by this common judgment. 2. A First Information Report was lodged by Soban Lal on 26.2.2012 at 11.30 hours alleging an incident of 10.2.2012. It was alleged by the complainant that on 10.2.2012, at 6.30 O’clock in the evening, when her daughter Km. Reshma was going to the house of her uncle for charging the cellphone, accused appellant forcibly took her minor daughter in a ruined house, belonging to Ramesh Lal, Gopal Lal, etc., situated at some distance from his house, and forcibly committed rape on her at that place. The complainant further averred in the report that he, being a labourer, had gone outside for the work. When he returned in the village, his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi informed him about the incident. 3. After the investigation, police submitted chargesheet stating that on the basis of evidence, collected during the course of investigation, offences under Section 376 IPC and one under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) are well proved against the accused appellant. On denial of charges by the accused, trial commenced and, vide the impugned judgment and order, the same ended into conviction of the accused appellant under the aforesaid offences. He was accordingly sentenced to. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission of learned Counsel for the parties, and also perused the evidence available on record. 5. Prosecution got examined as many as seven witnesses. PW1 is Km. Reshma, the prosecutrix, PW2 is Sohan Lal alias Soban Lal, the complainant and father of the girl, PW3 is Smt. Shakuntala Devi, mother of the prosecutrix, PW4 is Dr. Satwant Kumar, who medically examined Km. Reshma, PW5 is Shyam Lal, scribe of the report, PW6 is Gundar Lal, real brother of the complainant, and PW7 is Ramesh Chandra Joshi, Investigation Officer of the case. 6. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, we find that there are many flaws in the prosecution story. It is a case wherein the victim Km. Reshma herself has turned hostile. She did not support the prosecution version in her testimony. She has even denied her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. 6. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, we find that there are many flaws in the prosecution story. It is a case wherein the victim Km. Reshma herself has turned hostile. She did not support the prosecution version in her testimony. She has even denied her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. When cross-examined by the defence Counsel, she has admitted that her father (complainant) had tutored her before recording her statement (164CrPC) before the Magistrate. She further admitted that before coming to the trial court for her deposition, her father again tutored her and instructed her to depose against the accused appellant in the Court in the manner as told to her by his father. Thus, the statement of the victim clearly shakes the entire prosecution story. It is pertinent to mention here that before recording the statement of the victim Km. Reshma (PW1), stated to be 14 years of age at the time of alleged incident, trial court asked certain basic questions so as to test the reasoning power of the victim in understanding the nature of the questions, whereupon it was found that she was capable of understanding the nature of questions and giving rational answers. Accordingly, she was found competent to testify. 7. Furthermore, Km. Reshma has admitted in her cross-examination that the place where the incident is alleged to have taken place is busy one. People keep commuting through that place, and on the alleged date and time also, people were commuting as usual. However, prosecution has not produced any eyewitness or any other independent witness. PW1 and PW3 are the parents of the girl, who are not the eyewitness of the alleged incident. PW6 is her uncle, who also turned hostile. PW5 Shyam Lal has stated that on 26.2.2012, the complainant came at his house and told him about the incident. Thereafter he wrote the report on the asking of complainant, and he wrote exactly the same, which the complainant had asked him to write. As such, there is no eyewitness or independent witness of the alleged incident. 8. Even the statement of the complainant (father of the girl) is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. In the complaint, he has averred that the incident took place on 10.2.2012, but since he had gone outside for doing the labour work, he lodged the report on 26.2.2012 when he returned home. 8. Even the statement of the complainant (father of the girl) is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. In the complaint, he has averred that the incident took place on 10.2.2012, but since he had gone outside for doing the labour work, he lodged the report on 26.2.2012 when he returned home. This averment is not supported by his statement made before the trial court. Firstly, in his examination-in-chief, the complainant states that he returned home on 22nd. It also finds support from the deposition of his daughter Km. Reshma, who, too, has stated that her father returned home on 22nd. However, the report could be lodged on 26th i.e. after 15 days of alleged incident and after 4 days of returning home of the complainant. Nowhere any attempt has been made to explain this delay in lodging the FIR, and this, too, is fatal to the prosecution case. 9. Another serious flaw in the prosecution story is evident from the fact that the complainant, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that he got written the report by one Madan Singh Negi at New Tehri Courts, and he had put his thumb impression on that report. However, report (Ex. Ka-3), which is on record, bears his signature (no thumb impression), and it is mentioned therein that the writer of the report is Shyam Lal Shah (PW5), and nowhere the name of Madan Singh Negi is mentioned in the report. Shyam Lal Shah has also stated in his testimony that he had written the report Ex. Ka-3. All the same and very surprisingly, the complainant has stated that it is the same report Ex. Ka-3, which was got written and subsequently lodged by him. However, in his cross-examination, he has denied that he had lodged any report on 26th. 10. Further, in his cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that he used to return to his house everyday, which is yet another contradiction in his statement and it further daunts the prosecution story. Complainant has stated in his cross-examination that he had mentioned the fact, in the report, that he returned on 22nd. However, the same is nowhere written in the FIR Ex. Ka-3. This witness has also stated that police had recorded his statement on the 22nd February itself and medical examination of his daughter was done on 23rd. Complainant has stated in his cross-examination that he had mentioned the fact, in the report, that he returned on 22nd. However, the same is nowhere written in the FIR Ex. Ka-3. This witness has also stated that police had recorded his statement on the 22nd February itself and medical examination of his daughter was done on 23rd. Furthermore, he has also admitted that despite being told by Chandra Lal and Roshan Lal that they had witnessed the alleged incident, he did not mention their names in the report. 11. All the above contradictions in the prosecution evidence create serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story. If the complainant used to return home daily, why did not he lodge the report immediately after the incident. Even if assuming his own very version to be true that he returned on 22nd, even then why the report was lodged four days thereafter. Most significantly, the prosecutrix herself has not supported the prosecution version. PW6 Gunder Lal, uncle of the prosecutrix, has also turned hostile. 12. The medical examination report Ex. Ka-4 is not of much significance in this case, as the medical examination of the girl was done after 15 days of the alleged incident i.e. on 26.2.2012 (though the complainant has stated that the same was done on 23rd). However, a perusal of the same reveals that it also does not support the prosecution version. As many as seven injuries, all were simple in nature, were found on the body of the girl. In the opinion of PW5 Dr. Satwant Kaur (PW4), who medically examined the girl, all the injuries were 1 to 5 days old. It further shakes the prosecution story because if the alleged incident occurred on 10.2.2012, then how the injuries could be caused around 21st to 25th February 2012, as the medical examination was done on 26.2.2012 and all the injuries were found to be 1 to 5 days old. Further, the girl was referred to the Radiologist for age determination, but no action was taken on the said advice of Dr. Satwant Kaur, who has proved the aforementioned medical examination report Ex. Ka-4. 13. For the reasons recorded above, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the entire story of rape, alleged against the accused appellant, is fake and cooked up. 14. Satwant Kaur, who has proved the aforementioned medical examination report Ex. Ka-4. 13. For the reasons recorded above, we come to an irresistible conclusion that the entire story of rape, alleged against the accused appellant, is fake and cooked up. 14. The accused appellant has also been convicted for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. We find that though the complainant has mentioned in the FIR that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, but nowhere it is mentioned in the said report that the accused belonged to the upper caste and that any insulting or derogatory word was spoken by the accused, or the alleged action, which itself has not been proved, was done because of his being the member of said community. As such, the conviction of accused appellant under the said Act is also liable to be quashed. 15. Consequently, we conclude that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case before the trial court. As such, the trial court has erred, in law, in convicting the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC and one under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13.9.2012, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 1/2012. Accused appellant Dhan Singh Gunsola alias Dhanni Gunsola is acquitted of the offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Appellant is in jail. He shall be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. 16. Copy of this judgment and order, along with lower court record, be sent to the trial court for its immediate compliance.