JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and 1 year respectively. The impugned judgment dated 2-12-1996 was passed by Special Judge (under the Act) at Satna in Sessions Trial No. 91/1995. According to the prosecution case, on 14-5-1995 at 8 p.m., while the prosecutrix, a Gond Adivasi by caste, was going to the house of one Chunku Singh, appellant met her in the way and forcibly took her to a nearby field of one Motilal and after gagging her with a cloth, subjected her to rape. At that time, Bhura Singh (P.W. 4) passed from near the spot and hearing the sound, the appellant fled. Prosecutrix intimated about the incident to her husband after reaching Hirondi Village. Next day, they went to Lallu, Chowkidar of the Village, who did not allow them to lodge report and insisted for compromise. Thereafter, on 9-6-1995, a report about the incident was lodged by husband of the prosecutrix, but as the Police did not take any action, a written report was given by the prosecutrix to Superintendent of Police, Satna, on the basis of which investigation was done and the appellant was arrested. 2. Charge under Sections 376 of the IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act were framed. Appellant denied the charges and pleaded false implication. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of eviction on record. He submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated by the prosecutrix who was a consenting party. 4. In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well-merited and the impugned judgment does not deserve to be interfered with. 5. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, record of the Trial Court was perused. 6. In this case, date of incident was 14-5-95 and FIR was lodged on 9-6-95 and sufficient cause has not been shown for the delay. Prosecutrix (P.W. 3), aged about 25 years, who was a married woman, admitted in Para 2 of her evidence, that as her uncle-in-law Bhura Singh (P.W. 4) came on the spot, the appellant fled. 6. In this case, date of incident was 14-5-95 and FIR was lodged on 9-6-95 and sufficient cause has not been shown for the delay. Prosecutrix (P.W. 3), aged about 25 years, who was a married woman, admitted in Para 2 of her evidence, that as her uncle-in-law Bhura Singh (P.W. 4) came on the spot, the appellant fled. In Para 12, she admitted that she had not informed the Police about rape but had only told that appellant had caught her hands. Prosecutrix and her husband Rajesh (P.W. 5) have admitted that they were taken by one Gopika for giving the report to Superintendent of Police, who had also got Rs. 10,000/- for them from the Welfare Department. Premvati (D.W. 3) deposed in Para 7 that in the Panchayat when the prosecutrix was saying that Bhura had caught her hands, Gopika had told her that if she wanted money from the Welfare Department, she should give the name of a person of some other caste. 7. Prosecutrix testified in her evidence that she belong to "gond" caste but she has not stated that her caste falls within the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Caste certificate of prosecutrix was also not produced. Therefore, the statement of prosecutrix itself is not sufficient to establish that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. 8. Admittedly, investigation of the case was done by Inspector K.N. Sharma (P.W. 7) whereas according to Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995 framed under the Act, 1989, the investigation should have been made by a Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 9. In the aforesaid premises, the findings recorded by the Trial Court, appear to be perverse and illegal and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned convictions and sentences are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the offences. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Trial Court for information and compliance.