JUDGMENT Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-1-1999 passed by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in brevity 'Act'), Raipur in Special Sessions Case No. 99/98 whereby and whereunder learned trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for committing rape with the prosecutrix P.W. 1 (name not mentioned) convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in brevity 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo R1 for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for six days. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 2. Prosecution case is brief is that on 17-7-1998 at about 12.10 pm, prosecutrix P.W. 1 reached to police station Magarlod and lodged a report against the appellant. Magarlod police registered the FIR Ex. P-1 as Crime No. 69/98 under Sections366, 376 and 323 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In the said FIR, prosecutrix said that on 17-7-1998 at about 9.00 am she went towards Nursery to answer the call of nature. Appellant came and dragged her to shrub, closed her mouth when she attempted to shout, and committed forcible intercourse after removing clothes with her and thereafter ran away towards forest. She felt bad and returned home weeping and informed about the incident to her husband P.W. 2 Alkuram and her mother-in-law P.W. 6 Smt. Shantibai. Her mother-in-law informed this to her husband and thereafter the prosecutrix reached to the police station along with her husband and lodged the FIR Ex. P-1. After registration of crime against the appellant, Magarlod police during investigation seized the petticoat containing stains of semen vide Ex. P-2. Spot map was prepared by Patwari Ex. P-3. After obtaining necessary permission, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. P.W. 8 Dr. Smt. A. Tripathi examined the prosecutrix and noticed hymen old ruptured, no injury found over her body. Doctor prepared two slides from vaginal swab and handed over to the concerned constable with advice for chemical analysis. The doctor could not give any definite opinion regarding rape. The report is Ex. P-11. P.W. 8 Dr. Smt. A. Tripathi examined the prosecutrix and noticed hymen old ruptured, no injury found over her body. Doctor prepared two slides from vaginal swab and handed over to the concerned constable with advice for chemical analysis. The doctor could not give any definite opinion regarding rape. The report is Ex. P-11. On the same day, she again examined the prosecutrix and did not find any mark of injury over her right chick vide her report Ex. P-12. The doctor also examined as per request of the police a Meroon petticoat and noticed some dirty white spot which she encircled by dot pen and also sealed it and handed over to the police with advice for chemical analysis. The report is Ex. P-13. Police arrested the appellant and seized one underwear by seizure memo Ex. P-10. The sealed packet containing slides was seized by seizure memo Ex. P-8. Caste certificate Ex. P-9 was collected. During investigation, police sent the appellant for his medical examination. Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Magarlod gave opinion after his examination that the appellant is capable in intercourse. He also noticed no external injuries over his body. Said report is Ex. P-17. The 10 prepared spot map Ex. P-15. He also sent the slides, undergarments of appellant and petticoat of the prosecutrix for chemical examination through letter Ex. P-16. FSL after necessary analysis noticed stain of semen and human spermatozoa over petticoat and the slides but not found the semen stains or human spermatozoa over the undergarment seized from the appellant. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity 'Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed on 17-8-1998 before the Special Judge competent to try the case under the Act. Learned Special Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 376, IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) of the Act and Section 323, IPC. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 3. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity 'Code') wherein he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution's case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 4. 3. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity 'Code') wherein he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution's case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. 4. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant for the charges under Section 3(2)(5) of the Act and also Sec. 323, IPC but convicted him under Section 376, IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is a case of consent. As per prosecution's case, the prosecutrix went to answer the call of nature to Nursery where all the villagers used to go to case but it is unnatural that nobody saw her in the nursery or heard her noise. The prosecutrix always go for case along with her mother-in-law or son but why on that day she all alone went there, why she did not meet anybody while returning home. These are unnatural conduct. The prosecutrix went twice for case in the nursery. The husband of the prosecutrix had a suspicion over her wife as he saw the prosecutrix and the appellant in a compromising position. He put pressure for reporting the matter. P.W. 2 Alkuram also called a meeting of the community persons. P.W. 2 admitted that in the said meeting sarpanch Komal Singh was present. P.W. 7 Komal Singh also admitted about the meeting wherein the appellant levelled allegations over the character of his wife. There is difference in the statement of P.W. 1 prosecutrix, P.W. 2 Alkuram and P.W. 6 Smt. Shantibai. The mother-in-law supported P.W. 2 Alkuram for the fact of doubt. She stated that villagers used to go for easing early morning. His son P.W. 2 Alkuram came from Nursery and asked her mother-regarding whereabouts of his wife, the prosecutrix. It is obvious to ask about wife if husband saw her wife in a compromising position with appellant. It is further argued that the prosecutrix had not resisted and not made any call for help. P.W. 8 Dr. A. Tripathi did not notice any injury or complaint of pain over left chick as per her report Ex. P-12. It is obvious to ask about wife if husband saw her wife in a compromising position with appellant. It is further argued that the prosecutrix had not resisted and not made any call for help. P.W. 8 Dr. A. Tripathi did not notice any injury or complaint of pain over left chick as per her report Ex. P-12. She also did not notice any external injury. P.W. 9 Head Constable Agni Kumarpati did not notice the sign for dragging as he admitted that the land of nursery is murumi but this witness had not noticed sign of dragging the prosecutrix for few feet by the appellant. Same facts were stated by P.W. 3 Patwari Shyam Sunder Netam as he also not noticed signs of dragging the prosecutrix. Learned counsel further submitted that though the prosecutrix was having one pot but she did not assault the appellant. She also not shouted for help. In the present case report was lodged twice. In para 25 she admitted that she had stated in her statement that she accompanied the appellant voluntarily. P.W. 2 Alkuram also in his deposition in para 11 deposed that the report was written twice and he also admitted that he taught her wife by reading the copy of the report as to what is to be deposed. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that this is a concocted case. Conduct of the prosecutrix is doubtful. The witnesses do not inspire confidence. All have deposed negative evidence. Husband had doubt over the prosecutrix. Mother-in-law also deposed differently. Hence the appellant may be acquitted of the charges awarded him benefit of doubt. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent State while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the prosecution proved its case before the trial court. There is no scope for interference in the judgment impugned hence the appeal may be dismissed as not maintainable. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the respective parties, I have examined the evidence available on record. 10. A close scrutiny of the evidence goes to show that nursery is a very big plot where villagers used to go to ease. Since it is not a small area as seen in the spot map Ex. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the respective parties, I have examined the evidence available on record. 10. A close scrutiny of the evidence goes to show that nursery is a very big plot where villagers used to go to ease. Since it is not a small area as seen in the spot map Ex. P-3 and it is 5-6 time bigger than the whole village, it is not possible for everybody to see others. As regard the argument that why the prosecutrix went alone to nursery, this argument may not be accepted unless it is supported in any other fact. As regards no one seen the prosecutrix in the nursery, it is quite possible as by chance nobody could have seen her in a big nursery. It is also natural as it is not at all expected from a victim of rape to disclose about the incident to everybody. She disclosed the same to her husband and family members. Therefore I do not see any unusual conduct of prosecutrix as argued by learned counsel for the appellant. If she had an illicit relationship with the appellant and nobody saw them, then there was no reason for her to disclose about the incident to her husband or family members. To meet the appellant she could have gone to nursery in early morning to avoid hindrance and not at 9.00 am when there is every opportunity to be seen by others. She has also given an explanation in para 9 that she was busy in domestic work hence she went lately at about 9.00 am. The argument that why she went twice to attend the natural call, call of nature depends on person to person, it may be once, twice or thrice a day. Her mother-in-law P.W. 6 never stated that the prosecutrix went twice to attend the natural call. Simply on account of a suggestion to P.W. 2 Alkuram, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix went twice to nursery. 11. On entire appreciation of the evidence, it is seen nobody levelled any allegation against the prosecutrix about her character. P.W. 2 Alkuram never said that he had any doubt about the character. Simply on account of a suggestion to P.W. 2 Alkuram, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix went twice to nursery. 11. On entire appreciation of the evidence, it is seen nobody levelled any allegation against the prosecutrix about her character. P.W. 2 Alkuram never said that he had any doubt about the character. He admitted regarding the meeting of villagers but that meeting was for the reason the prosecutrix was not serving him food properly and whenever he asked for food, the wife said that she is feeding children and she will give food after feeding. P.W. 7 Komal Singh though a witness for seizure and preparation of spot map has exceeded his limit and stated that the said meeting held 15 or 20 days prior to the incident, the appellant levelled allegation against his wife in the meeting but this witness has also not dared to say that husband had taken the name of appellant. Even otherwise in the absence of any admissible evidence it may not be held that the prosecutrix was having illicit relation with others. One more thing to note is that husband never said that he himself saw her wife in compromising posture with, appellant. Simply by putting suggestion, the suggestion may not be held to be proved without any corroboration. One more thing to note is that had P.W. 2 Alkuram aged 26 year seen her wife in a compromising position with appellant, it is natural that he would have resisted immediately. It is just impossible that even after seeing all this, he kept mum. Therefore, it goes to show that the appellant had not seen the prosecutrix in a compromising position with the appellant. 12. Further argument is that when the P.W. 2 returned from nursery he asked about the prosecutrix. There is nothing unnatural in it if husband asked her mother about his wife if not seen in house. The argument that the prosecutrix does not make any shout or cried for help, since the appellant is a young boy, the prosecutrix being all alone might have fear of him. She also stated that she was threatened by the appellant for assault. Therefore, she might not be in a position to resist or shout. Further argument is that there was no injury or pain in the chick. She also stated that she was threatened by the appellant for assault. Therefore, she might not be in a position to resist or shout. Further argument is that there was no injury or pain in the chick. As per FIR, the incident committed on 17-7-1998 and the prosecutrix was examined same day in the evening. As she was not, so badly assaulted or beaten therefore the injury may not appear till evening. If the appellant dragged or slept, it is not necessary that the prosecutrix must have received injuries or complain pain if the assault is not so forceful. Being married lady, she may not have received internal injury during intercourse. Out of fear she could not assault by pot to appellant as she was all alone. It is argued that twice report was lodged. The prosecutrix did not support this fact. Further argument is that the husband instructed the prosecutrix to depose in the court as written in the report. No question is asked to the prosecutrix for this and even I do not find any infirmity for the essential ingredients of the offence. Prosecutrix P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 Alkuram were subjected to very lengthy and repeated cross-examination but nothing adverse could be elicited as to discredit the prosecutrix and her husband. Further argument that as per para 25 of statement of prosecutrix she went along with appellant voluntarily, in the considered view of this court if we peruse her entire statement, it is a typographical mistake only in the last sentence where in place of 'wrong' word 'right' is typed because in her entire statement she presented her case contesting on her behalf. Merely on the basis of this typographic error, she cannot be said to be a consenting party. 13. Further argument is that the appellant has succeeded to level reasonable doubt and her conduct is doubtful, in the opinion of this Court, same day, FIR is lodged, police station is 14 km away but just within 3 hours she reached to police station along with husband by bicycle. It shows that it is not a concocted case. Her statement inspires confidence supported by her husband and mother-in-law. There is no reason on record as to why she will falsely implicate the appellant. 14. It shows that it is not a concocted case. Her statement inspires confidence supported by her husband and mother-in-law. There is no reason on record as to why she will falsely implicate the appellant. 14. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution proved its case beyond all probable doubt that it was the appellant who committed rape with the prosecutrix without her consent. There is no substance in this appeal. The impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 15. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.300/-. The trial Court has awarded minimum sentence. There is no ground for reducing the sentence. The appellant does not deserve for any lenient view. 16. Consequently the appeal being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court failing which the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps for sending the appellant to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.