Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, J. These two appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2014 & 26.8.2014, respectively, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 18-S/7 of 2012, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each. Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2015 was filed by Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2014 and 26.8.2014, respectively under the legal aid and Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2014 has been filed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, against the same judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that accused Anil Thakur was working with Sh. Yash Pal Thakur, as driver. The accused was on visiting terms with Ramesh Chand, the father of the prosecutrix. He used to visit the house of the prosecutrix quite often. In the month of October, 2011, the accused had proposed for friendship with the prosecutrix. She declined the same. The accused kept on asking the prosecutrix for entering into friendship with him, time and again and had also promised to marry her, upon which, she accepted his offer of friendship. In the month of December, 2011, when the house tests were on, the prosecutrix had gone to take tution in village Rampur. After her tution time, she was going on foot to her school and near the school, the accused met her. He took her towards the Veterinary Hospital to a lonely place in between the bushes. This place could not be seen. The accused committed rape upon her twice. The accused had also raped her again once or twice thereafter. On 16.12.2012, the prosecutrix had gone to the forest to collect fuel wood. He took her towards the Veterinary Hospital to a lonely place in between the bushes. This place could not be seen. The accused committed rape upon her twice. The accused had also raped her again once or twice thereafter. On 16.12.2012, the prosecutrix had gone to the forest to collect fuel wood. At about 12 noon, the accused came to the forest and raped her there. Every time, whenever the accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, he used to threaten to commit suicide in case she reported about such occurrence to anyone. He also used to commit sexual intercourse with her by assuring her to marry her. When the prosecutrix came home, she was asked by her parents as to why she was so late. She told her parents that she was with the accused in the forest, who raped her. The parents of the prosecutrix contacted the accused and asked him to marry their daughter. But, he threatened them to do away with their lives and told them that they were scheduled castes and he was Thakur. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and her parents went to Police Post Dagshai and reported the matter to the police. FIR Ext. PW- 7/A was registered on the basis of the report. The prosecutrix was taken for medical examination on the basis of application Ext. PW-4/A. Dr. Poonam Sharma has issued MLC Ext. PW-4/B. The doctor gave the final opinion vide Ext. PW-4/D. The clothes of the prosecutrix i.e. shirt, pazami/salwar Ext. P-2 and P-3, respectively, were produced by Ramesh Chand, the father of the prosecutrix, before the police. The date of birth certificate and Scheduled Caste certificate were obtained by the police. The accused was also examined. The FSL Junga has sent the reports Ext. PX and PY to the police. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 18 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. The learned trial Court convicted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Addl. The learned trial Court convicted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General, for the State has supported the judgment/order of the learned trial Court dated 8/26.8.2014. 5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the judgment and records of the case minutely. 6. PW-1, prosecutrix (name withheld) deposed that in the year 2012, she was student of 8th standard in Sr. Secondary School, Sultanpur. Her father was working as a mason with Yash Pal Thakur. The accused used to come to their house. The accused was employed by Yash Pal Thakur as driver. The accused met her for the first time in October, 2011. He used to press her to enter into friendship with him but every time, she refused. In the year 2012, she was going for tution but she did not remember the date and month. After taking tution, she was going to attend the school on foot. On that day, accused met her near the school. He took her to a secluded place near Veterinary Hospital. He committed rape on her twice. Thereafter, on 16.2.2012, she was going to the forest for collecting fuel wood. At about 11:30 AM, the accused met her there. There also, the accused had sexual intercourse with her and he used to compel her to do so by telling her that he would die in case she did not submit to him. The accused belongs to Thakur caste whereas she belongs to scheduled caste. She reached home at about 3:00 PM. Her parents enquired and she told them that she was with Anil Thakur. Her parents went to accused Anil Thakur and told him to marry her but he declined by saying that he belongs to Thakur caste and cannot marry the scheduled caste. He also threatened her parents. On 17.2.2012, she alongwith her parents went to Police Post Dagshai and lodged the rapat. She was sent for medical examination to Regional Hospital Solan, where medical examination was conducted. The doctor took her undergarments alongwith the suit into possession. He also threatened her parents. On 17.2.2012, she alongwith her parents went to Police Post Dagshai and lodged the rapat. She was sent for medical examination to Regional Hospital Solan, where medical examination was conducted. The doctor took her undergarments alongwith the suit into possession. She had also shown the spots in the forest and near the Veterinary Hospital to the police where the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her. She recognized her underwear Ext. P-1. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she has gone to the school at the age of 6 years. She was admitted in Govt. Primary School, Deurd for the first time. She studied up to 5th standard in the Govt. Primary School Deurd. In the 4th class, she had fallen sick and had been operated upon and could not appear in the examination and next year, she repeated the fourth class. She did not remember the year when she joined Sr. Secondary School, Sultanpur. However, in the year 2012, she had been in that school for the last four years. The school timings at Sultanpur were from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. She did not remember that in the December, 2011, she was in 7th class. The final examination in the school are held in the month of March. She used to go to take tution to Rampur village which is near to the house of the accused at a distance of 6 km. from her house. The accused had met her at about 9:30 AM. On the way, many other students were also going through that passage to the school. Even teachers also go to the school through that passage. The Veterinary Hospital opens at 10:30 AM. There was only one doctor and he remained present in the hospital. Near the hospital, on the other side, there are 5-6 houses. She admitted that the passage which is adjacent to the hospital goes to 20-25 villages and people keep on passing through that passage. The accused had taken her to a distance of about 15 to 20 meters from the hospital to the secluded place. The accused had forcibly asked her to walk ahead and he was coming from behind. He was walking behind her roughly at a distance of 4-5 feet. At that time, no one was passing through that passage because he had taken her through the passage passing through the forest. The accused had forcibly asked her to walk ahead and he was coming from behind. He was walking behind her roughly at a distance of 4-5 feet. At that time, no one was passing through that passage because he had taken her through the passage passing through the forest. She has reported to the police about this fact that the accused had taken her to the secluded place through the passage (confronted with Mark-A wherein it is not so recorded). She reached the place where the accused met her on that date at about 9:45 AM. They remained near the Veterinary Hospital on that date up to 2:30 PM. Thereafter, she had gone home all alone. She also admitted that there was main road by the side of that forest and vehicles keep on plying on that road. She also admitted that there is also a stone crusher towards that area. She also admitted that 10-15 persons were working on that crusher and many people with vehicle come there for collecting stones. 7. PW-2 Ramesh Chand is the father of the prosecutrix. He deposed that on 16.2.2012, his daughter had gone to bring fuel wood from the forest at about 11:00 AM. She came back from the forest at about 3:00 PM. They asked her as to why and where she was for such a long time. She disclosed that she was in the forest with accused Anil Thakur who used to compel her to get married with him. He used to harass her. He asked Anil Thakur about this. He told him that he is Thakur of the village and that he was scheduled caste. The accused under the pretext of the marriage had committed sexual intercourse with his daughter and lateron refused to marry her. They tried to prevail upon the accused for marriage with their daughter and when he did not marry then they reported the matter to the police. On 18.2.2012, they had handed over the clothes of their daughter to police in PS Dharampur. He deposed that when the accused committed sexual intercourse with his daughter, at that time, she was about 15 years of age. His daughter at that time was studying in 8th class. In his further cross-examination, he deposed that the entry of date of birth of his daughter was made by him in the Panchayat record. He deposed that when the accused committed sexual intercourse with his daughter, at that time, she was about 15 years of age. His daughter at that time was studying in 8th class. In his further cross-examination, he deposed that the entry of date of birth of his daughter was made by him in the Panchayat record. He did not remember as to who was the Secretary of the Panchayat at that time. However, the Secretary of Panchayat at that time was a gentleman. His son was married. His marriage had taken place 5-6 months back. He had also got the name of his wife entered after marriage in the record of the Panchayat. The entry was made 24-25 years back when the marriage had taken place. His son was born 3 years after marriage. His daughter is one year nine months younger to his son. 8. PW-4 Dr. Poonam Sharma, has medically examined the prosecutrix. The victim was referred to Radiologist and Dental surgeon for determination of the age. She issued MLC Ext. PW-4/B. On 30.7.2012, after receiving report from the FSL, she gave the opinion that there is nothing to rule out the possibility of recent sexual intercourse. She issued final report vide Ext. PW-4/D. 9. PW-5 Sunil Kaushik, deposed that on 18.2.2012, the police moved an application Ext. PW-5/A before the Panchayat for obtaining the birth certificate of the prosecutrix. He prepared the birth certificate of the prosecutrix from the record vide Ext. PW-5/B. It was correct as per the record maintained in the Panchayat. On 21.2.2012, the police also moved an application vide Ext. PW-5/C for obtaining the caste certificate of the prosecutrix. He issued caste certificate of the family of Ramesh Chand vide Ext. PW-5/D. In his cross-examination, he admitted that against entry No. 33 in the Birth Register, there is cutting in column No. 8. He also admitted that in Ext. PW-5/D, there is no reference of the age of family members of Ramesh Chand. The entry of the birth of prosecutrix was incorporated by one Sewa Dass. 10. PW-13 Gopi Chand deposed that Sewa Dass, Ward member of the Panchayat had given information of the birth of the prosecutrix and on that basis, her birth had been entered in the birth register of the Panchayat. In his cross-examination he admitted that he has not seen the Birth Register in the Court. 11. 10. PW-13 Gopi Chand deposed that Sewa Dass, Ward member of the Panchayat had given information of the birth of the prosecutrix and on that basis, her birth had been entered in the birth register of the Panchayat. In his cross-examination he admitted that he has not seen the Birth Register in the Court. 11. PW-17 Rajesh Kumar, DSP, has investigated the matter. He has got the medical examination of the accused conducted vide Ext. PW- 17/C. He got the case property recovered. The statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot identification was also carried out and the clothes of the prosecutrix were also taken into possession. 12. According to PW-5/B, Birth Certificate of the prosecutrix, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 23.06.1996. The certificate has been issued by PW-5 Sunil Kaushik. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that against entry No. 33 in the Birth Register, there is cutting in column No. 8. He also admitted that in Ext. PW-5/D, there is no reference of the age of family members of Ramesh Chand. According to him, the entry of the birth of prosecutrix was incorporated by one Sewa Dass. Sh Sewa Dass has not been examined by the prosecution. Similarly, PW-13 Gopi Chand deposed that one Sewa Dass, Ward member of the Panchayat, gave information of the birth of the prosecutrix and on that basis, her birth was entered in the birth register of the Panchayat. In his cross-examination he admitted that he has not seen the Birth Register in the Court. 13. PW-2 Ramesh Chand deposed that the prosecutrix was of 15 years of age at the time of the incident. However, in his cross-examination, he did not remember as to who was the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat at that time recording the date of birth of the prosecutrix. He also deposed that he has got the entry made in the Panchayat record, though as per PW-5 Sunil Kaushik and PW-13 Gopi Chand, the date of birth was entered by one Sewa Dass. 14. The prosecutrix was also referred to Radiologist and Dental Surgeon for determination of her age. According to Ext. PW-4/B, as per the opinion of the Radiologist, the age of the prosecutrix was between 16 ½ and 18 ½ years. 15. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vrs. 14. The prosecutrix was also referred to Radiologist and Dental Surgeon for determination of her age. According to Ext. PW-4/B, as per the opinion of the Radiologist, the age of the prosecutrix was between 16 ½ and 18 ½ years. 15. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi vrs. State of U.P., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 584 , have held that the determination of date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil proceedings or a criminal proceedings, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the absence of any other statute operating in the field, Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have application and the Court, while determining such age would depend upon the material brought on record by the parties which would be admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Act. Their lordships have further held that the contention that while in a civil dispute a strict proof may be necessary, in a criminal case and particularly in the case of a juvenile, the court may consider any evidence which may be brought on record cannot be accepted. Their lordships have held as follows: “21. Determination of the date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil proceeding or a criminal proceeding, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Such a date of birth has to be determined on the basis of the materials on records. It will be a matter of appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Different standards having regard to the provision of Section 35 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied in a civil case or a criminal case. 22. Mr. Mishra, however, would urge that while in a civil dispute a strict proof may be necessary, in a criminal case and particularly in the case of a juvenile, the court may consider any evidence which may be brought on records by the parties. We do not agree. 23. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. We do not agree. 23. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the register maintained in ordinary course of business by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which, inter alia, such register is kept would be a relevant fact. Section 35, thus, requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document is held to be admissible thereunder : (i) it should be in the nature of the entry in any public or official register; (ii) it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact; (iii) entry must be made either by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country; and (iv) all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto. 25. In terms of the aforementioned decision of the Constitution Bench such determination is required to be made even if at the relevant time, the juvenile crossed the age of eighteen years. In absence of any other statute operating in the field, Section 35 will have application and the court, while determining such age would depend upon the materials brought on records by the parties which would be admissible in evidence in terms of Section 35 of the Act. 38. The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes; namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the purpose of litigating before a civil forum, e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the prosecutrix although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted.” 16. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babloo Pasi vrs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 133 , have held that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law. Their lordships have further held that a Medical Board’s opinion based on the radiological examination is a useful guiding factor for determining the age of a person but it is not incontrovertible. It has been held as follows: “20. Thus, as per Rule 22, in the absence of birth or matriculation certificates, in order to record a finding in respect of age of a person, the Board is required to obtain the opinion of a duly constituted Medical Board. It is clear from a bare reading of the Rule that although the Board is bound to obtain the opinion of the Medical Board but the opinion per se is not a conclusive proof of age of the person concerned. It is no more than an opinion. More so, when even the Medico-Legal opinion is that owing to the variation in climatic, dietic, hereditary and other factors, affecting the people of different States in the country, it would be imprudent to formulate a uniform standard for the determination of the age. It is no more than an opinion. More so, when even the Medico-Legal opinion is that owing to the variation in climatic, dietic, hereditary and other factors, affecting the people of different States in the country, it would be imprudent to formulate a uniform standard for the determination of the age. True, that a Medical Board's opinion based on the radiological examination is a useful guiding factor for determining the age of a person but is not incontrovertible. 28. It is trite that to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely: (i) entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; (ii) it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and (iii) it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. (See: Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit) 30. Insofar as the High Court is concerned, there is no indication in its order as to in what manner Rule 22(5)(iv) has been ignored by the Board. The learned Judge seems also to have accepted the opinion of the Medical Board in terms of the said Rule as conclusive. Therefore, the afore- stated ground on which the High Court has set aside the opinion of the Board and holding the accused to be a juvenile, cannot be sustained.” 17. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh and others vrs. Rajni Kant and another, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 209 , have held that as far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the Court has a right to examine their probative value. Rajni Kant and another, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 209 , have held that as far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the Court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information. The entry in School Register/School Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) or Sections 50, 51, 59, 60 & 61 etc. of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein. Their lordships have held as under: “17. In State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 684 , this Court dealt with a similar contention and held as under:- "40. ……..Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight of its probative value may be nil.. . . . .” 53. …….Where a report is given by a responsible officer, which is based on evidence of witnesses and documents and has "a statutory flavour in that it is given not merely by an administrative officer but under the authority of a Statute, its probative value would indeed be very high so as to be entitled to great weight. 145. (4) The probative value of documents which, however ancient they may be, do not disclose sources of their information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little." 18. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326 ; Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1029 ; Dayaram & Ors. Vs. Dawalatshah & Anr. AIR 1971 SC 681 ; Harpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 ; Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584 ; Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2008) 13 SCC 133 ; Desh Raj Vs. Bodh Raj AIR 2008 SC 632 ; and Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @Chhotu Singh & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 681 . In these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made in an official record by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases. 20. So far as the entries made in the official record by an official or person authorised in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act but the court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information. The entry in School Register/School Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordance with law and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the same as in any other civil or criminal cases. 22. If a person wants to rely on a particular date of birth and wants to press a document in service, he has to prove its authenticity in terms of Section 32(5) or Sections 50, 51, 59, 60 & 61 etc. of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein. (Vide: Updesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. of the Evidence Act by examining the person having special means of knowledge, authenticity of date, time etc. mentioned therein. (Vide: Updesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Prithvi Singh & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 524 ; and State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh, AIR 2005 SC 1868 ).” 18. In the instant case, according to PW-5 Sunil Kaushik and PW-13 Gopi Chand, the entry was made in the Panchayat record by one Sewa Dass. Sewa Dass has not been examined by the prosecution. PW-5 Sunil Kaushik, as noticed hereinabove, has admitted in his cross-examination that against entry No. 33 in the Birth Register, there is cutting in column No. 8. PW-2 Ramesh Chand has deposed that he had made the entry of date of birth of his daughter in the Panchayat Record. Thus, there is variance in the statements of PW-2 Ramesh Chand, PW-5 Sunil Kaushik and PW-13 Gopi Chand as to at whose instance the birth entry was made in the Panchayat record. The age of the prosecutrix, as per the Radiologist’s opinion was between 16 ½ to 18 ½ years. Thus, she was more than 16 years of age at the time of the incident. 19. PW-5 Sunil Kaushik also admitted in his cross-examination, that there was no description in the register as to how the entries have been made in it. The prosecution has also placed on record Ext. PW-5/D. We reiterate that the age of any of the family members of Ramesh Chand has not been shown in Ext. PW-5/D. 20. The prosecutrix was admitted initially in Government Primary School Deurd. She studied upto 5th standard there and thereafter she studied at Sr. Secondary School Sultanpur. The prosecution should have taken admission certificate of the prosecutrix either from Govt. Primary School Deurd or Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Sultanpur. 21. According to the prosecutrix, the accused, in the year 2012, accused met her near the school. He took her near to Veterinary Hospital to a secluded place. The accused committed rape on her twice. Thereafter, on 16.2.2012, she was going to the forest for collecting fuel wood. At about 11:30 AM, the accused met her there and there also he had sexual intercourse with her. She has not narrated the incident which has happened before 16.2.2012 to her parents, more particularly, to her mother. The accused committed rape on her twice. Thereafter, on 16.2.2012, she was going to the forest for collecting fuel wood. At about 11:30 AM, the accused met her there and there also he had sexual intercourse with her. She has not narrated the incident which has happened before 16.2.2012 to her parents, more particularly, to her mother. In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix has categorically admitted that the Veterinary Hospital opens at 10:30 AM and one doctor remains present in the hospital. There were 5-6 houses near the hospital. The accused met her near the hospital at 9:30 AM. She has also admitted that the passage which was adjacent to the hospital goes to 20-25 villages and people keep on passing through the passage. She could raise alarm when she was forced to go to a secluded place near the hospital. She, in her cross-examination, has also admitted that there was main road by the side of that forest and vehicles keep on plying on that road. She also admitted that there is also a stone crusher towards that area and 10-15 persons use to work on that crusher and many people with vehicle come there for collecting stones. If she had raised the alarm, it would have drawn the attention of the 10-15 persons who were working on stone crusher. 22. The accused has also been charged under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. There is no evidence led by the prosecution that the rape has been committed upon the prosecutrix only for the reason that she was scheduled caste. There should be sufficient material on record at the time of framing of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 557 have held that to attract the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. Their Lordships have held as under: “5. The trial Court accepted the evidence of Deubai (PW-4) and Manoj (PW-5). Manoj corroborated the evidence tendered by Deubai to the extent of having seen the appellant having a Jambiya in his hand when Deubai (PW-4) was following him and that he found something very suspicious so he followed both of them. That is how he witnessed the scuffle and the injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased. Deubai admitted in the course of her cross-examination that scuffle took place between the appellant and her husband and her husband fell on the ground, that for considerable time, the scuffle went on; that while on some occasions the appellant was on the ground, on some other occasions her husband was on the ground; that the appellant and the deceased were overpowering each other. PW-5 also stated that he saw that in front of the hospital of Dr. Kalwaghe the deceased coming and the appellant was following him with dagger and gave blows of dagger on the person of the deceased. The trial Court found from these circumstances that the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased and that after giving one blow, other injuries had been caused due to scuffle. This was amply supported by the evidence of the Medical Officer that injuries Nos. 2 and 4 to 10 could be caused in the scuffle, or injuries other than injury No. 1 could be caused due to obstruction by the deceased. Therefore, it could not be inferred that the appellant intended to inflict more injuries than injury No. 1. If this aspect is borne in mind, it would be clear that the appellant had given only one blow with the Jambiya resulting in his death and, therefore, the trial Court found that it would not be proper to convict the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. The argument relating to private defence was straightway rejected for there were no injuries on the person of the appellant and the attack had been made by the appellant himself. The trial Court discarded the evidence relating to discovery of the weapon and jacket for the reasons set forth in the order. The trial Court discarded the evidence relating to discovery of the weapon and jacket for the reasons set forth in the order. The trial Court also convicted the appellant for the offence arising under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act only on the basis that there was no controversy that the victim belonged to the scheduled caste and convicted him.” 24. In the instant case, the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act were lacking from the very beginning and the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove this charge. 25. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have reiterated the same principles in Dinesh alias Buddha Vs. State of Rajasthan (2006)3 Supreme Court Cases 771 and have held that sine qua non for Section 3(2)(v) is that the offence in question must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of SC/ST. Their Lordships have held as under: “15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been applicable then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for life and fine.” 26. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Ramdas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 170 have held that the mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. At the outset we may observe that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a scheduled caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. At the outset we may observe that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the commission of offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The mere fact that the victim happened to be a girl belonging to a scheduled caste does not attract the provisions of the Act. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to the Pardhi community, there is no other evidence on record to prove any offence under the said enactment. The High Court has also not noticed any evidence to support the charge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and was perhaps persuaded to affirm the conviction on the basis that the prsecutrix belongs to a scheduled caste community. The conviction of the appellants under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must, therefore, be set aside.” 27. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, it is a case of consensual act taking into consideration the age of the prosecutrix, being more than 16 years of age at the time of the incident. It has also come on record that the accused and prosecutrix knew each other before the incident since according to the prosecutrix, accused used to come to their house oftenly. 28. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2014 is allowed. Cr. Appeal No. 219 of 2015 is disposed of, having become infructuous. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.8.2014 and 26.8.2014, respectively, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Sessions trial No. 18-S/7 of 2012, are set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges framed under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Fine amount, if any, already deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 29. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrant of the accused and send the same to the Superintendent of Jail concerned, in conformity with this judgment forthwith.