JUDGMENT : Ram Krishna Gautam, J. 1. This Jail Appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been filed through Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Fatehgarh, by convict appellant Ram Shanker Pandey, against judgment of conviction and sentence therein, dated 31.3.2012, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar, in S.T. No. 1868 of 2008, State vs. Ram Shanker Pandey, arising out of Case Crime No. 134 of 2008, u/s 376 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sisamau, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby convict appellant Ram Shanker Pandey has been sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default one year's additional imprisonment for offence u/s 376 I.P.C. read with section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard Mr. Avinash Jaiswal, learned Amicus Curiae, for appellant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned AGA for State. 3. Learned Amicus Curiae for appellant argued that Trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it. Convict appellant was innocent but has been falsely implicated in this case crime number. There were material contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which were placed before learned Trial Judge, but same were not appreciated. There was no injury, either external or internal, over private part of the victim nor any opinion about presence of spermatozoa was there in the medical examination report. Definite opinion about rape could not be given by the Medical Officer. Implication of the appellant was with a motive to have money, being given by State, for atrocities towards members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. 4. Prosecution case in brief is that Case Crime No. 134 of 2008, u/s 376 I.P.C. read with 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act was got registered at P.S. Sisamau, District Kanpur Nagar, on 28.9.2008 at 5.00 P.M. for an offence occurred on 28.9.2008 at 12.00 noon upon first information report (Ext. Ka1) scribed by Smt. Yashoda Devi, wife of Surajbhan and presented by Km. Vimla Devi Kori, daughter of Late Ram Ratan, against Ram Shanker Pandey, Rickshaw puller, resident of Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Sisamau, District Kanpur Nagar, with this contention that informant Vimla Devi Kori is resident of 107/144 B, Jawahar Nagar, P.S. Sisamau, District Kanpur Nagar. Her sister Km. Sarla, aged about 30 years, being of undeveloped mind was residing with her. She used to wander hither and tither. Her sister Km. Sarla, aged about 30 years, being of undeveloped mind was residing with her. She used to wander hither and tither. On 28.9.2008 while informant along with her sister was at her home and informant was inside kitchen for cooking meal, at about 12.00 noon Ram Shanker Pandey, rickshaw puller of same Mohalla did criminal trespass inside the house and committed rape with Sarla, who made rescue call and this informant rushed there and found commission of rape by accused with Sarla. She made call. Accused-appellant ran from spot. Victim was taken to police station and this report was got lodged. Chick report (Ext. Ka5) and entry of registration of this case crime number in General Diary of police station was made. Clothes of victim were taken in custody by way of preparation of recovery memo (Ext. Ka-8). Victim Sarla Devi was medically examined at A.H.M. & Dufferin Hospital, Kanpur. She was given in custody of informant by (Ext. Ka9). Medico legal report (Ext. Ka2) and Pathology report (Ext. Ka3) were prepared. Reference Form (Ext. Ka4) for pathological report of slide was prepared. Investigation resulted in filing of charge sheet (Ext. Ka11) against Ram Shanker Pandey for offence punishable u/s 376 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 6.11.2008. 5. Ka2) and Pathology report (Ext. Ka3) were prepared. Reference Form (Ext. Ka4) for pathological report of slide was prepared. Investigation resulted in filing of charge sheet (Ext. Ka11) against Ram Shanker Pandey for offence punishable u/s 376 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 6.11.2008. 5. As the case was exclusively triable by Special Judge, hence file was committed to the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar, who after hearing Government Counsel and counsel for accused framed charges against accused Ram Shanker Pandey on 9.1.2009 as follows: ^^eSa] ,lŒdsŒ ik.Ms;] fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] ¼,lŒlhŒ@,lŒVhŒ½ ,sDV] dkuqij uxj vki vfHk;qDr& jke'kadj ik.Ms; dks fuEu vkjksi ls vkjksfir djrk gwa %& ÁFke & ;g fd fnukad 28-9-2008 dks 12-00 cts fnu LFkku edku okfnuh uaŒ&107@144] tokgj uxj] cgn Fkkuk lhlkeÅ dkuiqj uxj esa vius okfnuh dqŒ foeyk nsoh dksjh dh cfgu dqŒ ljyk mez 30 o"kZ ls ?kj esa ?kqldj tcjnLrh cykRdkj fd;k vkSj bl Ádkj vkius /kkjk 376 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks fd bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku esa gSA f}rh; & ;g fd mijksDr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij vkius ;g tkurs gq, fd okfnuh o mldh cgu dqŒ ljyk vuqlwfpr tkfr dh gSa] dqŒ ljyk ds lkFk tcjnLrh cykRdkj fd;k vkSj bl Ádkj vkius /kkjk 3¼2½ ¼5½ ,lŒlhŒ@,lŒVhŒ ,sDV ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tks fd bl U;k;ky; ds ÁlaKku esa gSA eSa ,rn~okjk vkidks vkns'k nsrk gwa fd mijksDr vkjksi gsrq vkidk fopkj.k bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA** "That firstly on 28.9.2008 at 12.00 P.M. at house of informant, no. 107/144, Jawahar Nagar, within area of Police Station Sisamau, Kanpur Nagar, you committed rape with Km. Sarla, aged about 30 years, sister of Km. Vimla Devi by committing trespass in her house, thereby committed offence punishable u/s 376 I.P.C. within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly on above date time and place you knowing that informant and her sister Km. Sarla are of Scheduled Caste community, committed rape against her wishes by use of force, thereby you committed offence punishable u/s 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, within the cognizance of this court." (English translation by Court) 6. The charges were read over an explained to accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. Prosecution examined PW-1 informant Km. Vimla Devi, PW-2 Smt. Yashoda Devi, PW-3 Dr. The charges were read over an explained to accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 7. Prosecution examined PW-1 informant Km. Vimla Devi, PW-2 Smt. Yashoda Devi, PW-3 Dr. Manju Agarwal, PW-4 Head Constable Ashok Kumar, PW-5 victim Km. Sarla and PW-6 Investigating officer Vipul Kumar Srivastava. 8. With a view to have an explanation of accused Ram Shanker Pandey, if any, he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that all the prosecution witnesses have given false testimonies and investigation too was erroneous. His implication was owning to enmity with no evidence in defence and this accusation was lodged with a motive to have money given by the State to victim of atrocities towards members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. No evidence in defence was given by the accused. 9. Learned Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act) after hearing learned Government counsel as well as learned counsel for defence passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence, as above, against convict appellant Ram Shanker Pandey. 10. PW-4 Head Constable 178 Ashok Kumar, in his testimony, has proved that while being posted as Constable Clerk on 28.9.2008 at P.S. Sisamau, Kanpur Nagar, he registered Case Crime No. 134 of 2008, u/s 376 I.P.C. and 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act against Ram Shanker, rickshaw puller, of Jawahar Nagar, in his handwriting and signature upon report submitted by informant Km. Vimla Devi Kori, who was present along with victim Km. Sarla Devi and scribe Smt. Yashoda Devi and had submitted report (Exhibit Ka1) at 5.00 P.M. This chick F.I.R. has been exhibited as Exhibit Ka5. Registration of this case crime number was entered on the same day in General Diary Entry no. 24 at 5.00 P.M. in his handwriting and signature, of which copy was attached with the record, compared and proved by original G.D. brought in the Court at the time of recording of evidence by its comparison and exhibited as Exhibit Ka6. Victim was sent through a lady constable at 5.45 P.M. on 28.9.2008 along with informant Vimla Devi and scribe Yashoda Devi to hospital for her medical examination. Clothes of victim, which were worn by her at the time of occurrence, were taken and sealed by preparation of recovery memo and were sealed. G.D. Entry No. 26 of 28.9.2008 was formally proved by this witness by original G.D. and exhibited as Exhibit Ka7 as well as Ka8. Clothes of victim, which were worn by her at the time of occurrence, were taken and sealed by preparation of recovery memo and were sealed. G.D. Entry No. 26 of 28.9.2008 was formally proved by this witness by original G.D. and exhibited as Exhibit Ka7 as well as Ka8. After medical examination custody of victim Sarla was handed over to her sister-informant Vimla by way of memo (Ext. Ka9). In cross examination no question or dispute has been made by learned counsel for defence that this witness was not posted at above post at above time and place or Exhibits Ka5, Ka6, Ka7, Ka8 and Ka9 were not in his handwriting and signature. Rather reply in answer to question put u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is that it was a false implication. Testimony of PW-4 is wholly reliable. 11. PW-3 Dr. Manju Agarwal, in her statement on oath in examination in chief, has stated that while being posted as Gynecologist at A.H.M. Dufferin Hospital, Kanpur, on 29.9.2008 at 12.00 Noon, she had examined Km. Sarla, brought by C.P. Ashok Kumar. Height of victim was 145 cm, her weight was 45 Kg and teeth were 13/13 with missing of 1/1. Breast were fully developed. Pubic and axillary hairs were there. But no mark of injury was there. In the internal examination there was no mark of injury over private part, hymen was old torn, vagina admits two finger easily, smear slide of vagina was prepared and sent for pathological examination. Medico legal report, with right thumb impression of victim, was prepared in handwriting and signature of this witness. There was no spermatozoa in the pathological report. Hence, a supplementary report was prepared with no definite opinion about rape. This medico legal report (Ext. Ka2), pathological report (Ext. Ka3) and reference form (Ext. Ka4) were formally proved by this witness. Even after providing opportunity of cross examination, no cross examination was made. Hence her testimony is un-rebutted. 12. PW-1 Km. Vimla Devi, in her testimony in examination in chief has said that at about 12.00 noon of 28.9.2008 (Sunday) she was at her home and was busy in kitchen, when her younger sister Sarla being of weak mind was inside her room, when her neighbour Ram Shanker Pandey, a rickshaw puller, son of Chhote Lal, resident of Jawahar Nagar, did criminal trespass and committed rape with Sarla. Upon her protest and hue and cry this witness rushed on the spot and found the occurrence. She made rescue call when accused Ram Shanker Pandey after wearing his neker and taking Paint in his hand ran from stairs. Report of this incident was got scribed by Smt. Yashoda Devi and signed by this witness, presented at the police station, when victim along with Yashoda Devi and this witness was at police station where this report got lodged. Her statement was taken. Police came at the house of victim where spot was inspected where accused, present in the docket of the Court, had committed the occurrence. Meaning thereby, there is reiteration of the allegations made in the instantly lodged report with no exaggeration, embellishment or contradiction. Her cross examination was not conducted on the same day. Rather it was deferred for next day. PW-1 resumed on fresh oath stated that her house is three storeyed in which informant and victim were residing in upper portion and landlord-scribe was residing in the ground floor. Sarla was not insane by birth. Rather after death of her parent she became of feeble mind. She was of good mind on the date of occurrence. She had studied up to 8th standard. Wife and daughter of accused was a tenant in a room at the ground floor where accused used to visit very often. Lady police constable along with Head Constable had visited the place of occurrence and investigated the offence. A suggestive question in form of leading question was put to this witness that this false report was with a view to get money from the State, which was answered in negative. Testimony of this witness is with no embellishment, exaggeration or material contradiction. Rather it is in full corroboration with prosecution version and is wholly reliable. 13. PW-2 Smt. Yashoda Devi is the inhabitant of house i.e. place of occurrence. She has stated that Sarla Devi was of weak mind, this witness was present on 28.9.2008 at 12.00 noon at her house situated in Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur, where victim along with informant resided at upper floor. When she heard rescue call of Vimla she came out of her house, she found that accused Ram Shanker Pandey, rickshaw puller, resident of same locality, coming down with stairs having paint in his hand and neker being tied. He ran from stairs. Sarla was weeping. When she heard rescue call of Vimla she came out of her house, she found that accused Ram Shanker Pandey, rickshaw puller, resident of same locality, coming down with stairs having paint in his hand and neker being tied. He ran from stairs. Sarla was weeping. Vimla instantly narrated the occurrence of rape committed by Ram Shanker Pandey with Sarla. Exhibit Ka1, first information report was scribed by her upon dictation of informant and after reading it this was signed by Vimla, which is Exhibit Ka1 on the record. Her statement was taken by Dy. S.P. on the next day of the occurrence at her home. In cross examination she has stated that Ram Shanker Pandey, rickshaw puller, previously was a tenant in her house and was got evicted two years back. Sarla was not insane or mad. Rather she was capable to do house work. She was of weak mind. This witness along with Vimla had seen the occurrence of rape by accused with Sarla. There is no material contradiction or exaggeration or embellishment in her testimony, rather she is wholly reliable witness. 14. Crucial witness, victim Sarla (PW-5) in her testimony in examination in chief has stated that in summer season two years back when she was inside her room, her sister Vimla was working at kitchen and her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Yashoda Devi was inside her ground portion. Accused, present in the docket, did criminal trespass in the house of this witness and committed rape with her. He came to her room by upstairs. Upon her rescue call her sister and tenants of other room immediately rushed there. Her sister got the report lodged. She was medically examined at hospital, police had interrogated her. Learned counsel for defence, Amicus Curiae, had cross-examined this witness in which she had denied Ram Shanker Pandey to be tenant of house of her own sister-in-law. This had been vehemently argued by learned counsel for defence, whereas both informant Vimla Devi and her Bhabhi (sister-in-law) Yashoda Devi had proved the victim Sarla Devi to be of weak mind. But regarding present occurrence she has categorically stated that her sister was at kitchen when this accused did trespass and committed rape with her and police came at the place of occurrence, took her clothes, which she had worn at the time of occurrence. Though, some other instances of tenancy dispute, rent dispute etc. But regarding present occurrence she has categorically stated that her sister was at kitchen when this accused did trespass and committed rape with her and police came at the place of occurrence, took her clothes, which she had worn at the time of occurrence. Though, some other instances of tenancy dispute, rent dispute etc. were asked by learned counsel for defence, which have been answered by this witness in a very vague way, which has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for defence but as proved by informant Km. Vimla Devi and PW2- Smt. Yashoda Devi that this witness is of feeble mental capacity i.e. of week mind but not insane or unsound mind. Hence, in the reply of those questions she had answered with inconsistency. But regarding criminal trespass in the house in the noon of the day of occurrence when this witness was inside her room and commission of rape by present convict appellant Ram Shanker Pandey, who was of same locality, has been substantially proved by this witness, regarding which there is no embellishment or exaggeration or material contradiction. She is victim and fully reliable witness. 15. PW-6 Investigating officer Vipul Kumar Srivastava, has formally proved investigation made by him. This case crime No. 134 of 2008 under section 376 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(xii) SC/ST Act was got registered at Police Station Sisamau, Kanpur, on 28.9.2008, while this witness was posted as Circle Officer, Sisamau, and investigation was deputed to him. Spot map (Ext. Ka10) was formally proved by this witness. Statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was requested to be recorded by the Magistrate. Statements of Vimla Devi, Smt. Yashoda Devi as well as Sarla Devi were got recorded by him. After completion of investigation charge sheet (Ext. Ka11) was filed in his handwriting and signature, which is on record. In cross examination there is no material contradiction or embellishment or exaggeration nor testimony of this witness has been disputed by accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Neither any explanation nor specific case of defence by accused nor any defence evidence except a bald reply ^^>wBh xokgh nh gS** has been made by accused. 16. This case crime number was instantly got registered by bringing victim along with scribe by informant Vimla Devi at police station concerned. Criminal machinery was put in motion. At the earliest medico legal examination of victim was got done. 16. This case crime number was instantly got registered by bringing victim along with scribe by informant Vimla Devi at police station concerned. Criminal machinery was put in motion. At the earliest medico legal examination of victim was got done. Clothes of victim were taken into custody and statements of these persons were recorded in which consistent statement of rape by criminal trespass in the room of the victim by accused rickshaw puller, fully acquainted by each of them, and the accused to be a resident of same locality have been said by all prosecution witnesses in their testimonies. Victim and those two witnesses of fact coupled with formal witnesses have proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Convict appellant has been proved to have committed the offence of rape with the victim, belonging to Scheduled Caste, being of week mind, after committing criminal trespass inside her room in broad daylight, hence, charges were fully proved with no merit in the present appeal. 17. Quantum of punishment u/s 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if the offence under section 376 I.P.C. is proved against the accused, who had committed the offence towards a woman of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community, the punishment to be awarded is life imprisonment with fine. 18. So far as sentence regarding appellant is concerned, it is always a difficult task requiring balancing of various considerations. The question of awarding sentence is a matter of discretion to be exercised on consideration of circumstances aggravating and mitigating in the individual case. 19. It is settled legal position that appropriate sentence should be awarded after giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. It is obligation of Court to constantly remind itself that right of victim, and be it said, on certain occasions persons aggrieved as well as society at large can be victims, never be marginalised. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to gravity of offence. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Object of sentencing should be to protect society and to deter the criminal in achieving avowed object of law. Further, it is expected that courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects conscience of society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime, which has been committed not only against individual victim but also against society to which criminal and victim belong. Punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with the crime has been perpetrated, enormity of crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to society's cry for justice against the criminal. Sumer Singh vs. Surajbhan Singh and Others, (2014) 7 SCC 323 , Sham Sunder vs. Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731 , State of M.P. vs. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554 , Ravji vs. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 . 20. Hence, applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, we find that punishment imposed upon the appellant by Trial Court in impugned judgment and order is not excessive or exorbitant and no question arises to interfere in the mater on the point of punishment imposed upon them. 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2012 deserves to be affirmed and appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2012, detailed above, is hereby confirmed/affirmed. The appellant, who is in jail, shall serve out the sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court. 23. Copy of this order along with lower Court record be sent to Court concerned forthwith. 24. A copy of this order be also sent to Appellant through concerned Jail Superintendent. 25. Before parting, we find it appropriate to place on record our commendation to learned counsel, who has argued this appeal as Amicus Curiae with ability and actually assisted the Court effectively. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 11,000/-. 24. A copy of this order be also sent to Appellant through concerned Jail Superintendent. 25. Before parting, we find it appropriate to place on record our commendation to learned counsel, who has argued this appeal as Amicus Curiae with ability and actually assisted the Court effectively. We provide that he shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 11,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad, to Mr. Avinash Jaiswal, Amicus Curiae, without any delay and, in any case, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.