Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1893 (ALL)

Arun Mishra v. State of U. P.

2024-08-14

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.-This appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.1.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 2)/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mahoba in Special Case No. 29 of 2009 (State v. Arun Mishra), arising out of Case Crime No. 1596 of 2008, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba, whereby the accused appellant Arun Mishra has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act and on failure to deposit fine to undergo additional simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Informant in the present case belongs to scheduled caste and is a resident of Village Rikhwaha, Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba. Accused appellant was a Watcher in the forest and had engaged several ladies and gents of the village for afforestation work at Badarwara. Informant and his wife (victim) were also engaged in the project. On 12.9.2008 the plantation work on one side got over but some of the trees were still left to be planted by the informant's wife for which the accused detained the victim. Other ladies were allowed to go. At about 12.00 in the afternoon when the victim was going towards other ladies, she was grabbed by the accused appellant, who laid her on the ground and by extending threat subjected her to sexual assault. Informant's wife (victim) out of fear did not inform other ladies, but on her way back to home she told about the incident to her brother-in-law (Jeth) namely, Ganpat (not produced). On reaching home she informed of the incident to informant but due to threats it was not discussed. Two days later accused threatened informant's wife to give him her silver belly chain (half-peti) or else he would kill the entire family. Under threat the victim gave her silver belly chain to the accused without telling it to her husband. When the informant came to know of the incident, he asked the accused to return the silver belly chain or else he would report the incident. On this the accused returned the silver belly chain. The informant accordingly has come to lodge the report. The report was not lodged earlier due to threat. The written report has been made on 23.9.2008 by the informant Pyarelal (PW-1). The report was scribed by Dashrath Kumar, Advocate (PW-5). On this the accused returned the silver belly chain. The informant accordingly has come to lodge the report. The report was not lodged earlier due to threat. The written report has been made on 23.9.2008 by the informant Pyarelal (PW-1). The report was scribed by Dashrath Kumar, Advocate (PW-5). On the basis of the above information, in respect of the offence committed on 12.9.2008 at 12.00 in the afternoon, the FIR got lodged on 23.9.2008 at 20.30 hours, under Sections 376, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(XII) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station Kulpahar, District Mahoba. 3. The victim was medically examined at 2.00 pm on 24.9.2008 at District Hospital, Mahoba, wherein no internal or external injury was found on any part of her body. No injury was found on the private parts of the victim, either. Two slides of vaginal smear were prepared and sent for pathological report. The report of the Pathologist shows no signs of dead or live spermatozoa. Statement of witnesses were recorded in the matter, whereafter a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused appellant on 6.10.2008 under Section 497 IPC and 3(1)(XII) SC/ST Act. Cognizance was taken in the matter and the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 2), Mahoba as Special Case No. 29 of 2009 (State v. Arun Mishra). Charges were framed on 27.9.2010 and also on 2.3.2020 under the aforesaid sections as also under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. The accused denied the accusation and demanded trial. 4. During the course of trial, documentary evidence have been adduced by the prosecution in the form of FIR as Ex.Ka-7; written report as Ex.Ka-1; injury report as Ex.Ka-4, injury report as Ex.Ka-5; supplementary report as Ex.Ka-6; charge-sheet as Ex.Ka-3; and site plan with Index as Ex.Ka-2. 5. In addition to above, during the course of trial, informant has appeared as PW-1 and has supported the prosecution case. He has alleged that his wife was sexually assaulted on account of threat extended to her. None was present at the place of occurrence. Informant did not come out of house for two days as the accused kept roaming nearby his house armed with an axe. Two days later when the informant had gone to Kulpahar the accused extended threats and took his wife's silver belly chain (Half-peti). Accused was a Watcher in the Forest Department. None was present at the place of occurrence. Informant did not come out of house for two days as the accused kept roaming nearby his house armed with an axe. Two days later when the informant had gone to Kulpahar the accused extended threats and took his wife's silver belly chain (Half-peti). Accused was a Watcher in the Forest Department. On return when the informant came to know of it, he asked the accused to return the silver belly chain (Half-peti) or else he would report the matter. The accused then returned the silver belly chain (Half-peti). The informant alleges that he kept visiting the police station for lodging the report regarding rape but the same was not lodged. Informant then took Ashok Baudh and Dashrath, Advocate with him only whereafter the report was lodged after it was scribed by Dashrath, Advocate, on his dictation. The witness has proved the written report (PW-1). The victim was medically examined at Mahoba. 6. In the cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he does not know the value of the silver belly chain, and that the victim had not worn the ornament while going to work. When the ornament was not returned by the accused, he came to Dashrath Vakeel. By the time he came to Dashrath, Advocate, the silver ornament was already returned. PW-1 claimed that the silver belly chain was given to the accused without informing him. Accused had not taken the silver belly chain from his house. It (silver belly chain) was also not given to the accused at the Jungle rather it was given near the well. No body was present when the ornament was given to the accused. PW-1 has admitted that he felt extremely annoyed when he came to know that accused has taken his wife's silver belly chain. His report was not lodged initially by the police and only when he came with Advocate Dashrath and Ashok Baudh to the police station that his report was lodged. Informant was not aware that Ashok Baudh was the District President of the Ruling Party. Ashok Baudh is also a relative of the witness. His signatures were obtained on the written report. On coming out of Police Station, Dashrath, Advocate had not informed him that accused will be arrested or sent to jail. The silver ornament was not produced in Court. Ashok Baudh is also a relative of the witness. His signatures were obtained on the written report. On coming out of Police Station, Dashrath, Advocate had not informed him that accused will be arrested or sent to jail. The silver ornament was not produced in Court. Accused is a Government Servant working in the Forest Department. 7. PW-1 during cross-examination admitted that on the asking of accused he had gone for work alongwith his wife to the forest. Accused never withheld the wages of informant or his wife. Informant and his wife were never thrown out of work by the accused. Rape was not committed in his presence. None, except his wife, was present at the place of occurrence. Informant was told about the incident of rape prior to taking of silver belly chain by the accused appellant. Though it is alleged that the informant had visited the concerned authorities on the next day but his report was not lodged. The complaint typed for the purpose, however, was not produced. It was also not given to the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that due to non-providing of work a false police report was lodged alongwith Dashrath, Advocate and Ashok Baudh. On the date of incident Maan Singh was working with the victim in the garden. PW-1 was working in the garden for the last 5-6 days. He was not having his meal with his wife. On the fateful day also, he told his wife that he shall work only up-till lunch, and that he did so. He had his meal separately while his wife had her meal separately. He left without informing his wife that he is leaving for home. PW-1 had informed the scribe of report that silver ornament was returned two days earlier and he cannot explain why this fact was not mentioned in the written report. He also stated that such statement was made by him to the Investigating Officer also and he cannot explain why such facts are not mentioned in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 8. Victim was produced during trial as PW-2. She has supported the prosecution case. It was 12.00 O'clock in the afternoon when she was planting trees in the nursery. Two trees were left to be planted. Accused appellant instructed her to plant remaining two trees and sent all the other ladies working in the nursery. Victim was produced during trial as PW-2. She has supported the prosecution case. It was 12.00 O'clock in the afternoon when she was planting trees in the nursery. Two trees were left to be planted. Accused appellant instructed her to plant remaining two trees and sent all the other ladies working in the nursery. Worker Maan Singh remained at the nursery. PW-2 informed that she is going to deliver meal (breads) to her husband. After delivering meals she returned for work. By the time she returned, Maan Singh had also left. Victim thereafter was also going towards other ladies when accused grabbed her near Purwaria, and pushed her. She tried to escape but she was again grabbed by the accused, who committed sexual assault upon her. Accused had put clothe in her mouth, so she could not scream. Nobody was present there. On return she informed about the incident to her brother-in-law (Jeth) Ganpat and later told about the incident to her husband. Two days thereafter the accused took her silver belly chain. The report was lodged by her husband two days later. 9. In the cross-examination, PW-2 stated that her husband was the only male member working there. Prior to plantation in the nursery she had not gone for work anywhere else. On the date of incident her husband was not present. She had given meal to her husband 10 minutes prior to the interval. As soon as PW-2 gave the meal to her husband he told her that he was not having his meal there, although prior to the incident he used to have his meal with her. She used to go for work with her husband and return together. She had seen her husband leaving from the place of work. She did not inform accused appellant that her husband would not return for work after 12.00 O'clock. She asserted that accused was with him for half an hour and committed rape once. 10. In her further cross-examination, PW-2 stated that while returning on the date of incident she met Ganpat and told him about the incident. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that she was seen with the accused by Ganpat. Two days later her silver ornament had been taken by the accused. She used to obey the accused as he would threaten her with an axe. Accused never threatened her in presence of her husband. PW-2 has denied the suggestion that she was seen with the accused by Ganpat. Two days later her silver ornament had been taken by the accused. She used to obey the accused as he would threaten her with an axe. Accused never threatened her in presence of her husband. Silver belly chain was taken by the accused by threatening her with axe. She told her husband about giving of silver ornament two days later. Her husband told that he would now have to go to Dashrath, Advocate. When she informed the Advocate about taking of silver belly chain then the Advocate said that he would lodge such report against the accused that he would have to go to jail. The silver ornament was returned after lodging of the report. The silver ornament has now been sold by her husband and the same is not with her now. 11. PW-3, Brijmohan Singh was the Investigating Officer of the case and has proved the police papers. He recorded the statement of various person and had filed the charge-sheet. The victim had not disclosed him about receiving of threat by showing axe. He had recorded the statement of Ganpat, who did not tell him that the incident was disclosed to him by the victim, rather he came to know of it after lodging of case from uncle Mukundi. Upon investigation he did not find any evidence of rape upon the victim. 12. PW-4 is Dr. Rashmi Sharma. She medically examined the victim on 24.9.2008 at 2.00 pm. She has proved the pathology report, wherein no semen has been found. She found no signs of physical assault or coercion. 13. PW-5 is Advocate Dashrath Kumar who has scribed the written report. He has stated that informant came to him and told him about rape on his wife by the accused, as well as threats by the accused to the victim. He has stated that written report has been prepared by him. In the cross-examination PW-5 has stated that he is working as Advocate from prior to 2008. He has admitted that the written report was lodged after deliberation and consultation. He has denied the suggestion that report has been written on his own and not on the instructions of the informant. 14. PW-6 is Kalka Prasad Richhariya, who was working as Helper in the forest department. He has admitted that the written report was lodged after deliberation and consultation. He has denied the suggestion that report has been written on his own and not on the instructions of the informant. 14. PW-6 is Kalka Prasad Richhariya, who was working as Helper in the forest department. He has denied the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Constable Roop Singh has been produced as PW-7 and has proved the chick FIR and GD entry. 15. The above evidence of prosecution has been confronted to the accused for recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has alleged the evidence to be false. He has stated that the FIR contents are false and have been prepared by an Advocate purposively. The defence has produced Maan Singh as DW-1, who has stated that on 12.9.2008 he was working with the victim and the informant, and that no such incident of rape was committed by the accused. In the cross-examination, DW-1 has admitted that he has been asked to give evidence by the accused. He has denied having given any statement to police that the accused and the victim were having close terms and used to crack jokes etc., or that physical relations were performed by them. 16. On the basis of above evidence led by the parties, during the trial, the Court of sessions has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. The accused, however, has been acquitted of the charges levelled under Section 497 IPC read with Section 3(1)(XII) SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence the accused appellant has preferred the present appeal. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the persuasion of PW-5, who scribed a false written report, on his own, just to secure return of silver belly chain. He submits that FIR has been lodged after consultation and deliberation. Learned counsel further argues that the reason of discord between the parties was giving of silver belly chain to the accused, by the victim, for its safe custody. It is also highlighted that in fact the husband of victim later sold it to someone and the victim has thus lost it for all times to come. Learned counsel further argues that the reason of discord between the parties was giving of silver belly chain to the accused, by the victim, for its safe custody. It is also highlighted that in fact the husband of victim later sold it to someone and the victim has thus lost it for all times to come. Argument is that since silver belly chain was given to the accused for its safe custody, without the knowledge of the husband and as soon as he came to know of it a false report has been lodged in order to secure its return. The FIR has been lodged with false allegation of rape, whereas no such offence was actually committed. It is submitted that weight of evidence has been completely discarded and misconstrued by the Court of sessions while convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. Learned counsel also argues that there is no corroboration of the testimony of victim and the very statement of victim clearly shows that the incident was something else but has rather been made out a case of rape for ulterior reasons. 18. Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA appearing for the State, however, submit that the evidence on record clearly proves the commissioning of offence and in such circumstances, the finding returned by the Court of sessions merits no interference and the appeal merits rejection. 19. We have heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Archana Singh, learned AGA for the State and have perused the materials brought on record. 20. The prosecution case emanates on the written report of the informant, which has been scribed by PW-5. The written report is dated 23.9.2008 in respect of the incident of 12.9.2008 at 12.00 in the afternoon. The report is thus lodged after eleven days of the incident. The written report is essentially in two parts. The first part relates to committing of rape by the accused on the informant's wife at around 12.00 in the afternoon, which fact was allegedly disclosed by the victim to her brother-in-law Ganpat on the date of incident itself. However, on account of threats extended by the accused, no FIR was lodged on that day. The first part relates to committing of rape by the accused on the informant's wife at around 12.00 in the afternoon, which fact was allegedly disclosed by the victim to her brother-in-law Ganpat on the date of incident itself. However, on account of threats extended by the accused, no FIR was lodged on that day. The second part of the written report relates to threats being extended by the accused for taking silver belly chain from the informant's wife and taking such ornament from the victim without the knowledge of the informant; demand for return of silver ornament by the informant and the actual return of the ornament by the accused to the informant. Delay in filing of the FIR is sought to be explained by contending that out of fear the report was not lodged earlier. 21. So far as the first part of the incident is concerned, it is admitted on record that there is no independent eye-witness account of it. As such offences are otherwise done in seclusion it is hard to find an independent witness of the crime. It is from surrounding circumstances, medical evidence and the version of victim that the offence can be proved. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 would go to show that the informant and the victim, both, were working in the plantation work undertaken by the forest department. They used to come together for work and would go back together. However, on the date of incident i.e. 12.9.2008, the informant returned from work at around 12.00 O'clock and did not return for work in the later half of the day. The victim claims that she gave meal to her husband around lunch time but instead of having it there, the informant returned taking his meal with him. Other workers engaged at the plantation also left. The victim, nevertheless, was detained at the plantation nursery since few trees were yet to be planted by her. Maan Singh was the only person left behind, who also left a little later. It is the prosecution case that while victim was leaving towards other ladies she was grabbed by the accused and raped on the strength of threats. This part of the prosecution case is based entirely upon the statement of victim herself. 22. Maan Singh was the only person left behind, who also left a little later. It is the prosecution case that while victim was leaving towards other ladies she was grabbed by the accused and raped on the strength of threats. This part of the prosecution case is based entirely upon the statement of victim herself. 22. What transpires from the record is that while the incident of rape was committed by the accused appellant on the victim, yet the victim did not report the incident to anyone. According to the prosecution the victim informed of the incident of rape to Ganpat (victim's jeth) while returning from work. Ganpat is not produced in evidence. No reasons are explained as to why Ganpat was not produced. Ganpat is not even shown a witness in the charge-sheet. In this regard the testimony of the Investigating Officer assumes significance. He has stated that during the investigation statement of Ganpat was recorded, who clearly stated that the victim never informed him about rape, and that such fact came to his notice on the disclosure of Mukundi uncle. This part of the testimony of the Investigating Officer is reproduced hereinafter : 23. Informant moreover has alleged that prior to the incident of taking silver belly chain by the accused appellant from his wife, he was already informed of the offence of rape. He claims that an application was got prepared to report the incident and he had also gone to the police station to lodge it but the report was not lodged. PW-1 has specifically stated that he came to the police station on the very next day when his wife told him about the incident of rape. However, neither any written report has been produced, nor its copy has been furnished to the investigating officer. It is somewhat surprising that the act of rape was not reported by the victim to anyone including her own husband on the date of incident or soon thereafter. This is so as the incident was not reported. Though it is the case of PW-1 that the incident was informed to him by the victim but out of fear he did not report it to anyone. The fact that for more than ten days no report was lodged of rape creates doubt on the prosecution case when no plausible explanation is offered for the long delay. 24. Though it is the case of PW-1 that the incident was informed to him by the victim but out of fear he did not report it to anyone. The fact that for more than ten days no report was lodged of rape creates doubt on the prosecution case when no plausible explanation is offered for the long delay. 24. As already noticed, the specific case of the prosecution is that the incident was reported on the date of incident itself by the victim to Ganpat, but there is no evidence on record to prove it, inasmuch as, Ganpat is not produced. We have already noticed the statement of I.O., as per which, no such statement was given by Ganpat to the I.O. We, therefore, find that the prosecution evidence is lacking on the point of disclosure of incident of rape upon the victim to Ganpat. It is also not clear as to when the incident of rape was reported by the victim to her husband. The victim is a married lady and if an act of rape is committed upon her the natural conduct of the victim would be to report it either to the police or at least to some member of the family or in whom she reposes confidence. No evidence is led on this count. 25. The second part of the prosecution story with regard to giving of silver belly chain to the accused by the victim remains shrouded in mystery. We are at a loss to understand as to why the lady gave her silver belly chain to the accused two days after she was raped by him. This silver belly chain is neither produced, nor exhibited during trial. 26. It is admitted to PW-2 (victim) that she did not give silver belly chain to the accused in the forest. She also says that the silver belly chain was not given by her to the accused at her house, rather case of the victim is that she gave it to the accused near the well. Statement of victim, in this regard, reads as under : 27. So far as the accused threatening the victim with axe is concerned, the Investigating Officer in his statement has clearly stated that the victim made no such disclosure to him about accused having extended threats of axe. Statement of victim, in this regard, reads as under : 27. So far as the accused threatening the victim with axe is concerned, the Investigating Officer in his statement has clearly stated that the victim made no such disclosure to him about accused having extended threats of axe. This part of the testimony of PW-2 is a clear improvement over what was disclosed by her to the I.O. during investigation. 28. We also find from the testimony of PW-2 that threats were extended to her by the accused only when she was alone. We find this part of the version of PW-2 to be somewhat strange inasmuch as the consistent prosecution case is that large number of ladies were employed for plantation at the nursery wherein the husband of the victim was also employed. It is not clear as to when and how the victim was alone with the accused at other times such that the accused could threaten her when such large number of workers were engaged at the place of occurrence. The incident of 12.9.2008 is otherwise reported to be an isolated incident when the victim was alone with the accused. There is no evidence of the prosecution that on other occasions also the victim was alone with the accused. In such circumstances the version of the victim of having received threats from the accused appellant and on account of such threats silver belly chain being given to the accused remains unexplained. 29. The evidence on record is primarily on the second part of the allegation contained in the written report i.e. giving of silver belly chain by the victim to the accused. PW-1 has clearly stated that his wife gave silver belly chain to the accused without his knowledge. He got enraged on coming to know of it and had even gone to lodge a report which was not registered. It was thereafter that the informant had gone to the Dashrath vakeel and Ashok Bouddha. Ashok Boudhha was the District President of the Ruling Party. The version of PW-1, in that regard, is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter : 30. Version of PW-2 is on similar lines and is reproduced as under : 31. The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination had admitted that he found no proof of any rape having been committed on the victim by the accused. The version of PW-1, in that regard, is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter : 30. Version of PW-2 is on similar lines and is reproduced as under : 31. The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination had admitted that he found no proof of any rape having been committed on the victim by the accused. This specific statement of the Investigating Officer reads as under : 32. We have already noticed that PW-5, who is the scribe of the written report has clearly admitted that the written report to lodge the FIR was prepared after due deliberation and consultation. 33. Upon evaluation of the evidence on record, we do find substance in the argument of the defence that in fact the victim had given silver belly chain to the accused appellant for its safe custody, without the knowledge and consent of her husband. When this fact came to the knowledge of the informant-husband, he got annoyed and with the intent of securing return of the silver belly chain a written report was prepared under the advise of an advocate so as to compel the accused appellant to return the silver belly chain. The statement of the victim is categorical in this regard. In her deposition she has clearly stated that when the advocate was informed that accused has taken her silver belly chain, he assured that he would lodge such report in the matter that the accused will have to go to Jail. She has stated that after the proceedings were initiated against the accused appellant, the silver belly chain has been returned by the accused to the victim. In the further deposition the victim says that the ornament has been sold by her husband. Her version, in that regard, is extracted hereinafter : 34. Upon analysis of the evidence brought on record in the present case, we are persuaded to accept the defence argument that prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the allegation of rape against the accused appellant and the accused appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, inasmuch as, various aspects relating to prosecution case remains unexplained. For the sake of convenience these aspects are reiterated as under : ''(i) there is no independent corroboration of the version of victim regarding rape and her testimony is inconsistent with the weight of evidence on record. For the sake of convenience these aspects are reiterated as under : ''(i) there is no independent corroboration of the version of victim regarding rape and her testimony is inconsistent with the weight of evidence on record. Though rape was alleged on 12.9.2008 at about 12.00 in the afternoon, but the report has been lodged after 11 days without any explanation of the unusual delay; (ii) the prosecution case that victim informed of rape to Ganpat is not proved as Ganpat is not produced in evidence, moreover the Investigation Officer states that Ganpat made no such disclosure to him during investigation, rather Ganpat came to know of the incident after the report was lodged; (iii) there is no disclosure as to when the victim informed of the incident of rape to her husband. The version of PW-1 that such fact was disclosed to him by the victim is inconsistent with the version of victim (PW-2), who specifically asserts that the incident of rape was disclosed by her to Ganpat and it was later only that the husband was informed; (iv) medical report shows existence of no injuries or even scratch marks, etc., on the body of the deceased; (v) the version of victim that she was threatened with an axe is a clear improvement from her previous version as per the Investigating Officer; (vi) the allegation of rape is made only after the second incident of giving silver belly chain to the accused appellant by the victim; (vii) statement of PW-2 and PW-5 clearly reveals that the report was lodged on the basis of advise of the lawyer who assured that accused would now have to go to Jail.'' 35. On a cumulative assessment of the evidence on record it cannot be ruled out that the allegation of rape was introduced in the written report, on the basis of deliberation and consultation with the advocate, only with the intent to secure the return of silver belly chain to the victim. This is particularly so, as the informant admits that incident of rape was reported to him earlier but the report was lodged with the police only after the victim gave silver belly chain to the accused. This is particularly so, as the informant admits that incident of rape was reported to him earlier but the report was lodged with the police only after the victim gave silver belly chain to the accused. In the absence of any credible explanation of delay in reporting of the incident coupled with the inherent contradiction in the prosecution case, as noticed above, we are inclined to hold that the defence is entitled to benefit of doubt in the matter. 36. We have also perused the judgment of trial Court in which the aspects relating to contradictory and inconsistent version of the victim and informant have been clearly overlooked. The fact that there was no corroboration of the victim's allegation regarding rape coupled with the fact that rape was not reported and it was only later that such incident was alleged in order to secure the return of silver belly chain has been overlooked. 37. We further find that though the Court of Sessions has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, but there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the offence of rape was committed on the victim on account of her caste identity. Not a single word is uttered by any of the prosecution witnesses nor any other evidence is adduced by the prosecution to establish that the offence was committed upon the victim, by the accused appellant on account of her caste identity. In the absence of any evidence worth the name the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act is clearly not made out against the accused-appellant. Even otherwise, once we come to the conclusion that offence of rape itself is not established beyond reasonable doubt the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act becomes impermissible. 38. In what manner an offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act can be established has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patan Jamal Vali v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (2021) 16 SCC 225 . In para 62 to 64 of the report, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the prosecution must prove that the offence was committed on account of caste identity of the victim by the accused appellant, which are reproduced hereinafter : ''62. In para 62 to 64 of the report, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the prosecution must prove that the offence was committed on account of caste identity of the victim by the accused appellant, which are reproduced hereinafter : ''62. The issue as to whether the offence was committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of an SC or ST or such property belongs to such member is to be established by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence at the trial. We agree with the Sessions Judge that the prosecution's case would not fail merely because PW 1 did not mention in her statement to the police that the offence was committed against her daughter because she was a Scheduled Caste woman. However, there is no separate evidence led by the prosecution to show that the accused committed the offence on the basis of the caste identity of PW 2. While it would be reasonable to presume that the accused knew the caste of PW 2 since village communities are tightly knit and the accused was also an acquaintance of PW 2's family, the knowledge by itself cannot be said to be the basis of the commission of offence, having regard to the language of Section 3(2)(v) as it stood at the time when the offence in the present case was committed. As we have discussed above, due to the intersectional nature of oppression PW 2 faces, it becomes difficult to establish what led to the commission of offence - whether it was her caste, gender or disability. This highlights the limitation of a provision where causation of a wrongful act arises from a single ground or what we refer to as the single axis model. 63. It is pertinent to mention that Section 3(2)(v) was amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, which came into effect on 26-1-2016. The words ''on the ground of'' under Section 3(2)(v) have been substituted with ''knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe''. This has decreased the threshold of proving that a crime was committed on the basis of the caste identity to a threshold where mere knowledge is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The words ''on the ground of'' under Section 3(2)(v) have been substituted with ''knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe''. This has decreased the threshold of proving that a crime was committed on the basis of the caste identity to a threshold where mere knowledge is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Section 8 which deals with presumptions as to offences was also amended to include clause (c) to provide that if the accused was acquainted with the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim unless proved otherwise. The amended Section 8 reads as follows: ''8. Presumption as to offences.-In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that- (a) the accused rendered any financial assistance in relation to the offences committed by a person accused of, or reasonably suspected of, committing, an offence under this Chapter, the Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person had abetted the offence; (b) a group of persons committed an offence under this Chapter and if it is proved that the offence committed was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it shall be presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention or in prosecution of the common object. (c) the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.'' 64. The Parliament Standing Committee Report on Atrocities Against Women and Children has observed that, ''high acquittal rate motivates and boosts the confidence of dominant and powerful communities for continued perpetration'' and recommends inclusion of provisions of the SC & ST Act while registering cases of gendered violence against women from the SC & ST communities. However, as we have noted, one of the ways in which offences against SC & ST women fall through the cracks is due to the evidentiary burden that becomes almost impossible to meet in cases of intersectional oppression. This is especially the case when Courts tend to read the requirement of ''on the ground'' under Section 3(2)(v) as ''only on the ground of''. This is especially the case when Courts tend to read the requirement of ''on the ground'' under Section 3(2)(v) as ''only on the ground of''. The current regime under the SC & ST Act, post the amendment, has facilitated the conduct of an intersectional analysis under the Act by replacing the causation requirement under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act with a knowledge requirement making the regime sensitive to the kind of evidence that is likely to be generated in cases such as these.'' 39. There is no evidence on record to show that the offence of rape was committed by the accused appellant on account of the caste identity of the victim. In the absence of any evidence in that regard, we hold that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act is not made out against the accused appellant. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act is, therefore, reversed. 40. Consequently, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.1.2021, passed in Special Case No. 29 of 2009 (State v. Arun Mishra), is set aside. The appellant Arun Mishra shall be released from Jail, forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.