# Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 775
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2003
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-singh-v-state-of-u-p-53446
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 -
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section
3(2)(v) - Rape and Caste-Based Offence -
Appellant challenged conviction under Section
376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act for raping a
minor Scheduled Caste girl, sentenced to 10 years
rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine and life
imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine, respectively.
Prosecution
relied
on
victim's
testimony,
corroborated by informant (father), alleging
forcible rape in an Arhar field. Appellant argued
the victim was major, consented, and no castebased motive existed, citing absence of injuries
and medical findings of habitual intercourse. The
court held the victim's testimony, supported by
prompt FIR and informant's account, was reliable,
and absence of injuries or spermatozoa did not
negate rape, per St. of Rajasthan vs. Noore Khan
and Prithichand vs. St. of H.P.. Victim's age was
confirmed as 14 years 6 months via school
records, negating consent, per St. of U.P. vs.
Manoj Kumar Pandey. However, no evidence
showed the rape was committed due to the
victim's Scheduled Caste status, making Section
3(2)(v) inapplicable, per Dinesh @ Buddha vs. St.
of Rajasthan. Conviction under Section 376 IPC
upheld, sentence reduced to 7 years with fine
enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 considering appellant's
age and time elapsed. Conviction under Section
3(2)(v) SC/ST Act set aside. Appeal partly allowed.
(Paras 24-40)

Appeal partly allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,987 of 43,906. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39987 for what follows._

5 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
775
equally true that the learned Counsel, who
are responsible officers of the Court, are
also under duty to assist the Court properly
in dispensation of Justice. Although lack of
proper assistance would be no excuse to an
unjust order but it is equally true that had
this Court missed the aforesaid material
available on record which was not pointed
out by any of the learned Counsel
appearing in the case, the injustice being
meted out to a child would have continued.

24. It is directed that the Special
Judge, POCSO Court, Pratapgarh shall
decide the application dated 08.04.2024
filed in Case No. 2083 of 2024 arising out
of Case Crime No. 52/2024, under Sections
363, 366, 376(3) IPC & 5J(2) 5L(6) of
POCSO
Act,
Police
Station
Aaspur,
Desara, District Pratapgarh for declaring
the applicant as a juvenile, expeditiously
without granting unnecessary adjournment
to any of the parties and in case the
applicant is found to be a juvenile, he
should be dealt with in accordance with the
provisions of Juvenile Justice Care and
Protection Act.

25. The Registrar General is directed
to circulate a copy of this order to all the
Judicial Officers in the State through the
District Judges of all the districts with the
object of sensitizing the judicial officers to
be more careful while dealing with criminal
matters where the accused appears to be a
juvenile or he claims to be a juvenile.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 775
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2003

Sanjay Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri B.N. Rai, Sri Adarsh Kumar, Sri
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Ms. Vijay Laxmi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 -
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section
3(2)(v) - Rape and Caste-Based Offence -
Appellant challenged conviction under Section
376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act for raping a
minor Scheduled Caste girl, sentenced to 10 years
rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine and life
imprisonment with Rs. 5,000 fine, respectively.
Prosecution
relied
on
victim's
testimony,
corroborated by informant (father), alleging
forcible rape in an Arhar field. Appellant argued
the victim was major, consented, and no castebased motive existed, citing absence of injuries
and medical findings of habitual intercourse. The
court held the victim's testimony, supported by
prompt FIR and informant's account, was reliable,
and absence of injuries or spermatozoa did not
negate rape, per St. of Rajasthan vs. Noore Khan
and Prithichand vs. St. of H.P.. Victim's age was
confirmed as 14 years 6 months via school
records, negating consent, per St. of U.P. vs.
Manoj Kumar Pandey. However, no evidence
showed the rape was committed due to the
victim's Scheduled Caste status, making Section
3(2)(v) inapplicable, per Dinesh @ Buddha vs. St.
of Rajasthan. Conviction under Section 376 IPC
upheld, sentence reduced to 7 years with fine
enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000 considering appellant's
age and time elapsed. Conviction under Section
3(2)(v) SC/ST Act set aside. Appeal partly allowed.
(Paras 24-40)

Appeal partly allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of Rajasthan vs. Noore Khan, (2000) 3
SLT 389
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. St. of Punjab vs. Ram Dev Singh, (2004) 1
SCC 421

3. Prithichand vs. St. of H.P., (1989) 1 SCC 432

4. Narayanamma vs. St. of Karnataka, (1994) 5
SCC 728

5. St. of U.P. vs. Manoj Kumar Pandey, (2009) 1
SCC 72

6. Satpal Singh vs. St. of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC
714

7. Dinesh @ Buddha vs. St. of Rajasthan,
(2006) 3 SCC 771

8. Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. St. of
Maharashtra, (2000) 3 SCC 557

9. Ramdas and Others vs. St. of Maharashtra,
(2007) 2 SCC 170

10. Narain Trivedi and Others vs. St. of U.P.,
2009 (2) ALJ 550

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dharmendr Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant, Shri
Virendra Kumar Pal, learned A.G.A for the
State and perused the material available on
record.

2. This instant criminal appeal has
been filed by the convicted appellant-
Sanjay Singh against the judgment and
order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Court
of Special Judge, (S.C/S.T Act), Kanpur
Dehat, in Special Sessions Trial No. 98 of
1998 (State v. Sanjay Singh), Case Crime
No. 315 of 1997 under Section 376 I.P.C
and 3 (2)(5) S.C/S.T Act, Police Station
Mangalpur,
District
Kanpur
Dehat,
whereby the appellant has been convicted
for offences under Section 376 I.P.C and
sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous
imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.
5,000/- and under Section 3(2)(5) of
S.C/S.C
Act
for
live
imprisonment
alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default,
he has been sentenced to undergo further
imprisonment of one year under each
conviction. All the sentences have been
ordered to run concurrently.

3. The factual matrix is that the
first informant -'R' P.W.-1 had given an
application dated 11.12.1997 (Ex.Ka-1) in
Police Station Mangalpur, Kanpur Dehat,
with the averments, that today at about
12:00 noon her daughter 'K' aged about 14
years, had gone to defecate with a mug
(Lota) from his house in the field of Ganga
Ram @ Ganddhu and after defecating,
when she was returning, then one Sanjay
Singh forcibly grabbed the hand of victim
'K' and dragged her in the Arhar field of
Ganga Ram @ Ganddhu, slammed her
down,
her
mouth
was
gagged,
her
underwear was pulled off, thereafter wrong
act was committed on her. Her daughter
was shouting. On hearing her, he and Ram
Pal and his brother Raj Kumar, who was
working with him in Abadi land and
sowing coriander(Dhania), rushed to that
place and saw that Sanjay Singh was lying
on her daughter with his pant down, doing
wrong act. On seeing them, Sanjay Singh
fled towards north, who was chased, but
could not be apprehended.

4. On the basis of above Tehrir,
Ex.Ka-1 by the first informant 'R'
(examined as P.W-1 in trial), Case Crime
No. 315 of 1997, under Section 376 I.P.C
and Section 3 (2) (12) of S.C/S.T Act was
registered on 11.12.1997 at 14:00 hours
against the accused Sanjay Singh at Police
Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat
and corresponding G.D Entry No. 25 was
made at 14:00 hours on 11.12.1997. The
check F.I.R and G.D Entry have been
proved as Ex. Ka-11 and Ex. Ka-12 by Sri
5 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
777
Om Prakash Sharma, retired Deputy S.P.
(examined as P.W 5 in trial).

5. The investigation of the case was
handed over to Sri Om Prakash Sharma
P.W. 5, who recovered the underwear of
the victim 'K', on which blood and semen
stains were found. The Recovery Memo of
the underwear is Ex.Ka-2. The shorts
(Nekar) which the accused was wearing at
the time of incident was also seized and the
Recovery Memo Ex.Ka-10 was prepared.

6. The victim 'K' P.W.-2 was
examined by Dr. Draupadi Jatariya P.W.-3
on 12.12.1997 at 05:00 p.m. The victim's
medical examination report is Ex. K-5,
according to which, no injury marks were
found on her body and private parts.
Hymen was old torn and the vagina
admitted two fingers easily. Swab was
taken from vagina to determine the
presence of dead or alive spermatozoa and
for age determination the x-ray of right
elbow, left wrist and right knee joint of the
victim was advised.

7. The victim was again examined
on 13.01.1998 at 01:15 p.m. jointly by Dr.
Shubha Mishra, and another doctor. In this
examination, no injury was found on
private parts and internal aspect of thighs.
Hymen was found torn and replaced by old
healed granular tags. Vagina was admitting
two fingers easily, uterus was of normal
size. The victim was menstruating and
blood was coming out from O.S. The
doctors opined that 'K' was used to sexual
intercourse.

8. Supplementary report Ex.Ka-6
of victim 'K' was prepared by Dr.
Draupadi Jatariya on 30.12.1997, in which,
she could not give any definite opinion
regarding rape as she was used to sexual
intercourse. As per the x-ray report, the
victim's age was assessed to be about 17
years.

9. The underwear of the victim and
the shorts (Nekar) of the accused were sent
to
the
Forensic
Science
Laboratory,
Lucknow for examination, whose report
dated 03.02.1998 is Ex. Ka-8. According to
which, human blood was found on the
under-wear of the victim but no semen and
spermatozoa were found on the shorts
(Nekar) of the accused and underwear of
the victim.

10. After investigation chargesheet
Ex.Ka-13
against
the
accused/appellant
Sanjay
Singh under
Section 376 I.P.C and Section 3(2)(12)
S.C/S.T Act, was submitted, on which
cognizance was taken and subsequently,
charge against the accused was framed on
10.07.2000 under Section 376 read with
Section3(2)(5) S.C/S.T Act, to which the
accused denied, had pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.

11. The prosecution has examined
the following witnesses, who have proved
the following documents:-

Sl.
NO.

Witnesses
Document
proved.

1.
Informant 'R'
P.W.1

Tehrir as Ex.
Ka-1, Recovery
Memo
of
victim's
underwear
as
Ex.Ka-2,
underwear
of
victim
as
Material
Ex1,Certified copy
of High School
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Certificate
of
victim
as
Ex.Ka-3
and
Certified copy
of High School
marksheet
of
victim as Ex.
Ka-4

2.
Victim
'K'
P.W.2

No
document
proved.

3.
Dr. Draupadi
Jatariya, PW.
3

Medical
examination
report of victim
as Ex.Ka-5. and
supplementary
medical report
of victim as Ex.
Ka-6.

4.
Dr.
R.N.
Tripathi,
Radiologist.
P.W.4

X-ray report of
victim as Ex.
Ka-7 and X-ray
Plate
as
material Ex.-2.

5.
Sri
Om
Prakash
Sharma,
retired
Dy.
S.P.
(Investigating
Officer)
P.W.5

F.S.L report as
Ex. Ka-8, Site
plan as Ex.Ka9,
Recovery
Memo of shorts
(nekar)
of
accused as Ex.
Ka-10,Check
F.I.R, as Ex.
Ka-11,
G.D. Entry of
Registration of
F.I.R as Ex. Ka12,
Chargesheet as Ex. Ka-
13.
12. The accused Sanjay Singh in
his statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C has accepted that he belongs to
Thakur community and the victim belongs
to Scheduled Caste (Chamar) community,
who was known to him. The accused has
denied the prosecution story and has said
that he has been falsely implicated due to
enmity.

13. The first informant 'R' P.W. 1
has mentioned in his examination-in-chief
that he belongs to Chamar caste. The
accused belongs to Thakur caste, who
belongs to his village. At the time of
incident, his daughter 'K' was aged about
14 years, who was studying in Class 'X'.
The accused knew that 'K' belongs to
Chamar caste. On 11.12.1997 at 12:00
noon 'K' had gone to defecate in Ganga
Ram @ Ganddhu's Lahi field. On hearing
the noise of 'K' he, his brother 'R' and one
Ram Pal had rushed towards the field, then
they had seen in the arhar field of Ganddhu,
that accused Sanjay Singh was committing
wrong act on 'K', who had fled towards
north, on seeing them, who was chased but
he managed to flee. The accused had
forcibly committed wrong act with 'K'. He
had written the Tehrir himself and had gone
alongwith 'X' to Police Station Mangalpur.
The informant has proved the Tehrir as
Ex.Ka-1.The victim was examined on
12.12.1997 and her x-ray examination was
conducted on 13.12.1997. The I.O. had
seized the underwear of the victim 'K' and
had prepared the Recovery Memo which
bears his signature, which has been proved
as Ex.Ka-2. The informant has proved the
dark-green under-wear of the victim in the
Court, as material Ex.-1.

14. The informant 'R' has further
proved the date of birth of the victim on the
basis of her High School Certificate and
Mark Sheet, and has proved the attested
copy of High School Certificate as Ex. Ka-
5 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
779
3 and the Mark-sheet of High School
Examination as Ex. Ka-4.The informant
has further mentioned that he had correctly
got recorded the date of birth of victim as
01.06.1983.

15. The informant 'R' P.W.-1 in
his cross-examination has mentioned that
the victim was his eldest child and has
denied the suggestion that his daughter was
aged about 19 -20 years at the time of his
cross-examination
in
the
Court.
The
informant has further mentioned in his
cross- examination that the Arhar field of
Ganga Ram @ Ganddhu is adjoining the
Chak road, which goes towards the northsouth. The Chak road is not the main road
of his village. Adjoining the Chak road
towards west is the field of Ganga Ram @
Ganddhu. Towards south of Ganga Ram's
field, houses of Brij Mohan, Babu Lal,
Mahipal and Nanku were situated at the
time of incident. This witness has denied
the suggestion that the victim had illicit
relations with Ajay Pal. The informant has
mentioned that in the Ganga Ram's field
Arhar crop was standing and his second
crop had been cut. The victim had gone
with a mug (Lota), who was wearing skirt
and blouse in two piece, the underwear was
separate. At the time of incident, he
alongwith his brother Rajkumar were about
100 yards away from Ganga Ram's field.
He had neither seen 'K' being caught by
hand and dragged nor being slammed down
by the accused, from the Chak road. He had
taken about 2 -3 minutes to reach the field
from the Chak road. He had heard her
daughter's voice from a distance of 100
yards and at that time his brother and Ram
Pal were present. On hearing K's voice,
they had not rushed to the spot, but had
reached easily. He had not seen the accused
removing the underwear of the victim.
From the place he had heard the victim's
voice, he had taken about one-two minutes
to reach the spot of occurrence. He had not
seen whether the accused had removed his
pant or not, he had seen the accused lying
over the victim. He had not seen whether
the accused had gagged victim's mouth or
not, but when they reached, he had fled. He
had seen from a distance of 4-6 yards that
accused was committing wrong act with
her daughter. He could not apprehend the
accused because his Slipper (Chappal),
broke down and he could not run. The
accused without buttoning his pant etc.,
holding his pant with one hand fled towards
north. He had chased the accused for 4-610 yards. He had not gone to the accused's
father to make a complaint. After chasing
the accused for 4-6-10 yards, he had
returned to spot, where his daughter was
present, who had injuries on her hands, face
and a very minor injury on her back. He
does not know whether the injuries were
caused by friction or not. He is of the firm
belief that for the first time wrong act was
committed on her daughter. The informant
has denied the suggestion that his daughter
was accustomed to sexual intercourse and
his daughter had relations with Ajay Pal
since long. The informant has also denied
the suggestion that Ajay Pal had committed
wrong act with his daughter in his house
and this was witnessed by informant's
mother. The informant has also denied the
suggestion that he wanted to get the case
registered against Ajay Pal, but his
daughter
objected
to
this
and
had
threatened that she will commit suicide, if
report is lodged against Ajay Pal. The
informant has also denied the suggestion
that his relatives had become aware of the
relationship of the victim and Ajay Pal. The
informant has also denied the suggestion
that Sanjay Singh's father had got his goats
and other cattle locked in the cattle
shed.The informant has accepted that he
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has received Rs.25,000/- regarding this
incident from the Harijan Welfare Office.
The
informant
has
also
denied
the
suggestion that his daughter had pressed
him to suppress the matter but due to greed,
he had registered the report.

16. The prosecution has examined
the victim 'K' as P.W-2 in trial court, who
has mentioned in her examination-in-chief
that she belongs to Chamar caste, accused
Sanjay Singh belongs to Thakur caste, who
belongs to her village. About four years
ago, at about 12:00 noon, she had gone
from her house to defecate and when she
was returning to her house then accused
met her near Ganga Ram's Arhar field,
who forcibly took her in the Arhar field
and slammed her, gagged her mouth and
forcibly committed rape upon her. She
raised hue and cry, then her father and
uncle came, then accused fled. Her father
took her to his house and then took her to
the police station, where report was lodged.
She remained in the police station, in the
night and on the next day, she was
medically examined in Ursala Hospital,
Kanpur, where her X-ray was also
conducted, she was wearing skirt and
underwear at the time of incident. The
police had seized her underwear. At the
time of incident she was 14 years old, her
date of birth is 01.06.1983, at present she is
studying in B.A Part-I. The victim has
identified her underwear, which she was
wearing at the time of incident, which was
seized by the Police, which is material Ex1.

17. The victim 'K', P.W-2, has
mentioned in her cross-examination that
she had passed High School Examination
privately in the year 1999. She had filled
the private form of examination in
September, 1998. The incident took place
about one year prior to filling-up the form.
It is true that her father has mentioned her
age to be 14 and half years in the report and
due to this, in High School Examination
form, she had also mentioned her age to be
14 years. The victim has denied the
suggestion that at the time of incident she
was aged about 18 years and her father had
wrongly stated her age. She had gone in
Ganga Ram's field to defecate, which is
adjoining the Chak Road. She had reached
the
Chak
Road,
when
Sanjay
had
approached her. She has not seen from
which direction accused Sanjay came.
Accused Sanjay had said nothing to her, he
had grabbed her hand and started dragging
her. At that time she had raised hue and cry
and also tried to rescue her. She had gone
to defecate with a mug (Lota), she had not
hit the Lota on Sanjay's head. She was
continuously shouting and trying to escape
but he dragged her inside the field and
slammed her. At that time Arhar crop was
standing in the field, sorghum (Jwaar) crop
was not there. When she was slammed
(Patka) down, she had shouted, tried to free
herself, also moved her legs and had also
bitten Sanjay's hand. She tried to free
herself for two -four minutes, but he did
not let her go. Till her mouth was gagged,
she was continuously shouting. Her mouth
was gagged with one hand and with another
hand, he had removed her underwear, she
had thrown her legs, then accused had
removed his pant. Her underwear was kept
there, his pant was also kept on the ground.
In between, his hand would move away
from her mouth, then she used to shout
again. In the process of removing her
underwear, his pant and in this scuffle,
about five minutes had elapsed and he had
committed rape with her for about two -
three seconds. From Ganga Ram's field,
houses of villagers are about 40 - 50 yards
away and from the spot they are about 100
5 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
781
yards away, in two houses people live with
their family. At the time of incident, it was
month of December, it was winter season.
At that time people were also working
outside in the field and were also moving
on the Chak road, but on her hue and cry,
none came. Only her father and uncle came
and at that time, the accused was
committing rape on her and on seeing
them, had fled after wearing his pant. The
accused was chased upto two fields but
could not be apprehended. There was no
hole in her underwear. She had suffered a
minor scratch on her back. No serious
injury was there. She had shown her
injuries in the police station. There was
some injury in her mouth. She knows Ajay
Pal, who belongs to her community, who
does not visit her house. But sometimes his
parents do visit her house. The victim has
denied the suggestion that since prior to
this incident, she had illicit relations with
Ajay Pal and she had sexual intercourse
with him. The victim has specifically
mentioned that the accused had committed
sexual intercourse with her for the first time
and prior to that, she had not committed
sexual intercourse with anyone. The victim
has denied the suggestion that she was seen
having wrong act with Ajay Pal and this
had
spread
in
her
community
and
neighbourhood and she had resisted getting
a report lodged against Ajay Pal. The
victim has accepted that her father had
received Rs.25,000/- after registration of
report in this case. The victim has denied
the suggestion that four-five days prior to
the incident, the accused had got the goats
of her father incarcerated in Kanji House
and because of this, her father had got
registered a report against the accused.

18. Dr. Draupadi Jatariya, P.W.-3
has mentioned in her examination-in-chief
that no sign of injury was present on the
body and private part of the victim. The
hymen was old torn and the vagina was
admitting two fingers easily. She had
prepared two slides from the vaginal swab
for detection of spermatozoa and had
advised the victim's x-ray for determining
her age. This witness has proved the
victim's medical examination report as
Ex.Ka-5 and on the basis of victim's radiological and pathological reports, has
prepared and proved the supplementary
report of victim as Ex. Ka-6. The witness
has mentioned that no live or dead
spermatozoa was found in the vaginal
smear and according to the radio-logical
report of the victim, she was about 17 years
old. This witness could not give any
conclusive opinion regarding rape upon the
victim, because the victim was used to
sexual intercourse.

19. The prosecution has examined
Dr. R.N. Tripathi, as P.W. 4, who had
supervised the x-ray examination of the
victim on 13.12.1997 in U.H.M, Hospital,
Kanpur. This witness has proved the x-ray
report of the victim as Ex. Ka-7 and X-ray
Plate as material Ex.-2 and has stated that
on the basis of fusion of bones, he was of
the opinion that the victim was about 16 -
17 years old at the time of incident, in
which there is a possibility of variation of
six months, on both sides.

20. The prosecution has examined
Sri Om Prakash Sharma, Investigating
Officer as P.W. 5 in the trial Court, who
had prepared the site plan of the place of
occurrence and proved it, as Ex. Ka-9, has
recorded the statement of witnesses,
arrested the accused Sanjay Singh on
12.12.1997, got the victim and accused
medically examined, seized the Shorts
(Nekar) of the accused and proved the
Recovery Memo as Ex. Ka-10, sent the
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under wear of victim and shorts (Nekar) of
accused for forensic examination and has
proved the report of forensic laboratory as
Ex. Ka-8, proved the Check F.I.R as
Ex.Ka-11, G.D No. 25 time 14:00 hours
dated 11.12.1997 as Ex. Ka-12 and has
submitted
the
charge
sheet
after
investigation against the accused, which
has been proved as Ex. Ka-13.

21. Investigating Officer P.W.5 has
mentioned in his cross-examination that the
spot of occurrence is visible from the Chak
road and is at a distance of five yards from
the Chak road. The Chak road is not a
common passage. About 60-70 yards away
from the spot of occurrence, 10-12 houses
are there, in which people are residing. The
field in which the incident took place,
Arhar crop was standing. There were no
bricks and stone on the spot of occurrence.
The witness has accepted that the informant
had told him in his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C that they had rushed to the
victim after hearing her hue and cry.

22.
Learned
counsel
of
the
appellant has submitted that the prosecution
story is unreliable and also untrustworthy.
The trial court has not considered the age
of the victim. The victim was major, who
was habitual to sexual intercourse, which is
corroborated from her medical report. No
injury was found on the body or private
part of the victim. The incident took place
due to the consent of the victim. The
informant is not an eye witness of the
incident. The doctor P.W.-3 has not stated
in her testimony that the victim was raped.
There is no evidence on record to prove
that the incident took place only because
the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste
community, as such the conviction of the
appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is
illegal and liable to be set aside. With these
submissions, it has been prayed, that the
appeal be allowed and the judgment and
order of conviction of the appellant passed
by the learned trial court, be set aside.

23.
Learned
A.G.A.
for
the
respondent State has submitted that the
learned trial court has rightly believed the
prosecution story. The testimony of the
victim is trustworthy. The victim is a minor
girl, who had been forcibly dragged in the
'Arhar' field and then raped by the
appellant. Learned A.G.A. has further
submitted that, it is true that no injury has
been found on the body and private part of
the victim but even then the testimony of
victim cannot be disbelieved. The victim
belongs to 'Chamar' caste and the
appellant belongs to 'Thakur' caste, who
has raped the victim, knowing that she
belonged
to
the
Schedule
Caste
community. No evidence of consent of
victim is on record. Learned trial court has
not committed any illegality or irregularity
in convicting the appellant.

24. Having heard Learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
records, from the evidence of informant
P.W.-1, it is evident that on 11.12.1997 at
about 12.00 noon her minor daughter 'K'
P.W.-2, who was aged about 14 years, had
gone
to
defecate
in
Gangaram
@
Ganddhu's 'Arhar' field and then, on
hearing the hue and cry of his daughter, he
along with his brother Rajkumar and
Rampal had rushed towards the field and
had seen that the accused was committing
rape on 'K', who had fled towards north on
seeing them, who was chased, but could not
be apprehended. After the incident, the
informant had written the 'tehreer' and
along with victim, had gone to the police
5 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
783
station, to lodge the FIR. The informant has
proved the 'tehreer', as Ex.Ka-1 and the
Recovery Memo of the underwear of the
victim as Ex.Ka-2, and the dark green
underwear of the victim as material Ex-1.
The informant has further proved the
attested copies of the High School
certificate and mark-sheet of the victim, as
Ex.Ka-3 and Ex.Ka-4, in which the date of
birth of the victim is mentioned as
01.06.1983. In the cross-examination, the
informant has mentioned that the victim
had gone with a 'Lota' to defecate and at
that time she was wearing skirt and blouse
in two pieces and the underwear was
separate. The informant has mentioned that
he had not seen the victim being caught and
dragged to the field and had also not seen
the appellant slamming the victim on the
ground. Further, he has also mentioned that
he had not seen the appellant removing the
underwear of the victim. The informant has
also not seen the appellant removing his
pants, but has seen the appellant lying on
the victim. The informant has mentioned
that he had seen simple injuries on the
hands, face and back of the victim, but no
such injury has been found in the medical
examination of the victim, which has been
proved as Ex.Ka-5 by the doctor P.W.-3,
but the prosecution case cannot be doubted
only due to this reason. 'K' P.W.2 in her
cross-examination has mentioned that she
had only suffered a minor scratch on her
back. In view of this, it is possible that
since the injuries of 'K' were of very minor
nature, they could have gone unnoticed by
the doctor. From the evidence of informant
P.W.-1, it is proved that on hearing the hue
and cry of the victim 'K' P.W.-2, he had
rushed to the place of occurrence and on
seeing him, the accused had fled. The
informant had chased the accused but could
not apprehend him. The evidence of
informant P.W.-1 proves the presence of
accused on the spot of occurrence. As per
the informant, the incident took place on
11.12.1997 at about 12.00 noon and the
first information report of the incident has
been got registered on 11.12.1997 at 14.00
hours, which shows that the FIR has been
registered promptly.

25. From the evidence of victim
'K' P.W.-2, it is evident that on the date of
incident at about 12.00 noon, she had gone
to defecate and when she was returning, the
accused had grabbed her hand and dragged
her in the 'arhar' field and had slammed
her on the ground, gagged her mouth and
then committed rape upon her. The victim
has specifically stated that, on hearing her
hue and cry her father and uncle had come
and on seeing them the accused had fled,
who was chased but could not be
apprehended. Her father had taken her back
and thereafter had taken her to the police
station, thereafter FIR was registered. The
victim has mentioned that at the time of
incident she was wearing skirt and
underwear and the police had seized her
underwear. The victim has also proved her
date of birth as 01.06.1983 and has also
identified her underwear, which she was
wearing at the time of incident. The victim
has been extensively cross-examined by the
accused but nothing incriminating has been
elicited from her, so as to discredit her
testimony. The victim has mentioned in her
cross-examination that she was forcibly
dragged and taken inside the 'Arhar' field.
She had raised hue and cry and had tried to
escape from the clutches of the accused but
she could not free herself. The accused had
slammed her down on the ground and had
committed rape upon her. The victim has
mentioned that she had suffered a very
minor scratch on her back, which was not
of serious nature. The victim has been
suggested in the cross-examination that she
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had illicit relations with Ajay Pal and had
sexual intercourse with him, to which she
has denied.

26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Noore Khan
(2000) 3 SLT 389 and in State of Punjab
Vs. Ram Dev Singh (2004) 1 SCC 421 has
held that if victim was accustomed to
sexual intercourse, did not and cannot in
law give licence to any person to rape her.
Absence of injuries on the person of the
prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence
of falsity of the allegation or an evidence of
consent on the part of the victim. Similarly,
in Prithichand Vs. State of H.P. (1989) 1
SCC 432 and Narayanamma Vs. State of
Karnataka (1994) 5 SCC 728, it has been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that mere
absence of spermatozoa in vaginal smear
cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of
the prosecution case.

27. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that even if no injury is found on the
body or private parts of the victim, even if
the victim is habitual to sexual intercourse,
even if no spermatozoa is found in the
vaginal smear, if the testimony of the
prosecutrix /victim inspires confidence then
only on her testimony, accused can be
convicted. In this case, the learned trial
court has believed the testimony of victim
'K', which has been corroborated partly by
her father/informant P.W.1. Even though
no injury has been found on the body or
private part of the victim, it cannot be a
ground to disbelieve her testimony. It has
been suggested to the victim that she had
an illicit relationship with Ajay Pal and had
sexual intercourse with him, but it has been
denied by the victim.

28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of U.P. Vs. Manoj Kumar
Pandey (2009) 1 SCC 72 has held that
consent of prosecutrix cannot be presumed
on mere fact that she was more than 16
years of age. It has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satpal
Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC
714 that issue of majority becomes
irrelevant if the prosecution successfully
establishes that it was not a consent case.

29.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant has vehemently argued that the
victim was major on the date of the
incident and the incident took place due to
the consent of the victim, but we are
constrained to observe that there is no
evidence on record so as to suggest that the
victim was major on the date of incident. In
the trial court, the victim's father/informant
P.W.-1 has proved the High School
certificate and mark-sheet of the victim,
according to which her date of birth is 0106-1983 and she was aged about 14 years
and six months old on the date of
occurrence. As per the supplementary
medical report (Ex.Ka-6) the victim was
aged about 16-17 years old on the date of
occurrence, which is short of the age of
majority. In view of this, it cannot be said
that the victim was major on the date of
occurrence.

30. We are of the opinion that,
there is no evidence of consent on the part
of the victim. The victim has elaborately
mentioned in her cross-examination that
she resisted the accused and had tried to
escape from his clutches, but she could not
succeed. The victim has mentioned that the
accused had gagged her mouth, as such she
could not continuously shout but whenever
the hand of the accused was removed from
her mouth, she had shouted and on hearing
her hue and cry, her father and uncle had
reached the spot and on seeing them, the
5 All. Sanjay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
785
accused had fled. The testimony of the
victim 'K' P.W.-2 inspires confidence and
there is nothing to suggest that she is
speaking a lie. The first information report
in this case has been registered promptly.
The accused has merely said in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that
he has been falsely implicated, but no
evidence in this regard has been led by the
accused, so as to make the prosecution
story doubtful.

31. The learned trial court has
believed the prosecution story and we have
no reason to differ from the conclusion
reached by the trial court, so far as the
offence of rape committed on the victim by
the accused is concerned.

32. Before amendment on 26-12016, Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads
as under:-

 3(2)
Whoever,
not
being
a
member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule
Tribe,-

 "(v)commits any offence under
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
punishable with imprisonment for a term of
ten years or more against a person or
property on the ground that such person is
a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
to such member, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life and with fine;"

33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dinesh @ Buddha Vs. State of
Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771 has held that
the sine qua non for application of Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is that an offence must have been
committed against a person on the ground
that such person is a member of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It
is not the 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.

34. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman
Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 3 SCC
557 has held that to attract the provisions of
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, the sine qua non is
that the victim should be a person, who
belongs to a Scheduled Caste or 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 Scheduled Tribe. In the
absence of such ingredients, no offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act arises.

35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ramdas and others Vs. State of
Maharasthra (2007) 2 SCC 170 has held
that it is not sufficient that if the accused
belongs to upper caste and the victim
belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is also
necessary to prove that offence was
committed on the ground of the victim
being of Scheduled Caste. No such
allegation has been made in the FIR that
the offence was committed because of
victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste nor
there is any such evidence on record. Thus,
the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot
be sustained. The fact that the victim
belongs to the Scheduled Caste, by itself is
not a sufficient ground to bring the case
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within the purview of Section 3(2)(v) of the
Act.

36. A Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Narain Trivedi and
others Vs. State of U.P. 2009 (2) ALJ 550
has held that Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 does
not constitute substantive offence. Accused
cannot be convicted and sentenced for
offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act,
simplicitor. In cases, where an offence
under the Indian Penal Code punishable
with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or
more is committed against a person or
property on ground that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs
to such person, then in such case the
accused will be convicted and sentenced
for the offence under Indian Penal Code
read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with
imprisonment for life and also with fine.

37. In this case, the accused has
been convicted by the learned trial court for
the substantive offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, which is illegal. In this case, it is
true that the victim belongs to Scheduled
Caste 'chamar' community and the accused
belongs to upper caste 'thakur' community
and it is also true, that the accused knew
the victim prior to the incident, but there is
no evidence on record to prove that the
victim was raped only on the ground that
she
belonged
to
Scheduled
Caste
community. In view of this, the conviction
of accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as
recorded by the learned trial court, cannot
be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

38. The learned trial court has also
convicted the accused under Section 376
I.P.C. and has sentenced him to undergo
ten years rigorous imprisonment along with
a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo
additional imprisonment for one year, but it
appears to be excessive. The accused was
aged about 35 years at the time of incident.
About 27 years have lapsed since the
incident. The accused is now about 62
years old. As per the Custody Certificate of
Central
Prison
Fatehgarh,
District
Farukkhabad, dated 30-4-2025, the accused
has only remained confined for four
months and 11 days in jail till 10-1-2003,
since then he is on bail. Keeping in view
the present age of the accused, we are of
the considered opinion, that if the sentence
imposed on the accused by the learned trial
court for the offence of rape under Section
376 I.P.C. is reduced from ten years
rigorous imprisonment to the minimum
punishment of seven years and further to
compensate the victim, the fine imposed is
enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-,
then it will meet the ends of justice.

39. Accordingly, this criminal
appeal is partly allowed, in the above
terms.

40. The conviction of appellant
Sanjay Singh under Section 376 I.P.C. is
maintained but the sentence imposed on
him from ten years rigorous imprisonment
is reduced to minimum sentence of seven
years.