Iife and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 5 months. . Case of the prosecution, 'in brief, is that on 25-10-99 at about 12 noon when the .injured girlraged about 12 years was returning to Ongana from her Dharanjaigarh School by bicycle, the appellant stopped her on the way and forcibly took her towards the forest, committed rape with her and assaulted her and attempted on her life by a dagger and left heir in unconscious condition. The prosecutrix is a Kanwar by caste and belongs to-ST category. Her caste certificate issued by Tehsildar, Dharamjaigarh of Ex.-P/38 has been proved by PW—19 D.S. Dhruv. iuf . Thie offence was registered on the same-date at 13.20 hours on the report of Rajaram Rathia (PW-1) under Sections 376, 307 and 341 of the IPC against unknown person vide Ex.—P/1. The prosecutrix was initially referred to Dr. Anil Kumar (PW-7) who examined her and found as many as 9 incised wounds, 2 abrasions and bleeding from her vagina, on various parts of the body i.e. right side of the forehead, centre of forehead, right side of nose, right cheek, upper lip, lower lip and abrasion on right side of the neck and right palm. He also suspected fracture of frontal bone. He referred her to lady doctor for examination of her vagina. Dr. Anil Kumar has proved medico legal injury report of Ex.—P/14. Dr'. Bindu Singhal (PW-14) has also examined and proved medico legal examination report of the oprosecutrix of Ex.-P/28 in which she observed that fresh blood was emanating from vagina; redness, contusion, tenderness and pain over libia majora and minora. Membrane of vagina was totally ruptured and . I fresh blood was oozing: She has also prepared vaginél slide at the time of her examination‘ The prosecutrix remained hospitalized as Id tie I Dlsnct Hoplt algar 5 O 9 fm s was charged on 11 9 and b head ket E /31 proved b Dr. Bajpayee (P1 8) . Dr}. of h E0 , nd opined hr age btween ‘12-14 years. PW—15 ahavir erma, d headmaste ha rov school dn retr of /25 u m whic he birt o rlx Is n 19 h t date of h f the prosecut metioned as 2--187. noor pant n t sal Rh from 2 1 9 ro where he dis 8 9 ed tic Is x P y, W— ; M.D. Joshi, Ragilogst, as proved X-ray report of x.-P/3-A, B C a e e M V retire r s ped amlsslo gise Ex P . . us, ffom the above evence available on rcord, fiding of te trial - Th id e n h rt that the prosecutri was ed about 12-13 years on e date of th incident, se sustain injuries on various parts of her ody caused e h ed b y a p d a a w w ffi o se b hrd and shar edge wepon nd hich as suicent t cau her death in ordinary couse o nature is based on cogent evidence, as r f the defence could not bring anything in cross-examination of these Witnesses which belies their version before the Court. 7. From the evidence of theprosecutrix, who has been eXamined as PW- 4 and who has also identifed the appellant In test Identification parade < conducted on 1 12 99 Vide Ex P/13 by Naib Tehsildar Mithilesh Kumar (PW-10), we are of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant committed rape with the prosecutrix and also attempted on her‘life and caused injuries proved by the doctdrs in medico legal examination report. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that from the evidence available on record, offence under Sections 341, 376 and 307 of the Cou x ag th IPC stands established and he restricts his appeal only to’ the extent of conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. ’He vehemently argued that the trial Court was not justified in convicting 4 ’S/ th apellant under ectn 3(2)(v) ofte Act as from proscution e p Sio h , its e case, the appellant and e prosecutrix were strangs to each other th er , thre is no evidence avalable on rcord that the apellant as are e i e p w aw bo the pr e or t aut fact that the osecutrix belongs to ab original trib tha ofnce in qution was ommitted because she happed to be a girl eohging to aboriginal ri which is ine qua non for covig .r ps under Section 3((v) of the Act. 4 . we have already oserv in foregoing paragraphs and from As; bed merial available on recr discusse in brief hereinabov, e are o at Od d e w f the opinion that the trl Curt was wholly justified in ldin th ia‘ o hog e apellant respsible fo'r unlfully resraining the seix a th a . da itn ereafter ttempting onher life by a gger and commtig violent rape on her person and thus, conviction of the appellant under Sections 341, 376 and 307 of the IPC is upheld. We have perused the entire record, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence available on record to demonstrate that the appellant was aware about the fact that the prosecutrix belongs‘to an ab original tribe. Learned counsel for the bState could not point outéany evidence in the entire case which would show that before the incident, the appellant was acquainted with the t prosecutrix and he knew that She belongs to Kanwar caste. / w fe es c en blf jtbe s nctin a e‘ron 2) p on aw t procutr nd . ‘ 11. In View of the above fact,‘we are of the opinion that the tfial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. 12. On the basis of aforesaid'anaiysis, we partly allow the appeal preferred by the appellant. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. Conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant unlder Sections 341, 307 and 376,0f the IPC are hereby maintained. l Barven i A t Sdl- e t5!”- DPHRENDRAVMtsrm'A r W R.N.Chandrakar Judge , Judge