Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Masra Ram @ Masru vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 March, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 207/2023
Masra Ram @ Masru S/o Surta Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Maruwada, Raniwara P.S., Dist. Jalore (Confined In Dist. Jail,
Jalore)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Suresh Kumar S/o Rupa Ji Tiru, R/o Maruwara, Raniwara
P.s., Raniwara, Dist. Jalore
3. Asha D/o Rupa Ji Turi, Victim R/o Maruwara, Raniwara
P.s., Raniwara, Dist. Jalore
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Trivedi
Mr. Praveen Ramesh Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Judgment
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)
1. Date of conclusion of argument 19.03.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was 19.03.2026
reserved
3. Whether the full judgment or only Full Judgment
operative part is pronounced
4. Date of Pronouncement 24.03.2026
1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena &
Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 703, and further
reiterated in Birbal Kumar Nishad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
(SLP (Crl.) No. 4540/2021, decided on 30.06.2021),
emphasized the mandatory requirement of protecting the identity
of victims of sexual offences, this Court deems it appropriate to
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (2 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
withhold the real name and identity of the victim and her close
relatives. Accordingly, for the purpose of maintaining anonymity,
the victim has been referred to as the “prosecutrix” and/or “X”
and close relatives has also been referred to by a fictitious name
in the present judgment as under –
"A" "Prosecutrix" Brother.
"B" "Prosecutrix" Nephew.
"C" "Prosecutrix" Sister
"D" "Prosecutrix" Brother
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 374(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused-appellant Masra
Ram son of Surataji, assailing the legality and validity of the
judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned trial court”) in Sessions Case
No.57/2022, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted
and sentenced for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 as under:-
376 Life imprisonment for the In default of payment of fine
IPC Remainder of the Natural Life, to further undergo one year
with a Fine of Rs.10,000/- additional rigorous
imprisonment.
3(2) Imprisonment for life and a In default of payment of fine
(V)of fine of Rs.10,000/ to further undergo one year
SC/ST additional rigorous
Act imprisonment.
3. As per prosecution case, on 20.05.2022, the complainant “A”
(PW-9), who is the brother of the prosecutrix “X”, appeared at
Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore, and submitted a written
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (3 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
report (Exhibit P-09). In the said report, the complainant stated
that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and that his
younger sister – the “prosecutrix”, is a mentally challenged lady. It
was alleged that on 19.05.2022 at about 6:00 PM, the
“prosecutrix” had gone towards a nearby forest area for the
purpose of defecation. The accused-appellant Masru, son of
Surataji, resident of Maruwada, Tehsil Raniwara, followed her and
forcibly dragged her by holding her hands towards a nearby
stream (Nadi). When the “prosecutrix” did not return home for a
considerable period of time, the complainant’s son “B” went
towards the said stream in search of her, where he allegedly saw
that the skirt/petticoat of the “prosecutrix” was raised and the
accused-appellant was lying on top of her and committing
indecent acts. Upon raising an alarm by complainant’s son “B”, the
accused-appellant allegedly got up and threatened him with dire
consequences, stating that if the incident was disclosed to anyone,
he would kill him and his father. Thereafter, the complainant’s son
“B”, returned home and narrated the incident to his father i.e.
complainant. The “prosecutrix”, who was stated to be frightened,
also disclosed the occurrence to the complainant.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a formal FIR
No.110/2022 came to be registered at Police Station Raniwara,
Jalore for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code
and under Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (4 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
5. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-
sheet under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against
the accused-appellant before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore.
6. Learned trial court, upon taking cognizance, framed charges
against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 376
IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The
charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant,
who denied the same and claimed trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 22
witnesses. In support of its case, the prosecution also produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits P-01 to P-25 along with 04
Articles in support of its case.
8. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution allegations
in toto and claimed to be innocent, asserting that he had been
falsely implicated on the basis of statements of interested and
related witnesses. In defence, the accused-appellant produced
documentary evidence, Exhibits D-01 to D-10; however, no
defence witness was examined.
9. Learned Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced
on behalf of both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence brought on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under Section
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (5 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act vide judgment
dated 18.08.2023.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, the accused-
appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant assailing the
validity of the impugned judgment vehemently submitted that the
judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by the learned trial court is
contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, contrary to
the material available on record and unsustainable in law. He
further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to
appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and has
erroneously recorded the conviction of the accused-appellant.
Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence deserves to be quashed and set aside.
12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the
entire prosecution case rests primarily upon the testimony of the
“prosecutrix” (PW-7) and the witness “B” (PW-10), who is the
nephew of the “prosecutrix” and son of the complainant. Learned
counsel submitted that the prosecution story is inherently
improbable and unreliable. He submitted that it is an admitted
position emerging from the evidence that the “prosecutrix” and
the accused-appellant were acquainted with each other since long
and the “prosecutrix” herself admitted that she had been visiting
the house of the accused-appellant earlier. He further submitted
that it is neither the case of the “prosecutrix” that the accused-
appellant had any prior ill-will towards her nor that he had ever
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (6 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
made any improper advances or gestures towards her in the past.
Thus, according to learned counsel, the allegation of sudden
commission of the alleged offence, in the manner narrated by the
prosecution, appears to be highly doubtful.
13. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish the exact place of occurrence. He further submitted that
as per the prosecution story, the alleged occurrence took place in
a deep area of a Nadi which was about 10-12 feet below the
ground level, however, the “prosecutrix” did not disclose any
details regarding the terrain, slope, passage or staircase leading to
the said place. He also submitted that the “prosecutrix” failed to
disclose the specific distance between her house and the place
where she had gone to attend the call of nature or the place
where the alleged incident occurred. Learned counsel submitted
that these omissions create serious doubts regarding the veracity
of the prosecution story.
14. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant alleged that
“B” (PW-10) informed him about the incident telephonically and
thereafter, the complainant along with his brother “D” (PW-12)
and sister “C” (PW-11) reached at the spot and questioned the
“prosecutrix”, who allegedly narrated the incident while in a
frightened condition. Learned counsel further submitted that all
these witnesses belong to the same family and are highly
interested witnesses. He submitted that the site plan (Exhibit P-
11) was prepared in the presence of PW-10, PW-12 and the
complainant, but significantly, it was not prepared in the presence
of the “prosecutrix” herself, who was the most material witness to
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (7 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
identify the exact place of occurrence. He thus submitted that the
conviction based solely on the testimony of such related witnesses
is unsustainable.
15. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case suffers
from material contradictions. He submitted that while the
“prosecutrix” stated that “B” (PW-10) chased two boys belonging
to the Meghwal community, who were present near the spot, “B”
(PW-10) in his deposition stated that he had gone out to attend
the call of nature and saw two boys standing nearby who fled
away upon seeing him. According to learned counsel, this
contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution case and creates
doubt about the presence of the witnesses at the place of
occurrence. He further submitted that there is no medical or
physical evidence supporting the allegation of forcible sexual
assault. Learned counsel pointed out that neither the “prosecutrix”
stated that her clothes were torn during the alleged incident nor
were any external or internal injuries found on her body. He
submitted that none of the witnesses deposed about finding soil-
stained clothes, marks of struggle or any other signs indicative of
sexual assault at the place of occurrence.
16. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution relied
upon the testimony of PW-4 Mahendra and PW-5 Shera Ram,
however both these witnesses were declared hostile. He submitted
that despite the fact that the said witnesses did not support the
prosecution case, the learned trial court erroneously relied upon
selective portions of their testimony by drawing presumptions
under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in order to fill
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (8 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
the lacunae in the prosecution case. According to the learned
counsel, such an approach is legally impermissible.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that the recovery and
forensic examination of the articles have not been proved in
accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that the alleged
articles, namely the petticoat of the “prosecutrix” and the
dhoti/advita of the accused-appellant, were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory after an unexplained inordinate delay. As per
the Road Certificate (Exhibit D-6) and Roznamcha Report (Exhibit
D-7), the articles were dispatched on 06.06.2022 but were
deposited in the FSL only on 09.06.2022. According to the learned
counsel, the prosecution failed to establish that the seized articles
remained properly sealed and intact during this period.
18. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has
also failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. It is urged that
although the incident allegedly occurred on 19.05.2022, the report
was lodged only on 20.05.2022 without furnishing any satisfactory
explanation. It is also pointed out that the prosecution witnesses
admitted that no soil marks, signs of struggle or evidence of
sexual intercourse were found at the alleged place of occurrence.
19. Learned counsel further submitted that the medical as well
as forensic evidence does not support the prosecution story that
the FSL and DNA reports did not reveal the presence of semen or
any indication of recent sexual intercourse on the vaginal swab,
vaginal smear slide or petticoat of the “prosecutrix”, nor was any
such evidence detected on the clothing of the accused-appellant.
According to learned counsel, in absence of corroborative medical
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (9 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
or forensic evidence, the conviction solely on the basis of
interested testimony cannot be sustained.
20. Learned counsel also questioned the reliance placed by the
prosecution on the disability certificate and medical documents
showing that the “prosecutrix” was suffering from mild intellectual
disability. He submitted that the said documents were collected
during investigation after registration of the FIR and were not
produced by the family members of the “prosecutrix” prior to the
alleged incident. He further submitted that the said documents
were not issued on the basis of any properly constituted medical
board nor was it established that the “prosecutrix” had been
suffering from such disability since birth.
21. Learned counsel further submitted that even the testimony
of the police witness PW-3 Pawani Devi indicates that the
“prosecutrix” was able to give her statement coherently under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and she did not appear to be mentally
unsound. According to the learned counsel, the reliance placed by
the learned trial court on the said disability certificate is thus
misplaced. He also submitted that the prosecutrix herself admitted
during her testimony that she had earlier visited the house of the
accused-appellant and had obtained food grains from his house.
According to learned counsel, this admission clearly indicates that
both parties were acquainted with each other and the prosecution
has failed to establish any motive or prior conduct on the part of
the accused-appellant which would suggest commission of the
alleged offence.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (10 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
22. Learned counsel thus submitted that the prosecution case is
riddled with contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies and the
essential ingredients of the offences under Section 376 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
23. He therefore, submitted that the learned trial court has
committed grave error in relying upon the testimony of interested
witnesses belonging to the same family while ignoring the material
contradictions and absence of corroborative evidence.
Consequently, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the accused-
appellant be acquitted of the charges.
24. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the accused-
appellant and has supported the findings recorded by the learned
trial court. He submits that the impugned judgment dated
18.08.2023 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and that
the conviction of the accused-appellant for the offences under
Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,1989 has been rightly recorded on the basis of reliable and
cogent evidence available on record.
25. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have
carefully re-appreciated the entire oral as well as documentary
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (11 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
evidence available on record including the impugned judgment
dated 18.08.2023.
26. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, it emerges
that the complainant “A” (PW-09), brother of the “prosecutrix”, in
his written report (Exhibit P-09), categorically stated that the
“prosecutrix” suffers from a mental illness. In consequence
thereof, the “prosecutrix” was subjected to a psychiatric
evaluation to ascertain her mental condition. The medical evidence
reveals that upon such examination, the “prosecutrix” was
diagnosed with “Mild Intellectual Disability” to the extent of 41%,
and a Disability Certificate (Exhibit P-06) was accordingly issued.
27. In this regard, the testimony of PW-08, Dr. Mohammad
Wasim, Medical Officer in the Department of Psychiatry at MDM
Hospital, Jodhpur, assumes significance. He deposed that he
conducted the mental examination of the “prosecutrix” and
prepared the reports marked as Exhibits P-07 and P-08. According
to him, Intellectual Disability is a congenital condition affecting
cognitive abilities, whereby a patient may retain memory of
certain events while forgetting others and may be capable of
limited independent decision-making but remains dependent for
more complex reasoning. He further opined that the “prosecutrix”
was suffering from 41% intellectual disability. He also stated that
the “prosecutrix” had been brought to him by a police constable
along with her brother on 07.07.2022, and that the examination
could be completed within a span of one to two hours. During
cross-examination, he admitted that apart from Exhibit P-06, no
prior certificate of mental disability was produced before him and
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (12 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
that the record of an earlier examination conducted on 09.06.2022
during a medical camp was not available on the case file. He also
acknowledged that the retention of recent memory by the
“prosecutrix” would depend upon her specific mental condition.
28. PW-17, Dr. Gajendra Singh Deval, who was serving as the
Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Jalore, on 25.06.2022,
deposed that he issued the Disability Certificate (Exhibit P-06),
which reflected that the “prosecutrix” was suffering from 41%
intellectual disability. He clarified that the certificate had been
generated on the basis of the assessment conducted by PW-08,
Dr. Mohammad Wasim, and was transmitted to his official portal,
whereupon he verified the same and affixed his digital signature
for its issuance. During cross-examination, he admitted that he
had not personally examined the “prosecutrix”.
29. From the conjoint reading of the testimonies of PW-08 and
PW-17, it is evident that the Disability Certificate (Exhibit P-06)
was issued on the basis of the psychiatric evaluation conducted by
PW-08. Although the record of the earlier examination dated
09.06.2022 is not available, no material has been elicited in cross-
examination to suggest that the said certificate or the medical
reports (Exhibits P-07 and P-08) were fabricated or falsely
prepared to implicate the accused-appellant. Further, the
Investigating Officer, PW-19 Shankar Lal, stated that no medical
record or certificate pertaining to the mental condition of the
“prosecutrix” prior to the incident could be traced, and therefore,
she was subjected to a fresh examination. However, the family
members of the “prosecutrix”., including PW-09 “A” and PW-11
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (13 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
“C”, consistently deposed that the “prosecutrix”. has been
suffering from mental illness since birth. Their testimonies on this
aspect have remained unshaken in cross-examination.
30. It is also pertinent to note that the “prosecutrix”, during the
course of investigation as well as in her deposition before the
Court, made inconsistent statements regarding the timing of the
incident. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(Exhibit P-02), she indicated the relevant time of occurrence,
whereas in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
(Exhibit D-02), recorded on 23.05.2022, she stated that the
incident had taken place about one month earlier. Such
inconsistency, in the considered opinion of this Court, is
attributable to her impaired mental condition, as explained by PW-
08, rather than being a ground to discredit her testimony.
31. In light of the medical as well as oral evidence available on
record, this Court is satisfied that the “prosecutrix” was suffering
from “Mild Intellectual Disability” to the extent of 41%, which is a
congenital condition affecting her cognitive faculties.
32. The prosecution has examined, inter alia, the “prosecutrix”
(PW-07) as the star witness, along with PW-10 “B”, the nephew of
the “prosecutrix”, who has been cited as an eyewitness to the
occurrence. The testimonies of PW-09 “A” (complainant and
brother of the “prosecutrix”), PW-11 “C”, and PW-12 “D” (siblings
of the “prosecutrix”) provide corroborative evidence, though they
are not eyewitnesses and have deposed on the basis of disclosures
made to them by the “prosecutrix”. It is also noted that PW-04
Mahendra and PW-05 Sheraram, who were alleged to be present
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (14 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
near the place of occurrence, did not support the prosecution
case.
33. The “prosecutrix” (PW-07), in her examination-in-chief, has
clearly narrated the incident and stated that on the day of
occurrence, in the evening hours, when she had gone towards the
fields to relieve herself, the accused-appellant Masra Ram @
Masru followed her, overpowered her, and committed sexual
assault upon her. She further deposed that when she attempted to
raise an alarm, the accused-appellant gagged her mouth with her
Ghagra/ petticoat and pressed her chest. She has also stated that
her nephew “B” reached the spot during the occurrence and
intervened, whereupon the accused-appellant fled after extending
threats. The “prosecutrix” correctly identified the accused-
appellant in Court. Nothing material has been elicited in her cross-
examination to discredit her version regarding the core incident.
34. PW-10 “B”, the nephew of the “prosecutrix”, has
corroborated the testimony of PW-07 in material particulars. He
deposed that on the relevant day, when he went towards the
forest area, he noticed two persons looking towards the Nadi
(stream). Upon approaching the spot, he saw the accused-
appellant committing an indecent act with the “prosecutrix”. He
intervened, made the accused-appellant stand up, and rescued
the “prosecutrix”. The accused-appellant allegedly threatened him
with dire consequences and fled from the spot. He further stated
that he immediately informed his father PW-09 “A”, who thereafter
reached the place of occurrence, followed by other family
members. His testimony has remained substantially unshaken in
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (15 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
cross-examination, and no material contradiction has been
brought on record so as to doubt his presence at the scene.
35. PW-09 “A”, PW-11 “C”, and PW-12 “D” have consistently
deposed that upon receiving information from PW-10 “B”, they
rushed to the place of occurrence, where the “prosecutrix”
disclosed that the accused-appellant had committed rape upon
her. Their testimonies are natural and consistent, and no material
contradiction has emerged in their cross-examination. Their
evidence lends corroboration to the version of the “prosecutrix”
and the immediate disclosure made by her after the incident.
36. The contention of the learned counsel of accused-appellant
that the testimony of these witnesses cannot be relied upon as
they are related to the “prosecutrix” is devoid of merit. It is well
settled that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded
solely on the ground of relationship if it is otherwise found to be
cogent and credible. In the present case, the testimony of PW-10
“B” as an eyewitness inspires confidence, and the statements of
other family members are consistent with the prosecution case.
37. As regards the hostile witnesses PW-04 Mahendra and PW-05
Sheraram, their failure to support the prosecution does not
demolish the prosecution case. Their earlier statements do not
indicate that they had witnessed the actual act of rape. Their
presence near the place of occurrence, however, stands
established to the extent that they were seen in the vicinity, which
also finds mention in the testimony of PW-10 “B”. Their turning
hostile may reasonably be attributed to local influences, and their
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (16 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
evidence does not create any dent in the otherwise reliable
prosecution case.
38. The medical witnesses (PW-20, PW-21, and PW-22) have
indeed stated that no external or internal injuries were noticed.
However, the “prosecutrix” herself has not alleged that she
sustained any injuries during the occurrence. The absence of
injuries, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not
negate the occurrence of rape. It is settled law that absence of
injuries is not conclusive to disbelieve the testimony of the
“prosecutrix”, particularly when her evidence is otherwise
trustworthy and credible as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pappu @ Yunus
reported in AIR 2005 SC 1248 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Babunath reported in Cr.L.R. (SC) 521.
39. Similarly, that no semen was detected on the vaginal swabs
or the clothes of the “prosecutrix” is of no avail to the accused-
appellant. It is well established that non-detection of semen does
not necessarily falsify the prosecution case, if the testimony of the
“prosecutrix” inspires confidence as has been held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Phool Singh Vs. M.P. High Court
(Criminal Appeal No.1520/2021). Regarding alleged discrepancies
in the sealing and dispatch of the seized articles to the FSL has
also been considered. The evidence of the link witnesses,
particularly PW-15 and PW-16, along with the FSL receipt (Exhibit
P-05), establishes that the articles were ultimately received in a
sealed condition. No material has been brought on record to
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (17 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
suggest tampering with the exhibits. Moreover, the FSL report
does not materially affect the core prosecution case.
40. The plea of false implication on account of alleged enmity
with one Harji Dewasi is not supported by any cogent evidence.
On the contrary, the suggestion of attempts at compromise
indicates that the incident had, in fact, occurred. Further
contention regarding an alleged prior accusation against another
person does not, in any manner, discredit the present case,
particularly in absence of any substantive evidence.
41. The delay of approximately 21 hours in lodging the FIR has
been satisfactorily explained. The incident occurred in the evening
hours, and the complainant has stated that due to the late hour
and threats extended by the accused, the report could not be
lodged immediately. Considering the rural setting and the
circumstances of the case, such delay is neither unnatural nor
fatal to the prosecution case.
42. The “prosecutrix” has consistently stated that the act was
committed against her will. Further, in view of the evidence on
record establishing that the “prosecutrix” was suffering from
intellectual disability, the question of valid consent does not arise.
Even otherwise, no material has been brought on record by the
accused-appellant to probabilize that the act was consensual. It is
a settled principle of law that the testimony of a “prosecutrix”, if
found to be reliable and trustworthy, can form the sole basis of
conviction without requiring corroboration. Minor discrepancies or
inconsistencies, which do not go to the root of the matter, are to
be ignored. In the present case, the evidence of the “prosecutrix”
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (18 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
is cogent, consistent, and inspires confidence, and is further
corroborated by the testimony of PW-10 “B” and other witnesses.
43. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence available on
record, it is evident that the “prosecutrix” and her family, as well
as the accused-appellant, are residents of the same village,
namely Maruwada. The material on record further indicates that
the “prosecutrix”, owing to her mental condition, occasionally
solicited food from villagers and had, on at least one occasion,
visited the house of the accused-appellant for this purpose. It is
also established from her statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-02) that she was acquainted with the accused-
appellant and his family members.
44. The complainant “A” (PW-09), in his written report (Exhibit
P-09), has specifically named the accused-appellant, Masraram @
Masru that he followed the “prosecutrix”, forcibly dragged her
towards a nadi (water body), and committed rape upon her. The
testimonies of PW-07 (“prosecutrix”), PW-09 (“A”), PW-10 (“B”),
PW-11 (“C”), and PW-12 (“D”) consistently establish that the
accused-appellant, being a co-villager, was well-acquainted with
the “prosecutrix”, and her family members. No material
contradiction has emerged in their cross-examination to discredit
this aspect. Furthermore, in his statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant has not taken any specific plea
denying such acquaintance with the “prosecutrix”, or her family.
45. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 8(c) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, become applicable. The said provision raises a
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (19 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
presumption that where the accused was acquainted with the
victim or her family, it shall be presumed that the accused was
aware of the caste identity of the victim, unless the contrary is
proved. In the present case, no evidence has been adduced by the
accused-appellant to rebut this statutory presumption.
46. In this context, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patnam Jamal Vali v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2021, decided on
27.04.2021), wherein it has been held that after the amendment
of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act in the year 2016, it is
sufficient to establish that the accused committed an offence
punishable with ten years or more under the Indian Penal Code,
knowing that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe. The threshold of proving that the offence was
committed “on the ground of” caste has thus been lowered, and
knowledge of the caste identity is sufficient, which may also be
presumed under Section 8(c) in appropriate cases.
47. Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the
present case, it stands established that the accused-appellant was
acquainted with the “prosecutrix”, and her family, and therefore, a
presumption arises that he had knowledge of her caste identity. It
is held that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused
was fully aware that the “prosecutrix”, belonged to a Scheduled
Caste.
48. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused committed rape upon the “prosecutrix”, with the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13490-DB] (20 of 20) [CRLAD-207/2023]
knowledge that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste, thereby
attracting the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
49. In view of the foregoing discussion, the prosecution has
successfully established the guilt of the accused-appellant
Masraram @ Masru, for the offence punishable under Section 376
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, beyond reasonable
doubt. The learned trial court therefore rightly convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offences.
50. On the question of quantum of sentence, we have also heard
learned counsel for accused-appellant and have carefully
considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
entire material available on record. We are of the considered view
that the learned trial court has rightly passed the sentence against
the accused-appellant and therefore no interference in the same is
warranted.
51. In view of aforesaid observations, we find no infirmity or
perversity in the findings of learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore below. Hence,
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.08.2023
is upheld.
52. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed.
53. Office is directed to send the record forthwith.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
Kartik Dave/C.P. Goyal/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 10:02:59 AM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 03:35:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)