ORDER

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2006 in Criminal Revision No. 392 of 2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by way of which it has dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents-accused in Sessions Case No. 9 of 1995/2000 dated 7.6.2000 of the charges punishable under Sections 148, 323, 149, 363, 376, 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC').

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

A. On 7.2.1995, the appellant, a labourer by occupation was dragged by the respondents-accused into their car and taken to Dera Khushian Dass at village Thatha. She was beaten by the respondents and was forced to keep mum and sign certain papers. Baba Jagir Singh (now dead) raped the appellant. Thereafter, she was raped by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein, also. The appellant was mal-treated to the extent that one lady at Dera, namely Sawinder Kaur put chilly powder in her private parts and she was detained in the room.

B. On 8.2.1995, appellant's husband came with several persons and rescued her from the Dera. She was taken to the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran in unconscious state and the police was informed.

C. The appellant regained consciousness only on 9.2.1995. Her statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector, Kabala Singh (PW-13) on the same day. The appellant was then pressurised by the respondents to compromise and they tried to hush up the matter and even produced a signed agreement of compromise. In view thereof, the police refused to register the FIR on 9.2.1995. It was only at the instance of the appellant that an FIR could be lodged on 10.2.1995 at Tarn Taran Police Station.

D. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under sections referred to hereinabove, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court vide its judgment and order dated 7.6.2000 acquitted all the accused persons on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution could not explain the same, though the compromise deed was filed but the court could not consider it, as the offences were not compoundable. The Trial Court was swayed by the fact that the father and son cannot rape a woman together.

E. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the Criminal Revision No. 392 of 2001 before the High Court and the same stood dismissed vide its judgment and order dated 21.8.2006.

Hence, this appeal.

3. This Court was not satisfied with the judgments and orders of the courts below. Since the appellant could not furnish the copies of the statements of all the witnesses, this court vide order dated 2.4.2013 directed the counsel appearing for the State to file two sets of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, if any. However, the said order has not been complied with for the reasons best known to the State authorities.

4. The Trial Court recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to explain the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident occurred on 7.2.1995, three days before the FIR was lodged. The appellant- prosecutrix herself had given a version, furnishing complete explanation for the delay. The so-called compromise deed was also placed on record. Appellant had also deposed that when she regained her consciousness, her statement was recorded by the Sub-Inspector on 9.2.1995. The same had been admitted by Shri Kabala Singh (PW-13).

5. The Trial Court took note of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties upto paragraph 9, and thereafter dealt with the entire case in just one paragraph i.e. paragraph 10. In that paragraph also, the learned Trial Court, made a passing reference to the statement of the prosecutrix, or to those of any other witness but failed to appreciate the same properly.

6. The Trial Court took note of the statement of Dr. Tejw