The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of gang rape under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, which includes the actions of two individuals acting in furtherance of their common intention.

JUDGMENT - QAZI M.M., J.:---The appellants, in this appeal, have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default whereof each appellant accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, by his judgment and order dated 4-12-1986.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix Puranbai who was below the age of 16 years at the relevant time, had gone to graze cattle near the lake usual at about 10 a.m. on 5-11-1984. The appellants seeing the prosecutrix alone came near her. The appellant No. 1 Uttam alias Bhadrya asked Purnabai to let him commit sexual intercourse with her. On her refusal, the appellant No. 1 Bhadrya caught hold of the prosecutrix Puranbai and felled her down on the ground, whereas the appellant No. 2 Sanjay united her underwear and committed rape on her. Thereafter, the appellant No. 1 Bhadrya also committed rape on Puranbai. While all this was going on, Puranbai was shouting for help. On hearing the shouts, her brother Puran (P.W. 3), who was far off from the spot of occurrence rushed to her rescue. According to him, he saw the appellant Bhadrya committing sexual intercourse with Puranbai. He has further deposed that appellant No. 2 Sanjay came near him and threatened him that the incident should not be disclosed to anybody. In view of this threat, Puran run towards one Karya (P.W. 2). He told the incident to Karya and one Rushya. According to Puran, Karya and Rushya then ran towards the spot of occurrence. The prosecutrix Puranbai went crying to her house and narrated the incident to her sister Kusumbai (P.W. 4) and also to her mother when she returned after some time from the field. Puranbai also reported the said incident to her father when he returned subsequently form the field. Thereafter, her father took Puranabai to the Police Patil and the incident was narrated to him as well. The Police Patil scribed the report and thereafter both of them went to the Police Station, Gondia (Rural) and lodged the report (Exhibit 15) at the Police Station on 6-11-1984. On the basis of this report, the offence was registered by the Investigating Officer Mr. Abdul Sattar (P.W. 9). The Investigating Officer sent Puranbai for medical examination and also effected seizure of some articles including the blue skirt of Puranbai vide Seizure Memo (Exhibit 16).

3. The appellants accused were arrested on 6-11-1984 itself in the evening. Abdul Sattar (P.W. 9) the P.S.O., also did the other investigation such as recording statements of the witnesses etc. The seized property was also sent to the Chemical Analyser. The Chemical Analyser found that the half-pant and chaddi belonging to appellant-accused No. 1 had semen stain. The Chemical Analyser's report (Exhibit 42) further shows that the two slides which were brought from the hospital by the Constable and which were Seized under Seizure Memo (Exhibit 40) by P.S.O. Abdul Sattar, were sent to the Chemical Analyser for examination. The Chemical Analyser detected spermatozoa on these two slides.

4. In this case, the most important evidence consists of the girl herself i.e. the prosecutrix Puranbai. The fact that she was below the age of 16 years at the time of the incident is not at all disputed. The prosecutrix has deposed that while she was all alone near the lake, both the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. She has given the details as to how the rape was committed on her. According to her, when one of them was committing rape on her, the other was holding her hands till the act was completed. She also deposed that she was all the while shouting when the accused were committing forcible sexual intercourse with her. In the cross-examination. She is not at all shaken. No omissions or contradictions, worth the name, are brought in her evidence. O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document