JUDGMENT - S.G. MAHAJAN, J.:---This common judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1995. Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995 is brought by appellants No. 1 Ashok Kawaduji Salame and No. 2 Ashok Ramrao Bhujbal, who were accused No. 1 and 2 respectively, and Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1995 is brought by appellant Anil Pundlikrao Badhe, who was an accused No. 3, in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. Each of the above accused was convicted of the offences under section 376(2)(g), section 506 read with section 34 and section 448 read with section 34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default to suffer R.I. for six months more for the offence under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under section 506 read with section 34 I.P.C. and again to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under section 448 read with section 34 I.P.C. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Accused No. 4 Jitu alias Jitendra Marotrao Deshbhrathar in the abovesaid sessions trial is not an appellant since he was acquitted of all the offences. The aforesaid appellants have challenged the above order of conviction and sentence in the appeals.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :

(a) At the time of incident, prosecutrix Ku. Meena daughter of Prabhakarrao Gawande was residing together with her mother in one Badgewada in Kalyannagar locality, Amravati. However, some three days prior to the incident, her mother had gone out of station.

(b) The incident took place on 21-2-1993, around 11.00 p.m. On that day, the prosecutrix was alone at her house. The milk vendor used to come to Badgewada every day at about 10 to 10.30 p.m. to supply the milk to the occupants of Wada. On that day, the prosecutrix heard the voice of the milk vendor, who was supplying milk in the Wada. When she heard the voice of milk vendor at her door, she opened the door. She was holding the utensil for taking milk. As soon as she extended her hand outside to take the milk, all the four accused forced their entry in her house. One of them pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix and prevented her from shouting. One accused closed the door and latched it from inside. Another threatened her with knife. The other one caught hold of her hands and legs. She was lifted physically and was put on the cot. The saree on her person was removed forcibly and the petticoat was made upwards. All the four accused persons then committed rape upon the prosecutrix turn by turn. At the time when the forcible sexual intercourse was being performed by the accused persons, the prosecutrix was prevented from raising shouts and her legs and arms were caught hold of by the others besides the accused performing the intercourse and thus she was prevented from offering the resistance. She was also threatened with knife. When she requested not to outrage her modesty, one of the accused rudely threatened her that he would tear her off. When the prosecutrix was being raped by the accused persons, one after another, one or the other out of them was going out either for smoking or for chewing pan. Because of the forcible penetration of penis in the vagina of the prosecutrix, it started bleeding. The forcible sexual intercourse as above continued upto midnight. The accused persons thereafter left the house and went away. Even after the accused persons left the house of the prosecutrix, she did not raise the shouts calling the neighbours because she was feeling giddiness and she was semi-conscious. She could not get up from the cot. For the whole night she remained lying on the cot itself in the same condition.

(c) Prosecutrix Meena got up in the next morning at about 7.30 a.m. she went to the house of her friend named Sushma. On going there, she again became unconscious. She regained consciousness at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document