1. Criminal Appeal bearing No.504 of 2013 is preferred by appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3, whereas Criminal Appeal bearing No.657 of 2013 is preferred by appellant/accused No.4. By these appeals, the appellants/accused are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 24/04/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.127 of 2012 thereby convicting the appellants/accused of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 395, 342 read with Section 34, 323 read with Section 34, 504 read with Section 34 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, each of the appellants/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence of two years. For the offence punishable under Section 395 of the IPC, each of the appellants/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.10000/and default sentence of two years. For the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC, each of the appellants/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year apart from imposition of fine of Rs.1000/and default sentence of two months. For the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, each of the appellants/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year apart from imposition of fine of Rs.1000/and default sentence of two months. For the offence punishable under Section 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, each of the appellants/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year apart from imposition of fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence of two months. For the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, each of the appellants/accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years apart from imposition of fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence of six months.

2. Facts in nutshell leading to the prosecution of the appellants/accused are thus:

(a) According to the prosecution case, on 15/03/2012, the appellants/accused along with juvenile in conflict with law namely Anand Namdev Zole committed gang rape on the prosecutrix/P.W.No.1 near the road proceeding towards Bramhagiri from Trimbakeshwar after committing dacoity of cash amounting to Rs.7200/and one cellphone after wrongfully confining P.W.No.2 Suken Kusuvah by restraining him and by causing hurt to the prosecutrix/P.W.No.1 and P.W.No.2 Suken Kusuvah. The prosecution averred that the appellants/accused along with the juvenile in conflict with law caused criminal intimidation to the prosecutrix/P.W.No.1 and P.W.No.2 Suken Kusuvah and intentionally insulted them knowing that the same would cause alarm in them leading to breach of public peace by them.

(b) It is case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix/P.W.No.1 used to reside with her parents along with her son as well as her daughter at Satpur area of Nashik. She was separated from her husband since last eight years. P.W.No.2 Suken Kusuvah is her coworker and they both used to serve at the same Company at Nashik.

(c) According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix/P.W.No.1 along with P.W.No.2 Suken Kusuvah came to Trimbakeshwar for darshan of Lord Shiva on 15/03/2012 in the morning hours. After taking darshan, they both decided to visit another holy place Bramhagiri and, therefore, started climbing the mountain. At about 2.30 p.m., they took a halt for having lunch. At that time, the appellants/accused along with the juvenile in conflict with law came there and questioned them as to why they are sitting there. They had beaten the prosecutrix/P.W.No.1 as well as P.W.No.2 Suken Kusuvah. An amount of Rs.7200/- as well as cellphone came to be robbed from both of them by snatching their money purses and the cellphone.

(d) According to the prosecution case, then three of them dragged the