IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the victim's testimony, the lack of necessity for corroboration in rape cases, and the importance of identifying the accused in court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Vide instant appeals, convicts for offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] are hereby assailing the judgment and order dated 20.05.2002 passed by learned I Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Session Case No. 73 of 2001, sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine. Convicts Vilas and Balaji have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2002, whereas convict Sukhdeo has filed distinct appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2002.

Since both appeals are arising out the same judgment, they are dealt together.

FACTS IN BRIEF LEADING TO TRIAL

2. Parali Rural Police Station registered crime on report lodged by prosecutrix, alleging that she and her husband had shifted to Dadahari Wadgaon, Taluka Parali four months prior to the incident. On 10.07.2001, she had been to visit her sister at Peth Mohalla, Parali Vaijnath and had spent night there. Next day around 9.00 a.m. she left her sister’s place to return back to her house i.e. on 11.07.2001. While she was walking over road leading to Loni, she came in the vicinity of a small stream. There, three persons intercepted her. She was forcibly dragged and taken towards the stream and on knife point, one after the other, all three accused raped her. Seeing a boy approaching, on hearing her shouts, these three persons left. She interacted with the boy who arrived there and she sought details of those three persons who had fled seeing him and he gave their names, i.e. of appellants, and also told about they to be residents of Dadahari Wadgaon. She directly went to the field where her husband was rendering labour work, reported him the incident and then she, her husband and land owner approached police where she lodged report, on the strength of which crime was registered.

3. PW10 SDPO Baburao Umap, who was entrusted with the investigation, arrested accused, drew spot panchanama, referred victim to medical examination, collected reports, seized clothes of both, victim as well as accused, so also caused seizure of knife at the instance of accused Sukhdeo by virtue of memorandum. After gathering sufficient evidence, they came to be chargesheeted and finally tried before learned I Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, who on conducting trial, held the charges proved and convicted appellants who are now questioning their said conviction by filing instant appeals.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the appellants:

4. Learned counsel for the appellants in both appeals would submit that apparently implication is false. According to them, it is impossible to commit gang rape in broad day light. They would take this Court through the evidence of victim and would submit that her evidence, more particularly answers given in cross, show that her testimony is full of material omissions and contradictions. Further, according to them, there is no corroboration as the very boy who allegedly saw accused has not supported prosecution.

5. Both learned counsel further pointed out that, even medical evidence does not suggest any forceful sexual intercourse. They laid stress on the aspect that when there are allegations of rape by three persons, there has to be injuries both, on internal and external body, but the same is missing thereby falsifying the very case of rape.

6. Both learned counsel pointed out that, it is pertinent to note that accused persons were strangers and victim has not given description of accused persons. That, no test identification parade was conducted. It is alleged that information was received from the boy PW7 Sakharam, but he has not supported prosecution. Learned counsel would strenuously submit that prosecutrix has not named accused, rather complaint is given by one Raju Pande and prosecutrix has merely appended thumb impression. That, as there is no test identification parade, apparently evidence of prosecution was weak in nature.

7. They also questioned the judgment of learned trial court by submitting