A. M. Badar, J.—By this appeal, appellant/accused no.1 Hira Yadav and appellant/accused no.2 Suresh Yadav are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2014 and 21.02.2014 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, in Sessions Trial No.101 of 2003 thereby convicting them of the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the sake of convenience, the appellants shall be referred to in their original capacity as “the accused”.

2. Facts in brief leading to the prosecution of the accused gathered from the police report can be summarized thus:—

(a) The prosecutrix, who is examined as P.W.6, is the first Informant. She is resident of village-Premahi falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station-Thakraha, District-West Champaran. She used to reside there along with her family members. The incident allegedly took placed at about 11.00 P.M. of 17.04.2001. At that time, according to the prosecution case, P.W.2 Chandradev, who happens to be the father of the prosecutrix, was also staying in her house. It is case of the prosecution that when members of the family of the prosecutrix and her father were sleeping in the house at about 11.00 P.M. of 17.04.2001, three accused persons, namely, Hira Yadav, Suresh Yadav and Naresh Yadav barged in the house. They assaulted P.W.2 Chandradev by means of sticks. When the prosecutrix attempted to save her father, she was also assaulted. P.W.2 Chandradev had suffered bleeding injury to his right knee and finger of the right palm. The prosecutrix was dragged to the grassland by all accused persons and there they committed gang rape on her. She became unconscious. Her family members traced her out and took out her back to the home. The prosecutrix had suffered injury on the back, both hands and neck. She was suffering pain at her private part.

(b) On 18.04.2001, the prosecutrix went to Bhitaha Police Out-post of Police Station-Thakraha and lodged report, which came to be recorded by Sanjay Kumar, Incharge of the Bhitaha Outpost. That report (Ext.1) was then forwarded to the Police Station-Thakraha where Crime No.25 of 2001 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 323, 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and the wheels of investigation were set in motion.

(c) During the course of investigation, the Investigator recorded statement of the witnesses. Effected seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to the Primary Heath Centre, Bettiah where she came to be examined by P.W.5 Dr. Poonam Sinha. On completion of investigation, the accused persons came to be charge-sheeted.

(d) In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses. The defence of the accused persons was that of total denial and false implication. However, they did not enter into the defence.

(e) After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellants/accused and to sentence them as indicated in the opening paragraphs of this Judgment.

3. We heard the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants/accused. By taking us through the records and proceedings, he argued that no independent witnesses are examined to prove the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that the medical evidence is not supporting the case of prosecution. There were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be pressed in service as the Investigator was not examined. It is further argued that evidence of the prosecutrix is not of sterling quality and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. To buttress this contention, reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court