As per Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 31.7.2007 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.261/2006. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellants Krishna Nepali and Golu @ Madhu have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:

Sl. Offence under Jail sentence Payment Default of payment

No. section of fine of fine

1. Section 450 IPC RI for ten years Rs.5,000/- RI for one year

2. Section 376(2)(g) Imprisonment for Rs.50,000/- R-I for three years

IPC life

3. Section 506 RI for five years - -

Part II IPC

2. Accused Golu alias Madhu had filed Criminal Appeal No.733/2007 against the judgment impugned herein. The instant appeal has been filed by accused Golu alias Madhu and co-accused Krishna Nepali. By permitting accused Golu alias Madhu to prosecute the instant appeal, .Criminal Appeal No.733/2007 has been dismissed as unnecessary by a Division Bench of this Court on 5-8-2008.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

On 12.8.2006, at about 4 pm, prosecutrix (PW-2) was alone at her house and was 'washing clothes. At that time, the appellants knocked the door of her house. When she opened the door, the appellants forcibly entered into her house and asked her for sexual intercourse with her. On her refusal, the appellants forcibly caused her to fall down on the bed. Appellant Golu @ Madhu caught her hands and appellant Krishna Nepali removed her clothes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, appellant Krishna Nepali caught her hands and appellant Golu @ Madhu committed sexual intercourse with her. The appellants threatened her for life and also assaulted her with a wooden stick. She sustained injuries on the head. She lodged First Information Report (Ex-P/l) in Police Station Chhawani. She was sent to District Hospital, Durg for medical examination vide Ex-P/4. Dr. Manjusha Amaredkar (PW-5) examined her and gave a report (Ex-P/4A), in which she found a contusion on the frontal scalp. Two slides of her vaginal swab were prepared. Petticoat and slides of vaginal swab were seized. The appellants were also sent to Government Hospital, Supela for medical examination. Dr. R.K. Saxena (PW-6) examined the appellants and gave reports (Ex-P/10 and P/11), in which he found that the appellants were capable of performing sexual intercourse.

In further investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Durg, from where it was received on transfer by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

4. Mr. Sunil Verma and Mr. Jitendra Gupia, learned counsel appearing for appellant No.1 and Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel appearing for appellant No.2 argued that the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-2) is full of contradictions. The case of the prosecution is highly improbable. A close scrutiny of the evidence available on record reveals that the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-2) is not reliable. They further argued that prosecutrix (PW-2) used to sell liquor and when she was prevented by the appellants for doing the illegal work, she falsely implicated the appellants. The prosecutrix herself was indulging in illegal activities. Therefore, her evidence is not reliable and cannot be based for conviction of the appellants.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Akhil Mishra, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr. UNS Deo, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants do not warrant any interference by this Court.

6. Now, we shall examine whether the evidence of prosecutrix (PW2) is sufficient to convict the appellants without corroboration?

Evidence of Prosecutrix:

7. In