JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.3.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.56 of 2017, whereby each of the Appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the relevant date, the prosecutrix (PW12) was a 22 years old unmarried girl. Complainant Hareram (PW13) is her brother. On 26.8.2017, he made a written complaint (Ex.P16) alleging that in the first week of November, 2016 both the Appellants scared him that the prosecutrix is under witchcraft which according to them was required to be healed by jhadphoonk and tantra-mantra and this way they obtained a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from him. When the health of the prosecutrix did not recover, he demanded his money back from the Appellants, but they did not refund his money. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix had also told him that Appellant Prakash had teased her in the treatment room while doing jhaadphoonk on her and he, saying that God was to be served with bhog, had inserted and shaken his finger in her private part and he had also scared her saying that on telling about this to anyone, she and her family members would die one by one. It is further alleged that Appellant Videshiram also helped Appellant Praksh in his wrong acts. On the basis of the said complaint, offence was registered. Statements of the Complainant, the prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Asha Tripathi (PW10). Her report is Ex.P6. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants. Charges were framed against them.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellants denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness has been examined in defence.

4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that without there being any clinching evidence on record against the Appellants, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted them. It was further submitted that the alleged incident took place in November, 2016, but the FIR was lodged after 11 months of the alleged incident and that too by the brother of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix herself has not made any complaint. The entire story narrated by the prosecutrix and her brother is false and fabricated. There was some dispute regarding transaction of money between Appellant Prakash and brother of the prosecutrix Hareram (PW13) and to create pressure on Appellant Prakash, the FIR was lodged by Hareram (PW13). There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses. They have also developed their statements on material points. Therefore, their st