JUDGMENT:

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.398 of 2003 whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under :-

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, on the date of incident i.e. 05.04.2003, at about 7:00 AM, prosecutrix (PW-1) was residing at village Santoshi Nagar. She was alone at her house and was making food. At that relevant time, appellants entered into the house of prosecutrix, asked for matchbox and enquired about her husband's whereabouts. The prosecutrix gave them a matchbox. Thereafter, appellants shut the door of her house and caught hold of her hand, closed her mouth with a piece of cloth, dragged her and committed rape turn by turn upon her. After committing rape, accused Amal Vishvas opened her face and told that she will not narrate the incident to anyone and ran away from her house. Upon shouting of prosecutrix, her sisters-in-law came there, at that time, accused Amal Vishvas trying to ran away, but they caught hold of accused Amal Vishvas and locked him in a room. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged against the accused persons bearing Crime No.32 of 2003 vide Ex.P/1. Clothes of prosecutrix was seized. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. Spot map was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and thereafter, accused persons were arrested. The accused persons were also sent for medical examination. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.09.2004, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures, as such, unwarranted and irrelevant to the circumstances of the case. He further submits that prosecution could not establish the occurrence of the alleged incident. It is contended that finding of the trial Court is contrary to the settled law and evolution of evidence relied upon by learned trial Court do not establish the guilt, as such, the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. It is further argued that trial Court has failed to appreciate the medical evidence available on record in its proper perspective. It is argued that trial Court has failed to consider the fact of unexplained delay of 11 hours in lodging the FIR, which raises a serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the case. It is lastly argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and arbitrary, which deserves to be set aside. He placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SC