JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2015 passed by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Special Case No.40 of 2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 376D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 : Imprisonment for life (which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the appellants’ natural life) and fine of Rs.10,000/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3-3 months to each of the appellants.

2. Under the impugned judgment in question, appellants were acquitted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 506B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) as well as Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”).

3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that in the intervening night of 13th-14th May, 2014, prosecutrix (PW-1), who was minor along with her relative and minor friend (PW-2) (who is the victim in another case), Damodar (close relative) and Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) went to village Dhoram to see a fair. On 14th May, 2014, at about 4.00 AM, when they were returning to their village Rumkera, prosecutrix (PW-1) as well as her friend (PW-2) were caught hold by the appellants near culvert and their relative and friend Damodar and Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) were beaten and driven away by the appellants. The appellants then dragged the prosecutrix (PW-1) as well as her friend (PW-2) and committed forceful gang-rape on them. They threatened to kill the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her friend (PW-2) by asking them not to disclose the said incident to anyone. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of prosecutrix (PW-1) on 14.05.2014 itself, at about 10.30 AM, a named First Information Report was lodged against the appellants at Police Station Gharghoda vide Ex.P/1. Medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-1) was conducted vide Ex.P/21. Spot map with Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Caste certificate of prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P/6. Vaginal slides etc. were seized vide Ex.P/14, which was sent for its chemical examination vide Ex.P/34 and Ex.P/35, but FSL report has not come on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Identification of accused was conducted by the Executive Magistrate vide Ex.P/5. Thereafter, appellants were arrested on 15.05.2014 vide Ex.P/22 to Ex.P/25. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, one Rohit Sahu has been examined as DW-1 and statement of three witnesses has relied on as D/1, D/2 and D/3.

5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 22.08.2015, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein-above, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

6. Ms. Indira Tri