The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in FIR and contradictions in testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Judgment :

(Rajani Dubey, J.)

1. Since the aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. There are two victims/prosecutrix in the case and they are referred herein as Prosecutrix (P-1) and Prosecutrix (P-2).

3. The aforesaid appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.08.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, Ambikapur at Surguja (C.G.), in Special Sessions Trial No.50/2003 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced them as described below.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that prosecutrix (P-1) had come from village Devri to her sister prosecutrix (P-2) at village Sara and after staying for about one week at village Sara, on 29.12.2002, she (P-1) along with her sister (P-2) left for village Devri. The prosecutrix (P-1 and P-2) were travelling in passenger vehicle Jeep from Amarpur at around 4.00 PM, which was being driven by accused/appellant Saheba Ram and other accused/appellants were also in the vehicle. When the vehicle reached near village Modipara at around 8.00 PM and the prosecutrix (P-1 and P-2) were getting off the vehicle, the accused/appellants told them that they would drop the prosecutrix (P-1 and P-2) to village Devri and compelled them to sit in the vehicle and took them to Bhandarpara forest where the accused/appellants committed rape with them and satiated their lust one after another. Thereafter, the accused/appellants took the prosecutrix (P-1 and P-2) to village Jaampara and kept them there in a house whole night and at morning they brought the prosecutrix (P-1 and P-2) at village Kathghodi and thereafter dropped them near Baikunthpur Bus stand. Thereafter, the prosecutrix (P-1 and P-2) boarded the bus at Baikunthpur and came to village Devri and after reaching home, the information was given to their mother. PW/14 - husband of prosecutrix (P-2) who had come to village Devri to take his wife whom also the information of incident was given and on 08.01.2003, the report of the incident was made by Prosecutrix (P-2) at police station Baikunthpur. After obtaining consent, both the prosecutrix were medically examined and after completing the usual investigation, vaginal slides were prepared. Spot map was prepared by the police. Statement of the prosecutrix (P-1 and P-2) were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Clothes of the prosecutrix and accused/appellants were seized and sent for its chemical examination to FSL.

5. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellants under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and charges were framed against the accused/appellants under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC read with Section 3 (1) (v) of the SC/ST Act and Section 3 (2) (xii) of the SC/ST Act by the trial Court.

6. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

7. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is perverse, erroneous, contrary to law & facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that there is delay in lodging the