PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.05.2008, the appellants; Devender @ Kala s/o Ram Kumar, Sandy @ Ved Prakash s/o Rajpal, Sanjay s/o Zile Singh, Sheel @ Sushil s/o Mahabir Singh and Jasbir @ Lily s/o Balbir Singh, have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.5,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. For the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay fine in sum of Rs.5,000/-; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. The broad contours of the case set up by the prosecution against the appellants is that in the afternoon of 12.01.2002 when one Ms.B (herein after referred to as the “Deceased”) was on her way to the agricultural fields owned by her family, the appellants caught hold of her and committed rape upon her. On being raped by the appellants, the deceased felt so humiliated that she decided to end her life and on returning home consumed sulphas tablets. The deceased also administered sulphas tablets to her three years old daughter Kumari „K. The deceased and her daughter were removed to the hospital where the daughter of the deceased survived but the life of the deceased could not be saved. Before her death, the deceased wrote the names of the appellants on a slip of paper and told her brother-in-law Rajesh PW-1, mother-in-law Chand Kaur PW-5 and brother Sartaj PW-10, that she had been raped by the persons whose names she had written on the aforesaid slip of paper. Further the deceased also told HC Surender Kumar PW-23, that the appellants have raped her at the time when he was removing her to the hospital, i.e. the deceased made two declarations pertaining to the circumstances of her death soon before she died the same day.

3. The fact that the deceased died a suicidal death is not in dispute. The fact that the deceased committed suicide by consuming sulphas tablets is also not in dispute.

4. We need not note the investigation conducted by the police in the present case save and except the facts pertaining to the seizure of slip of paper on which the deceased had purportedly written the names of the appellants soon before the death, the post-mortem report Ex.PW-14/A of the deceased and the FSL report Ex.PW-33/A for the reason nothing much turns thereon. Of course we have to note the testimony of the witnesses who have deposed of the facts of what the deceased told them.

5. Relevant would it be to note that on 12.01.2002 at about 01.30 P.M. Dr.Pankaj Kumar examined the deceased at the time when she was admitted in the hospital and prepared the MLC Ex.PW-37/C of the deceased. The relevant portion of the MLC Ex.PW-37/C of the deceased reads as under:- “Alleged H/o Gang by many (? 4 in no.) people”

6. Thereafter at around 2.00 P.M. Dr.Divya Aggarwal PW-2, examined the deceased and prepared the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of the deceased. The relevant portion of the MLC Ex.PW-2/A of the deceased reads as under:- “There is no mark of injury seen on back, breast, axiller or abdomen or thigh or perineum..... ....Mark of semen on xiphesternum and abdomen”

7. After conducting the medical examination of the deceased, Dr.Divya Aggarwal PW-2, handed over the vaginal swab of the deceased to Const. Chand Ram PW-32, who handed over the same to SI Satbir Singh PW-34, the police officer entrusted with the investigation of the present case, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-34/C.

8. On the same day i.e. 12.01.2002 SI Satbir Singh PW-34, seized the slip of paper Ex.PW-1/B on which the deceased had purportedly written the names of the appellants soon before her death from the residence