Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by forensic evidence and other witness testimony.

1. By these appeals the Appellants challenge the common judgment dated 29th January, 2000 convicting the Appellants for offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the order on sentence dated 31st January, 2000 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant Vijay Tyagi contends that the Appellants have been falsely implicated. All the three Appellants were not known to each other and had been living separately, thus the offence as alleged could not have been committed by them. The prosecutrix and her husband were recalled when they clarified the position and stated that the Appellants were not the persons who were involved in the offence. The main witness Jeevan Lal in the presence of whom the prosecutrix was taken away and who was threatened has not been examined. Though it is alleged that the offence took place in the bushes, however no bushes have been shown in the site plan. Despite the allegation that the clothes of the prosecutrix were torn and thrown near the jhuggi, it is alleged that semen stains were found on the clothes. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that when PW4 and the Police reached the spot, the prosecutrix was crying and had no clothes on her body. The rope with which the prosecutrix was allegedly tied was not seized. Though it is alleged that razor was shown to threaten Jeevan Lal and two of the accuseds have been arrested on the spot, there is no recovery of the razor. As per the allegations in the FIR the prosecutrix was dragged to the place of incident, however there are no injuries on her body showing dragging. PW6 HC Jagdish Chand had a quarrel with Appellant Vinay Kumar Tyagi and thus he was also implicated. As per the case of the prosecution when PW4 reached the jhuggi, he was informed that his wife had been kidnapped, however he did not go to see his wife but went to the Police. The version of the prosecutrix is not corroborated by the FSL report.

3. Learned counsel for Raj Roop and Krishna Kumar while adopting the arguments made on behalf of learned counsel for the Appellant Vinay Kumar further states that though the prosecutrix stated that Jeevan Lal ran away from the spot, however PW4 stated that Jeevan Lal told him that three persons had taken away his wife. Despite Jeevan Lal being shown a razor, he raised no hue and cry on a road which is a busy road. The case of the prosecutrix is that her clothes were torn and not that they were removed. However, no clothes were seized from the spot. PW15 stated that PW3 the prosecutrix carried her clothes with herself to the Police Station. As per the witnesses, Raj Roop was arrested at the pointing out of PW3, however this is only a ploy to deny the Test Identification report. There is no material on record to show that the Appellants’ blood groups are ‘AB’, so that it can be held that the semen stains found were that of the Appellants.

4. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the prosecutrix has fully supported her version in the Court. Her statement is corroborated by the FSL report and the testimony of her husband PW4. Two of the accuseds were apprehended at the spot. The conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the same needs no corroboration from an independent witness or MLC or FSL report.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of PW3 the prosecutrix who has stated that she was living on the pavement outside Daulat Ram College in a jhuggi. There were two other jhuggis near her jhuggi i.e. of Jeevan Lal. Rest of the jhuggis were at a distance from their jhuggis. On 25th January, 1993 at about 8.00 PM she was making chapattis outside her jhuggi and her neigbour Jeevan Lal was sitting with her. Wife of Jeevan Lal had gone to