JUDGMENT :

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. This appeal, at the instance of the accused Shiva @ Chandrika, calls into question judgment, dated 24th March, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as "the learned ASJ"), convicting the appellant under Sections 344/376/376D/323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"), as well as the consequent order, dated 29th March, 2014, whereby the learned ASJ has sentenced the appellant to (i) 3 years' rigorous imprisonment (RI) with fine of Rs. 5000/-, for the offence under Section 344, IPC, with default sentence of 1 month's imprisonment, (ii) 1 year's RI for the offence under Section 323, IPC, (iii) 10 years' RI for the offence under Section 376, IPC, with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, with default sentence of 6 months imprisonment, (iv) 20 years' RI for the offence under Section 376D, IPC, with fine of Rs. 25,000 and default sentence of 6 months' RI and (v) 2 years' RI for the offence under Section 506, IPC, with the further stipulation that the sentences (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) would run concurrently, whereafter the running of the sentence under (iv) would commence. Effectively, therefore, the appellant has been sentenced, by the learned ASJ, to 30 years' RI, apart from the stipulations regarding fine and default sentence.

Case of the Prosecution

2. The case of the prosecution, as set out in the chargesheet, dated 18th June, 2013, filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), may be summarised thus.

3. Consequent to, and in compliance of, the directions issued by the superior officers on 23rd March, 2013, Woman Sub Inspector (SI) Parmila (PW-7) made DD Entry No. 17A and proceeded to House No. 303, Bharthal Village, where she was informed by the prosecutrix (PW-1), that a "wrong act" had been committed with her, and that she had been injured as she was beaten. She expressed her desire to have herself medically examined, whereupon SI Parmila, accompanied by SI Lokesh Kumar (PW-4), reached the DDU Hospital, where the prosecutrix was examined vide MLC No. 7025/13. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), wherein she deposed that (i) her marriage had taken place thirteen years earlier, and she had three children, (ii) earlier, she used to work in Raebareli, (iii) the appellant, who used to work in the same premises, had an evil eye on her, (iv) on 15th June, 2012, while she was travelling from Kanpur to Raebareli, and went to the bathroom, the appellant, who was present there, threatened to kill her, and her husband and children, and covered her mouth with a handkerchief, (v) she did not recollect what happened thereafter; however, when she regained consciousness, she found herself in a room which, she later learnt, was in Delhi, (vi) the appellant did not allow her to leave the house, and used to administer intoxicating drugs to her, whereafter he used to commit wrong acts with her, (vii) he also established unnatural contact with her, (viii) he used to torture her, mentally and physically, (ix) while leaving the house, he used to lock her inside, and take the key with him, (x) on 22nd March, 2013, at 9:00 PM, the appellant, after reaching home, left the house and returned at about 11:00 PM with two of his friends, whom she did not know, (xi) the said two persons had covered their faces and were wearing black caps, (xii) one of the said persons was wearing a black trouser and a white check shirt, while the other was wearing a sky-blue shirt and a cream-coloured trouser, (xiii) after entering the room, they closed the door and switched off the lights, (xiv) the appellant raised the volume of the TV, whereafter he threw her on the bed, and held her hands, (xv) when she began to shout, the appellant covered her face with a cloth, after which he t