IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of the prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses must be trustworthy and free from material contradictions and inconsistencies to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

1. The present appeal under provisions of Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State, NCT of Delhi challenging the order dated 20.11.2010 passed by the learned Court of Sessions in FIR No. 374/2003, registered at police station Khajuri Khas, Delhi for the offence under Sections 376/376(g)/323/354/452/506/34 IPC. By the impugned order dated 20.11.2010, the respondents have been acquitted for the aforesaid offences charged with, which is challenged in the present appeal.

2. The facts of the present case, as spelt out in the impugned judgment, are that on 18.11.2003 upon receipt of information, the Investigation Officer reached GTB Hospital where the complainant/prosecutrix stated that she was living with her parents and doing stitching work and had left her studies 5-6 months ago. She stated that she used to study in nearby school in front of Police Station Khajuri Khas. Accused Kuldeep, Mamta and Shikha used to live in her neighbourhood and they used to visit her house. Accused Kuldeep used to do `galat kam' with her whenever there was no one in her house. She stated that she was living with her parents and two younger brothers. On 06.10.2003, her brothers Narender and Vikas had seen accused Kuldeep doing `galat kam' with her even in the presence of accused Devender, Mamta and Shikha. On her complaint, the FIR was registered, the prosecutrix was got medically examined and investigation was set into motion. The Investigating Officer of this case got the bone age Xray of prosecutrix done. Accused Kuldeep was arrested and was also got medically examined from GTB Hospital. The report in respect of bone age Xray of the prosecutrix was obtained from the doctor, wherein she was declared aged 17/18 years.

3. Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 25.05.2004 wherein she stated that on 16.07.2003 her younger brother had gone for tuition, elder brother had gone to school and her mother had gone to Shahdara then someone knocked the door at about 2:00 P.M. When she opened the door, she found accused Kuldeep, Mamta and Shikha who forcibly entered her house. Accused Kuldeep gagged her mouth with his hands and Shikha bolted the door from outside. Accused Mamta raised the volume of T.V. and Kuldeep started fondling with her. He started kissing all over her face and body and when she started shouting, Mamta gave slaps on her face and Kuldeep gave her fist blows on her face and stomach. Mamta also dragged her down by pulling her hair and Shikha held her feet. Thereafter, accused Kuldeep made forcible relations with her, however, she lost consciousness and when she regained, she found herself in the hospital and the doctors were examining her. Even after her discharge from the hospital, when she reached her home, the next day accused Devender, Kuldeep, Sudhir and Neeraj Tyagi forcibly entered her house and showed a knife asking her to compromise the matter. Yet again on 30.10.2003, Kuldeep, Shikha, Mamta and Devender Tyagi forcibly entered her house and Kuldeep physically abused her and committed rape upon her. The prosecutrix has further stated that on 15.01.2004, police people left her at the house of accused Mamta and Shiksha where she was beaten by them and Kuldeep and Sudhir were present they physically abused her, however, no forcible relations were made.

4. On her statement, accused Kuldeep, Devender Tyagi and Shikha were arrested, however, accused Mamta could not be traced. Charge sheet under Sections 376/376(2)(g)/354/506/452 IPC was filed against the accused persons. A supplementary charge sheet under Sections 376//376(g)/323/452/354/506/34 IPC was filed against accused Sudhir. Accused Mamta Tyagi was declared proclaimed offender and the charge under Sections 376/376(g)/341/452/506/34 IPC was framed against her. During the pendency of the proceedings, these charges were amended and accused Mamta, Shiksha and Devender Tyagi were also charged with Sections 376/109 IPC read with