1. The two appellants before this court have been described as residents of jhuggies (hutments) located in the compound of office of Delhi Jal Board in the locality called Kishangarh in Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. They were concededly arrested on 20.03.2017 during the course of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.124/2017, dated 19.03.2017 of Police Station Vasant Kunj (North). They were brought to trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in Sessions case No.175/2017 on the basis of report (charge sheet) dated 03.05.2017 under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) submitted by the Station House Officer of the Police Station through Assistant Commissioner of Police of the sub-division.

2. The trial was held on the charge for offences punishable under section 366 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sections 376(2)(l), 376-D IPC and 323/506 read with section 34 IPC. The ASJ presiding over the trial, by her judgment dated 14.02.2019, found the appellants guilty on charge for offences under sections 323/366 read with section 34 IPC and also under sections 376(2)(l) and 376-D IPC, they having been acquitted on the charge under section 506 IPC.

3. By order dated 22.02.2019, the trial court awarded rigorous imprisonment for twenty years with fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 376-D IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 376(2)(l) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 366 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under section 323 IPC to each of these convicts. The trial court further specified the default sentences in the event of non- payment of fine adding that the entire amount of fine would be payable as compensation to the prosecutrix (the victim), also recommending appropriate compensation to be awarded by the concerned Legal Services Authority under Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the above-mentioned judgment of conviction, and order on sentence, these appeals have been preferred, the prime contention being that the appellants are innocent, they having been implicated under some confusion, it being a case of mistaken identity.

5. It is apposite to take note at the outset of certain facts which emerge from the record as established by evidence which is beyond reproach, and which are now indisputable, there being no endeavour made by the appellants to question the correctness thereof.

6. The prosecutrix who appeared at the trial as witness for prosecution (PW-1) is a girl who was aged about 22 years' old on the relevant date (17.03.2017). Unfortunately, her mental growth has been stulted, her intelligence quotient (IQ) being very low, she also finding it difficult to engage in conversation with others or to express herself fully, this having been mentioned in so many words by her mother, who appeared at the trial as a witness for prosecution (PW-2), in her statement (Ex.PW-2/A) to the investigating officer SI Preeti (PW-13), which statement became, upon endorsement (Ex.PW-13/A) of PW-13 (investigating officer), to be the basis of the FIR (Ex.PX2). The prosecutrix was sent for evaluation of her intellectual and mental capacity to Psychiatry Department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on 24.03.2017 and, thereafter, on several dates. In AIIMS, she was examined by the specialists, they including Mrs. Tanuja (PW-6) and Dr. Koushik Sinha Deb (PW-7). The said two witnesses have proved their reports (Ex.PW-6/A, Ex.PW-7/A and Ex.PW-7/B), the conjoint effect whereof is that the prosecutrix, in their opinion and assessment, was (then) a person of "moderate intellectual disability", her IQ being in the range of 45-50 which would indicate her mental age as that of a child in the age group of 6-9 years.

7. Sub-Inspector Nisha (PW-14) is the first police official before whom info