( 1 ) ALL these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

1. 0 Criminal Appeal Nos. 459/2006 and 235/2006 have been preferred by original accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively against the impugned judgment and order dated 7/2/2006 passed by the learned Presiding officer, Fast Track Court No. 4. Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 21/2005, whereby, both original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 366 IPC. Apart from conviction u/s. 366 IPC, original accused no. 1 has also been convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 376 (g) IPC.

1. 1 For conviction u/s. 366 IPC, both original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years with fine of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 5000/-respectively and in default of payment of fine, both have been directed to undergo s. I. for a further period of one month. For conviction u/s. 376 (g) IPC, original accused no. 1 has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, S. I. for a further period of one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently for original accused No. 1. The accused were also given the benefit of set-off. Out of the fine amount that may be received from the accused, an amount of Rs. 5000/- was ordered to be paid to the victim. 1. 2 Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2006 is preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence imposed on original accused no. 1, whereas. Criminal Appeal No. 1327/ 2006 has been preferred for enhancement of the sentence imposed on original accused no. 2.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief of the prosecution case are as under;

(1) The complainant was residing along with her family, consisting of her parents, two sisters and one brother in the residential quarters of Gujarat Housing Board situated in Chandkheda area of Gandhinagar City. The father of the complainant, Ghevarchand nenaji Tavar, was doing miscellaneous electrical work, whereas, her mother, sagunaben, apart from doing house-hold work, also used to purchase/sell old clothes in a mobile shop. Amongst the three daughters, the complainant is the eldest and had studied up to 7th standard.

(2) Both the accused were residing in the same locality, whereas, original accused no. 2 was residing in the neighborhood of the complainant and was also known to her entire family. During the relevant time, the family of the complainant had no telephone connection in their house and since original accused No. 2 was having a telephone connection in her house and both the families were known to each other, the family of the complainant used to utilize the said telephone for attending telephone calls received for them at original accused No. 2 residence.

(3) On 7/9/2004, at around 1230 hrs. , the complainant was alone in her house. During that time, original accused No. 2 gave a call asking the complainant to come to her house. The complainant felt that some telephone call for them might have been received and therefore, she went to the house of original accused No. 2. When she reached her house, original accused No. 2 asked her to bring an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her house. The complainant informed her that she could not arrange for the said amount as her parents were not present in the house. However, ultimately, the complainant agreed and she brought an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from her house.

(4) Thereafter, original accused No. 2 took the complainant to Jantanagar Bus-stand where original accused No. 1 was waiting. Original accused No. 2 asked the complainant to be in the company of original accused No. 1 and left the place. Later, original accused No. 1 hired an auto-rickshaw and instructed the complainant to accompany him in the said auto-rickshaw. The complainant followed his instructions and boarded the said auto-rickshaw. They both went to the main bus-depot of ahmedabad City and boarded a bus for udaipur, Rajastha