Z.K. Saiyed, J.

1. By way of present Appeals, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 30-5-1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 186 of 1993, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants - accused persons for offences punishable under Sees. 363, 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge ordered the appellant-accused No. 1 (Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 1996) to undergo sentence for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one year. The appellant No. 1 (Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 1996) (original accused No. 2) was ordered to undergo sentence for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one year, for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 (Criminal Appeal No. 416 of 1996) were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one year, for the offence punishable under Sees. 366 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Here in this case, the accused-Babubhai has expired. Therefore, the appeal is abetted qua the said accused. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are such that on 25-11-1991, the complainant Jubedaben Vajesinh Rana lodged complaint with Jawaharnagar Police Station, Dist. Baroda, stating that on 5-11-1991, her daughter Hasina aged 16 years, had gone to fetch water at the public tap situated near Refinery Cross Road, at about 5-30 in the morning and same day was "Kalichaudash day". The daughter Hasina did not return for considerable time, the complainant went to make inquiry and she did not find her near the tap. At that time, she noticed light switched on at the house of original accused No. 1-Dilipsinh, and therefore, she went there. The said house was closed on front side, therefore, she went on the back side and peeped into the house through the window, where she saw three persons colouring the wall and she noticed that her daughter was there. Therefore, she entered into the house through back door and scolded her daughter as to why she did come there. There were four persons in the house. She got scared and went out. In the meanwhile, she saw that the original accused-Dilipsinh going away on the scooter and her daughter Hasina was sitting on the pillion seat. As per the complainant, she made search for her daughter for a considerable long time at several places like Bajva, bus stand etc. but she did not find her, and so ultimately, she was compelled to file the complaint. According to the complainant, she did not approach the police immediately because she felt that it might harm the reputation of the family and her daughter Hasina. After filing of the complaint, the police started investigation and arrested the accused No. 1, but Hasina could not be found.

1.1. As per the case of the prosecution, on that day of "Kalichaudas" the accused-Dilipsinh took the daughter of the complainant at the house of accused-Rashmibhai Himmatlal Dave at Gujarat Refinery Quarters and told the victim to stay with accused-Rashmibhai and said accused would buy her a car and bungalow and keep her nicely. It is also the case of the prosecution that the other accused were present in the house and the accused committed rape on victim on that day. Thereafter, the said appellant took victim to another quarter situated at Refinery township and she was made to stay for a day. On the next day, the victim was taken to the S.T. Bus stand at Baroda under the threats of being killed and from Baroda, the appellants i