S. Talapatra, J.

1. This appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr. P.C in short) is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2007 as passed by the Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in S.T. No. 65(ST/A)/2004, convicting and sentencing the appellants to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. We have heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. appearing for the respondent-State.

2. For appreciation of the challenge, the essential facts may be noticed briefly.

One Braja Debbarma, son of Shri Bikram Debbarma of village-Taichakma, P.S. Taidu, South Tripura filed a complaint stating that on 20.06.2003 (Friday) at about 08-30 O'clock in the morning on coming to Taidu police station and identifying the police officer in-charge he lodged one ejahar to disclose that on 19.06.2003, Thursday, at about 6 O'clock in the evening, he went to Ompi from Taichakma for visiting the 'Anandamela' (the village fair). After visiting the Anandamela he started for home from Ompi at about 09-30 p.m. His close relatives, the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) (name concealed) of Tuichakma village and the other prosecutrix (P.W. 2) (name concealed) of the said village also accompanied him for visiting the fair and took the journey with him. As the night became deep, he entered the house of Santi Laxmi Malsum of Ompi. At about 11-30 O'clock at night, five tribal youths entered that house. Out of them, three entered the room and the remaining two moved around the courtyard. He knew one of the three youths who entered the room. His name was Biswamani Jamatia, S/o. Bilabhadra Jamatia of village Haripur. Thereafter, on asking their names and addresses, they told them to go home and they would accompany them. They took them to the school field of Haripur Molsom Para. Two of them entered a room in the school with the prosecutrix (P.W. 5) and the two others entered another room with the prosecutrix (P.W. 2). The remaining one was outside to keep vigil. For almost an hour, the aforesaid five youths committed gang rape upon, both the prosecutrix (P.W. 5 and P.W. 2) and thereafter they left that place. Later on, P.W. 5, and P.W. 2 came to him and informed about the incident of rape. It was about 12 O'clock of that night when the rape was committed; He stated therein that he would be able to identify the miscreants, if he saw their faces

3. On the face of the said FIR, Taidu P.S. Case No. 07/2003 under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC was registered and entrusted for investigation. After investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted on finding prima facie materials against them. On taking cognizance of the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur. On such commitment, the case was registered as S.T. No. 65(ST/A)/2004 and the charge was framed against all the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC for committing gang rape on the survivors (name concealed) on 19.06.2003 at around 24.00 hours at Haripur Malsum Para School, South Tripura under Taidu P.S. All the appellants pleaded not guilty against the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution thereafter examined 16 witnesses to drive home the charge as stated and also admitted some documents including the statement of the prosecutrix, as recorded under Section 164(5) of the Cr. P.C., the statement recorded at the time of Test Identification Parade ('T.I. Parade' in short), laboratory report, medical examination report, hand sketch map etc.

5. In defence, however, no evidence was adduced and from trend of cross-examination it appears that the defence case is of total denial to the