The effective date of an amendment to a penal statute is crucial in determining its applicability to a particular case. If an incident occurs before the effective date of the amendment, the accused cannot be convicted under the amended provision.

JUDGMENT

1. Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.

2. Appellants have filed these appeals challenging their conviction and sentence ordered by the trial Court under Section 376(D), 377 and 394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').

3. Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the report Exhibit-P-1 lodged by complainant Ambrish. On the basis of the report Exhibit-P-1, formal FIR No. 404 dated 2.12.2012 was registered against the appellants under Sections 376, 377, 392, 341, 323/34 IPC at police Station Keshoraipatan District Bundi.

4. As per the FIR, prosecution story, in brief, is that on 12.12.2012, sister-in-law of the complainant had informed him that she had been raped by the appellants. Appellants had also taken away her purse, mobile phone and Rs. 2,000/- in cash.

5. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants. Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), 377 and 394 IPC. Appellants did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that, although, charge had been framed against the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) IPC but the trial Court had erred in ordering their conviction and sentence under Section 376(D) IPC. Section 376(D) IPC was not applicable to the facts of the present case as incident had occurred before the addition of Section 376(D) IPC. Learned counsel have further submitted that the appellants had been falsely involved in this case due to a property dispute with the complainant. Appellants were young boys aged about 25 years, at the time of incident, whereas, the prosecutrix was aged about 60/65 years. The conduct of the prosecutrix was most unnatural as there was no occasion for her to have got down from the bus after two kilometers from the turn for her parental village. There was also no occasion for the prosecutrix to have requested the appellants to drop her to her village after the incident. There was no evidence on record to establish the ownership of the motorcycle, which was recovered from the spot as to whether, it belonged to the appellants or not. Place of incident was on a Mega Highway and it was not believable that the appellants would have committed the crime, at the spot, suggested by the prosecution. Medical evidence did not corroborate the version of the prosecutrix.

8. Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeals.

9. Present case relates to rape of the prosecutrix PW-7. Thus, the star witness of the prosecution is PW-7.

10. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box has deposed that on 12.12.2012, she was going to her parental house from her matrimonial home as her father was unwell. She got down from the Bus near Ganesh Ji Railway Crossing. She was going on foot towards her village. The moment, she had crossed the railway crossing, two boys, who were under the influence of liquor, were travelling on a motorcycle and they asked her to sit on their motorcycle. She raised alarm. Another motorcycle came from behind and the boys then drove their motorcycle towards the village. Believing that the boys must have gone ahead, she continued walking towards her village and when she had walked for about one mile, she found that those two boys were hiding in the bushes. The said boys caught hold of her and beat her and raped her. The said boys also threatened her that in case, she narrated the incident to anybody, they would kill her. They took away Rs. 2,000/- lying in her purse and also took away her ticket and mobile phone. The said persons after threatening her tried to take