JUDGMENT

1. By this criminal appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 29th October, 2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Srimadhopur, District Sikar (Rajasthan) in Session Case No. 03/2012. The accused-appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 363 and 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced as under:

Appellant-Naveet:

For offence under Section 363 IPC - Five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

For offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

Appellant-Shyamsunder:

For offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

Accused-Bajranglal:

For offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

Accused-Hitesh:

For offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

Accused-Suresh Kumar:

For offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

Accused-Pradeep Kumar:

For offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. It is a case where an FIR was registered on a written report, Exhibit-P3, on 15th October, 2011. It was alleged that on 12th October, 2011, the prosecutrix went with her bhabhi (Suman) to Khandela Government Hospital where one Navneet Sharma S/o. Surendra Sharma was available. After examination of the prosecutrix by a doctor, she was prescribed certain investigation. Naveen Sharma known to bhabhi-Suman asked prosecutrix to come for investigation with him and, accordingly, the prosecutrix went with Navneet Sharma. Bhabhi-Suman was also to accompany them but having a baby with her, she was asked to go back.

3. The accused-Navneet Sharma then took the prosecutrix to an isolated place where four to five persons were available. The offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC was committed by all the accused. The report of the incidence was not lodged immediately under fear and threatening given by the accused. It was lodged after three days when prosecutrix felt unwell out of the occurrence. On the written report, the police registered an FIR and caused investigation. It filed charge sheet against accused-Navneet Sharma for offence under Section 363 and 376(2)(g) IPC, whereas, for other accused, it was under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The trial court framed charges and explained it to the accused-appellants. They denied the charges, thus trial commenced.

4. The prosecution produced fifteen witnesses apart from forty four documents to prove its case. Two documents were marked by the court i.e. Exhibit-C1 and Exhibit-C2. The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They produced twenty one documents in defence. The trial court, after marshalling the evidence, convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 363 and 376(2)(g) IPC.

ARGUMENTS OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS:

5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that all the accused have been falsely implicated in the case. As per statements of prosecutrix, P.W.2 and P.W.4 Suman Sharma, on 12th October, 2011, they went to the Government Hospital at Khandela. The accused-Navneet Sharma said to be available in the hospital. He took the prosecutrix with him and committed rape along with others.

6. It is submitted that prosecutrix had conversation on mobile with Navneet Sharma prior to commission of offence and even calls were made subseq