Honble SHARMA, J.–Three appellants, namely, Mangi Lal, Banwari Lal and Hukam Singh have preferred separate appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.6.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bandikui, district Dausa, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellants under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 15000/- each, in default thereof, each was ordered to undergo three months imprisonment. Appellant Hukam Singh was further convicted under Section 392 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The sentences awarded to accused Hukam Singh were ordered to run concurrently. Since all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being heard and decided by a common judgment.

(2). Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 28.8.1996 complainant Pappu, PW-2 submitted a written report, Ex.P1 at Police Station Mandawar with the allegation that on 27.8.96 at 8.00 PM, he alongwith his wife had come to his in-laws in village Pakhar Chauraki from Delhi. At about 8.00 PM wile he and his wife were going on foot to the Dhani of his father-in-law and soon they reached near a field situated ahead Khara-Kua, he found the accused appellants consuming liquor at the field. The accused first gave him beating and then Banwari and Mangilal caught hold of him and threatened him to kill on his raising hue and cry. He then alleged that accused Hukam Singh took his wife to some distance and started committing rape on her. Thereafter Mangilal and Banwari committed rape on her by turn. After committing rape, the accused snatched Rs. 850/- from his pocket and a HMT Kohinoor watch. They also took away a golen `janter from the neck of his wife. The accused threatened them not to disclose the incident to any one, else they will kill them. Thereafter he alongwith his wife went to his in-laws in the Dhani, where he disclosed the incident to his father-in-law and other residents of Dhani.

(3). On the basis of above written report, police registered a criminal case under Sections 376 and 379 IPC against the appellants vide FIR Ex.P4 and proceeded to investigate the case.

(4). During investigation, the police prepared site plan Ex.P2, seized a broken bangle from the place of incident vide memo Ex.P3, arrested the accused Hukam Singh and recovered one HMT Kohinoor watch at his instance vide memo Ex.P5. After completion of investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the appellants in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mahva, who in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions.

(5). The case came to be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing arguments of both the parties, framed charges against the accused appellants for offence under Sections 392 and 376 (2) IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

(6). During trial, the prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in their explanation stated that prosecution allegation to be false and intended to produce evidence in their defence. However, despite sufficient opportunity having been granted to them, the accused failed to examine any witness in their defence.

(7). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide its judgment under appeal found all the three accused appellants guilty under Section 376 (2) IPC. The trial court also found appellant Hukam Singh guilty under Sec. 392 IPC and according convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(8). Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these appeals under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C.

(9). I have heard Mr. SR Bajw

Click Here to Read the rest of this document