The prosecution must prove each element of a rape charge beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade undermines the reliability of witness identification.

Judgment :

1. By way of filing of this appeal, validity of impugned judgment dated 24.06.1991 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District in Sessions Case No.92/1989 has been questioned.

2. By passing the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment (for short 'RI') with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional RI. They have also been convicted for the offence under 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months RI.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that a written report (Ex.P1) was given by PW-1 "S" with Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur on 23.05.1989 alleging therein that her husband Ramlal went to answer the nature's call when she was sleeping and that time three persons arrived and one accused person closed her mouth and other accused person caught hold her hands and legs and took her to other house, where they threw her on the ground and one accused closed her mouth and the other one caught hold her hands and thereafter, they committed rape with her one by one.

4. Upon this report, Crime No.142/1989 was registered with the Police Station Chaksu for the offences under Section 376(2), 379 and 34 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the offence under Section 376 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused-appellants for the above offences. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, in support of its case. Thereafter, explanation of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied their participation in the incident and submitted that they have been falsely implicated. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as stated above, vide impugned judgment dated 24.06.1991.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellants have approached this Court by way of filing of this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the three appellants were not known to the prosecutrix (PW-1) "S". Counsel submits that their names were told to her by her brother-in-law after commission of the offence. Counsel submits that even in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that prior to 2-3 days of the incident, her mother- in-law told the names of the accused persons and also the fact that the accused persons are of criminal nature. Counsel submits that there was no reason or occasion available with the mother-in-law of the prosecutrix to discuss the names of the appellants with her, as no incident had took place till then. Counsel submits that this fact has been established on the record beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix did not know the appellants, hence, under these circumstances, the prosecution was under legal obligation to conduct Test Identification Parade of the appellants, but the same has not been conducted, hence, under these circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish on record that the appellants were involved in the alleged incident with the prosecutrix. Counsel submits that the prosecutrix has not received any injuries on her private parts. Counsel submits that in case three persons would have committed rape with her, then, certainly she would have received several injuries on her private parts, but no single i