(Surjit Singh, J.) - Appellant Arjun Kumar has preferred this appeal against the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby he and one Suman Kumar, who has not filed any appeal, have been convicted for offences, punishable under Sections 375(2)(g), 342 and 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in respect of offence under Section 376(2)(g), IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in respect of offence under Section 342 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in respect of offence under Section 506 IPC. His grievance is that the evidence on record does not prove the charge. His counsel submits that even if the prosecution version be accepted as it is, it does not prove the charge of gang rape. It is also his submission that the prosecutrix being more than 16 years of age and the evidence on record indicating that no resistance was put up, the possibility of her having consented to the alleged acts of sexual intercourse, cannot be ruled out.

2.First, we may notice the prosecution version, as it emerges from the evidence led during trial. Prosecutrix, examined as PW-16, was resident of Delhi. Her date of birth is 21st February, 1986. She has six sisters and one brother. One of her sister, named Sushma, who is senior to her in age, visited Kangra temple in the company of her husband and on return told her sisters that whosoever visited the said temple and made some wish, the deity of the temple fulfilled that wish. Father of the prosecutrix PW-17 Nath Ram was a low paid employee in a bank. It appears that the prosecutrix wanted the financial condition of her father’s family to improve and so on being told by her sister Sushma about the fulfillment of the wishes on visit to Kangra temple, she without informing her parents thought of going to that temple. She boarded a night bus at Delhi on 1st July, 2002 and reached Kangra that next morning. She hired taxi of the appellant, bearing registration No. HP-02-4410, for going to the temple. She went to the temple. Appellant followed her. The prosecutrix asked him to take her back to the bus stand, as she wanted to return to Delhi. Appellant offered her lift in his aforesaid taxi and instead of taking her to the bus stand at Kangra took her to a hotel known as Happy Restaurant. There he booked a room and took the prosecutrix in that room. He kept the prosecutrix confined in that room till 8 or 9 in the night and during this period he committed sexual intercourse with her, repeatedly, without her consent and against her will. When she tried to raise alarm, he threatened that she will be done to death.

3.Around 9.00 in the night, appellant brought out the prosecutrix from the room of the said Happy Restaurant and handed her over to his accomplice Suman Kumar, who carried her in his own taxi (Maruti Van bearing registration number HP_01-1479) to a guest house known as Walia Guest House. There he hired a room. He too committed sexual intercourse with her several times in the course of the night. Next day, he took the prosecutrix in his aforesaid taxi towards Chamunda temple and kept driving the taxi for quite some time and finally took her to a Guest House named Nivia Guest House. The prosecutrix was kept in that guest house for the night and was again subjected to sexual intercourse repeatedly by said Suman Kumar. On 4th July, Suman Kumar made her to board a bus alongwith him and travleled in her company upto a place called Lanj, where the prosecutrix was asked to deboard the bus and he (Suman Kumar) himself proceeded further in that bus. The prosecutrix, who was looking scared and frightened, took off her pair of Chappals and started running towards the bazaar. She was spotted by PW-3 Tarlok Chand and PW-4 Kapur Singh, who have their shops in Lanj bazaar adjacent to each other. They asked the prosecutrix as to wh