(V.K. Ahuja, J.) - This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals filed by the appellants arising out of the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 6.9.2004, vide which the appellants were held guilty and sentenced as under:

Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 376, Sub Section 2, Clause (g). In default of payment of fine, the appellants were to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of one year each.

2.Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 10.11.2003, at about 7.45 p.m., a statement was made by prosecutrix ‘M’ (name not mentioned) under Section 154 Cr. P.C. before the police officer. She alleged that she is a resident of District Bilaspur and had come to Kunihar where her elder sister Pushpa Devi was married to one Prem Singh. It was alleged that the said Prem Singh had fractured his left leg in an accident and her sister had called her to assist her in the household work and she was staying with her sister for the last about one month. Prem Singh was away to IGMC, Shimla for check up and her sister and she were present in the house. At about 1.30 p.m. today, when she went to the forest for easing, two persons, named, Jasbir Singh and Bir Singh came there and forcibly caught hold of her. Bir Singh closed her mouth with his hands, while Jasbir Singh opened the string of her Salwar and forcibly committed rape with her. She rescued herself from the clutches of those persons, who ran away from the spot. She came back to her house and told the occurrence to her sister and thereafter told the occurrence to her brother-in-law Prem Singh when he came back in the evening. It was alleged that while leaving, those persons had also given a threat to kill her if she disclosed the occurrence to any person.

3.It was further the case of the prosecution that since Prem Singh was having a fracture, he gave a telephonic information to Police, Post, Kunihar about the occurrence on which the police officer reached the spot and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The girl was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Arki but the prosecutrix was not satisfied with the opinion given by Medical Officer that the victim had not undergone sexual intercourse and, therefore, her fresh medical examination was conducted at IGMC, shimla by a team of doctors, who gave their opinion and opinion of the Medical Officers was again taken after the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned trial Court leading to the trial of the appellants and to their conviction and sentence, as detailed above.

4.We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

5.The main plank of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the appellants was that the prosecutrix had changed the place of occurrence. The prosecutrix was not knowing the names of the appellants and there is nothing in her statement to suggest how she learnt about the name of the accused persons. It was also submitted that there is contradiction if the father-in-law of the elder brother’s son of her sister’s husband was present in the house at the time she returned back or not. It was also submitted that her sister had stated differently about the exact place of occurrence and since the prosecutrix had made improvements in her statement, in her statement, her solitary statement is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants.

6.It was further submitted that the appellants had taken the plea that they had been falsely implicated since Jasbir Singh, accused, had to take some money from Prem Singh, brother-in-law of the prosecutrix, for which a false case was foisted upon him. The other appellant Bir Singh had taken the plea of some minor dispute having occurred in between him and Prem Singh.