JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have called into question judgment dated 22.11.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kupwara, whereby they have been convicted for offences under Section 366 and Section 376(2)(g) of RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs.3,000/ for having committed offence under Section 376(2)(g) of RPC and for rigorous imprisonment of two years for having committed offence under Section 366 RPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo further imprisonment of six moths.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.02.1989, the prosecutrix accompanied her blind mother for treatment to Handwara hospital and on their return, they went to purchase certain articles from a shop where the appellants were also sitting. The prosecutrix asked the appellants the address of the house of one Ghulam Rasool, Forester, as in the event of the prosecutrix and her mother not getting bus to their destination, they intended to stay in the house of said Ghulam Rasool. One of the appellants introduced himself as brother of said Ghulam Rasool, Forester, whereafter the appellants offered the prosecutrix to take her to the house of Ghulam Rasool, Forester. On this pretext, the appellants led the prosecutrix towards Gogipora in an orchard and took her to a shed over there, where she was repeatedly subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by both the appellants. According to the prosecution case, after committing rape upon the prosecutrix, the appellants fled away and while the prosecutrix was returning to meet her mother who had stayed back in the shop, she met PWs 3 and 4 on her way. She is stated to have narrated the incident to these prosecution witnesses whereafter they took her to the shop at Handwara where her mother was waiting for her. The prosecutrix also narrated the incident to her mother. The report relating to the occurrence was lodged by the prosecutrix on 28th February, 1989 at about 11.00 a.m. and FIR No.26 of 1989 for offences under Section 366 /376 RPC was registered with Police Station, Handwara. After investigation of the case, offences under Section 366 /376 RPC were found established against the appellants and the charge sheet was laid before the competent court.

3. On 07.06.1990, charges for offences under Section 366 and 376 RPC were framed against the appellants and their pleas were recorded. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence in support of its case. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1, the prosecutrix and PWs-3 and 4 Gulla Mir and Ab. Razak Wani. PW-2, the mother of the prosecutrix could not be examined as during the trial of the case, she passed away. The prosecution witness Shopkeeper Lal Mohammad, on whose shop the prosecutrix and her mother are stated to have purchased certain articles, has not been examined by the prosecution as a witness though his statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C has been recorded during the investigation of the case. Similarly, PW-5, Dr. Tejinder Kour, who examined the prosecutrix after the alleged incident and has rendered her medical report stating therein that the prosecutrix has been subjected to sexual assault, has also not been examined as a witness. The Investigating Officer of the case, PW-7, Dilbagh Singh, has also not stepped into the witness box and similarly, PW-6, Dr. Kanwaljeet Singh, who had examined the appellants after the incident, has also