By Court: Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. Since, these three appeals have been preferred from the same judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2002 and order of sentence dated 16.05.2002 passed in S.T. No. 447 of 1988 by Shri Hara Prasad Chakraborty, Special Judge Cum Additional Judicial Commissioner VI, Ranchi, by which judgment he found all four appellants guilty under Sections 452/34, 366/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and learned trial Court passed the sentence of R. I. for five years only under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and passed no separate sentence under Section 452/34 and 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that it will appear from the evidence of the prosecutirx Sudhan Mahli as given in the F.I.R. and as given in the Court, are contradictory to each other. Moreover, the Doctor, who examined the victim girl on the next day of occurrence i.e. 04.08.1982, found no sign of rape although victim has alleged that four persons committed rape upon her. In that view of the matter, considering the fact that the defence witnesses have stated that she is a loose character lady, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the four accused persons entered the house of the victim and took her by force at a distance, thereafter they committed rape upon her .Therefore, they have rightly been convicted.

5. After hearing both the parties and going through the records, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the victim, P 1, Sudhan Mahli, aged about 20 years on 04.08.1987, stating therein that her elder sister Budhan Mahli worked in It a Bhatta and her sister was living with her husband. Since, her husband went to village for some time, for this reason she told Sudhan Mahli to live there. On 03.08.1987 she was sleeping with her sister, at 9.00 P. M. four persons entered her sister hut, when she asked them reason then they indicated towards sudhan Mahli and they dragged Sudhan Mahli outside the hut, when she and her sister made objection then Anjan Munda along with two others showed knife and told that if you made hulla then they will kill you. Anjan Munda along with four others dragged her and took her at a distance of 800 yard north and towards the crusher of Royji. When they took her to the tand then Anjan Munda alonwith others put knife on her neck and asked her to strip the cloth, when she was not ready to open the cloth then they stripped her saya and sari thereafter they fell her down on the ground and committed rape upon her one by one and threatened her that if she told about the occurrence to anyone then they will kill her. However, she returned to her house and told about the occurrence to her father and he brought her to police station and recorded her statement.

6. On the basis of the said written report, police registered a case under Sections 452/34, 366/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and after investigation, police submitted chargesheet in the case against the accused under Sections 452/34, 366/34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, after taking cognizance learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and subsequently, the case was tried by learned Special Judge Cum Additional Judicial Commissioner VI, Ranchi, who found the appellant guilty under Sections 376 of the I. P C. and sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. It appears that in the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses.

P.W.1, Sudhan Mahli

P.W.2, Budhan Mahli

P.W.3, Bhinam Mahli

P.W.4, Md. Samim

P.W.5, Dr. Manju Kumari

P.W.1,