The main legal point established in the judgment is the failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to serious flaws, infirmities, and inconsistencies in the case.

It all happened on 22.11.1995 at 2.30 a.m. in the outskirts of a very busy village, at the house of the victims, a lone house in that area. The inmates of the house were fast asleep as anybody else in the village. Repeated ringing of calling bell, awakened them.

Sensing something untoward, they did not open the door. But, a gang of 8 assailants, covering their faces with masks, broke open the door of the house, attacked the sole adult male member of the family with deadly weapons, tied him to a fan hook in the roof, undressed him, took his wife to the kitchen, gang raped her, took his 17 years old daughter to the bed room, gang raped her, put his other two children in a room under fear of death, looted the properties from the house as well as from the person of the victims, remained in the house performing these ghastly acts for about 1 = hours; and then fled away with looted articles unnoticed by anybody else. The victims were disabled from even screaming for help. For the victims, it took some time to overcome the shock. This horror was executed in the land of "Mahatma" who respected the women with reverence.

2. If the culprits have been properly identified and offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence, one can be sure, the culprits cannot escape without visiting very deterrent punishment. But, this Court finds that the poor victims have not been rendered justice as the Police, Additional Public Prosecutor and the trial Court were insensitive to rule of law.

3. Before further adverting to the facts of the case, let us once again read, with concern, the following painful observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in what is commonly known as "Best Bakery Case" [Zahira Habibulla H.Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others, (2004) 4 SCC 158]:-

"If one even cursorily glances through the records of the case, one gets a feeling that the justice-delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally allowed to be abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge."

"The investigation appears to be perfunctory and anything but impartial without any definite object of finding out the truth and bringing to book those who were responsible for the crime."

"The Public Prosecutor appears to have acted more as a defence counsel than one whose duty was to present the truth before the Court."

"The Court in turn appeared to be a silent spectator, mute to the manipulations and preferred to be indifferent to sacrilege being committed to justice."

"Those who are responsible for protecting life and property and ensuring that investigation is fair and proper seem to have shown no real anxiety."

4. These observations squarely apply on all fours to the facts of the instant case. This is yet another "Best Bakery Case" which depicts as to how the agencies involved in the task of criminal-justice delivery have shown utter indifference to the cry for justice resulting in failure of justice. This case illustrates as to how the rule of law can be taken for a ride and ridicule by police and the prosecutor. The way in which the trial has been conducted demonstrates as to how the trial Judge remained as a mute spectator when justice was sacrificed at the altar of the temple of justice leaving the poor victims of gang rape and dacoity in perils. This court is forced to make these painful remarks and the justification for such remarks can be seen as this judgement progresses.

5. At last, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as follows:-

(i) A1 to A6 have been convicted for the offence under Section 458 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further 6 months each;

(ii) A1 to A6 have been further convicted for the offence under Section 395 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in defaul