The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrutinizing the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, evaluating medical evidence, and considering defense pleas in cases of alleged sexual offenses.

P. K. PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants have challenged the judgment dated 28-2-1994 in S. T. No. 21/156 of 1993 passed by Shri S. C. Chhatoi, Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore convicting the appellants under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'ipc') and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is as follows :in the night of 24-2-93 the prosecutrix (P. W. 4) had slept with her son, aged about 5 years, and a minor girl (P. W. 8), aged about 9 years, in her house in village Juari under Singla Police Station in the district of Balasore. Her husband, a fisherman by profession, had been to the sea for catching fish. It is alleged that at about 11. 00 p. m. she got up hearing knocks at the door and aroused P. W. 8 and lighted the lamp and found that these two appellants forced their entry inside the room, breaking open the door and one of them caught hold of her son and the other threatened her with a knife and physically lifted her from the house and took her to the bank of the river situated at a distance of about 50 cubits from her house and committed rape on her. Thereafter the other person also committed rape on her. P. W. 4 was left on the spot and the culprits who were identified to be the appellants in this case by P. W. 4 due to previous acquaintance, left the place leaving behind the knife on the spot, P. W. 4 returned to her house and called P. W. 8 who had concealed her presence inside a cow-shed out of fear and both of them went to the house of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and reported the occurrence and took them to the spot where P. W. 2 collected the knife left by the appellants. P. W. 4 spent rest of the night in the house of P. W. 2. In the next morning she sent for her father-in-law (P. W. 7) who was residing in village Sartha. Though information was sent to the husband of P. W. 4, he did not returned to the village. P. W. 4 narrated the occurrence to P. W. 7 and accompanied him to the police out-post at Sartha under Singla Police Station and orally reported the occurrence before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the out-post, (P. W. 12) who reduced the same to writing and also entered the same in the Station Diary Entry NO. 293 dated 21-4-1993 and sent the report (Ext. 6) to the O. I. C. of Singla Police Station (P. W. 9) who registered the case and directed P. W. 12 to proceed with the investigation. During the investigation P. W. 12 sent the prosecutrix for medical examination, examined the witnesses, seized the wearing apparels and brokens pieces of bangles of the prosecutrix from the spot. He also seized the damaged bamboo tati and a lantern from the house of the prosecutrix (P. W. 4) and left the same in zima of P. W. 7. He arrested the accused persons on 22-4-93 and seized their wearing apparels, sent them for medical examination and thereafter forwarded the accused persons to Court in custody. He also seizedon knife (M. O. I) on production by P. W. 4. On 24-4-93 P. W. 8 took over charge of investigation from P. W. 12. The wearing apparels were sent for chemical examination. After receiving the medical examination reports and chemical examination report, P. W. 9 completed investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 376 (2) (g), I. P. C. for the alleged commission of gang rape and both the accused-appelants stood their trial.

( 3 ) THE defence plea is one of denial and false implication due to the protest raised by the appellants to the prosecutrix for her illicit relationship with one Ratnakar Mandal and their threat to report the matter to the husband of P. W. 4.

( 4 ) IN order to bring home the charge against the appellants prosecution has examined twelve withesses in all, of whom P. W. 4 is the prosecutrix and P. W. 8 is the minor girl who has slept with P. W. 4 in her house at the time of alleged occurrence. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are post-occurrence witnesses. P. W. 3 is a witness to