The central legal point established in the judgment is the lack of implicit reliance on the prosecutrix's testimony due to her character and inconsistencies in the prosecution's story, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

1. This appeal directed against the orders of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, dated 21/09/1992 whereby Daler Singh, and Nishan Singh appellants were convicted under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00. In default of payment of fine each one of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both of them were also convicted under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, whereas, Gurmej Singh appellant was convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 and in default of payment of tine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months.

2. In brief facts of the prosecution case as emerge from the first information report recorded at the Police Station on the statement of Gurnam Kaur prosecutrix aged about 17 years are that on 3-8-1991 at about 1 P.M. while she was returning from her fields after serving food to her father and when she reached near the field of Surain Singh, Daler Singh, and Nishan Singh accused came there. Both of them caught hold of her from her arms and took her inside the nearby Charri field. Nishan Singh accused broke open the string of her salwar and then committed rape on her. Thereafter Daler Singh accused committed rape on her without her consent. Thereafter the accused allegedly committed rape on her one by one. On hearing her noise Gurmej Singh accused who belongs to the same village came there and caught hold of the prosecutrix from her breasts and kissed her. Her uncle Gurbachan Singh happened to come there, when she was trying to escape from the clutches of the accused and on seeing her uncle, all the three accused ran away from the spot. While leaving the accused threatened the prosecutrix that if she told about the incident to anybody, then her family members as well as that of Gurbachan Singh would be done to death. Out of fear she did not disclose anything to her uncle Gurbachan Singh. Because of poverty her parents remained silent. On 9-8-1991 at about 1 PM. while she was again returning from her fields Daler Singh and Nishan Singh accused caught hold of her from her arms and tried to drag her inside the field. The prosecutrix raised alarm hearing which both the accused ran away. The prosecutrix could not bear this humiliation and she narrated the entire occurrence to her uncle Kundan Singh who along with her went to Police Station, Bhutana on the following day and lodged the first information report. After getting Gurnam Kaur medically examined, arresting the accused, they were challenged, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.

3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the testimony of the prosecutrix mainly on the ground that apart from the fact that there is inordinate delay of about a week in lodging the first information report, Gurnam Kaur prosecutrix who is a woman of easy virtue and was used to sexual intercourse has changed her version from stage to stage and is a wholly unreliable witness. It was further contended that her testimony on salient features of the prosecution story is amply contradicted by other independent evidence on the record.

5. According to the prosecutrix first incident took place on 3-8-1991 when she was forcibly taken by Daler Singh and Nishan Singh accused inside the Charri field and was ravished by them. Thereafter Gurmej Singh accused came there and tried to fondle with the breasts and kissed the prosecutrix. On seeing her uncle Gurbachan Singh all the three accused ran away. For reasons best known to the prosecution, Gurbachan Singh who is a close relation of the prosecutrix has not been produced by the prosecution. So the most material witness, whose testimony could have lent independent corroboration to the