Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 22.7.2015 passed by Ram Kesh Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rampur in S.T. No.173 of 2012 (State Vs. Ravindra Singh and others) arising out of Crime No. 753 of 2011 under Sections 452, 323, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kaimari, District Rampur whereby Netra Pal and Pappu were not found guilty of offences punishable under Section 452, 376 (2), 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and were acquitted of the same. The accused Ravindra Singh was also not found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and acquitted of the same whereas Ravindra Singh was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the prosecution story as unfolded by the prosecution is that a written report was submitted by the victim that six months prior to the occurrence, the accused appellant Ravindra had borrowed Rs.20,000/- from her. On the next day, the informant demanded her money at which the appellant did not pay and made false excuses. On 13.10.2011 again the victim demanded her money at which the appellant stated that her money would be repaid in the night. On 13.10.2011 at night the husband of the victim had gone to the mill to do the work of labourer to stitch gunny bags. She was sleeping alone in her house. Suddenly, the accused Ravinder, Netra Pal and Pappu entered her house at midnight. Abusing the victim, they assaulted the victim with legs and fists on account of which she sustained invisible injuries on her head and hands. Ravindra dragged her on the bed and raped her. After that, Netra Pal also raped her. Co-accused Pappu gagged her mouth with a handkerchief so that she could not shout. When the accused persons came out of the house of the victim, she raised hue and cry at which Shahid, Parashuram and others came, who saw the accused persons and saved the victim. The accused shouted that if victim would lodge the report, she would be killed. In the morning, the informant went to the police station to lodge the report but her report was not lodged, hence, she moved an application to the S.S.P., Rampur.

3. On 14.10.2011, on the basis of the F.I.R., Head Moharrir, P.W.5 Nafees Ahmad scribed the chik report and proved it as Ext. Ka-10. On the basis of this chik report, he scribed G.D. and proved its copy as Ext. Ka-11. Investigation was entrusted to P.W. 4 S.I. Satish Chandra Sharma. He copied the F.I.R. and G.D. in case diary and recorded the statement of the victim in the case diary. On 16.10.2011, he inspected the spot at the pointing out of the victim and prepared the site plan and proved it as Ext. Ka-7. On 18.10.2011, the medical report of the victim was received, which was copied in the case diary. On 19.10.2011, supplementary statement of Kaushalya was recorded. On 22.10.2011, the report was submitted for recording the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Later on statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was copied by this witness in the case diary. Finally, on 30.10.2011, the accused was arrested. On 5.11.2011, the statements of Parashuram and Shahid were recorded in the case diary. Finally, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons, which was proved as Ext. Ka-8 and Ka-9.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. P.W. 1 is the victim, who has proved the written report Ext. Ka-1 and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-2. P.W. 2 is Shahid, who is said to be a witness, who has seen the accused coming out of the house of the victim after raping her. P.W. 3 is Dr. J. Pant who has medically examined the victim. He did not find any external injury on the body of the victim. He further referred her for pathologist for