Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.—Heard Ms. Samridhi Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AG.A. for the State and Mr. S. K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 2, 5 and 8.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the first informant alongwith prosecutrix challenging the order dated 10.4.2018 passed by the Court below, i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 2, Aligarh in Session Trial No. 659 of 2016, (State v. Babu Lal and others) under Section 376 (d) and 323 I.P.C., P.S.-Gonda, District-Aligarh whereby the application dated 2.2.2018 (paper No. 11kha) filed by the revisionist No. 1, Smt. Sheela Devi in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C., has been rejected.

3. From the record, the Court finds that an incident occurred on 30.9.2015. In respect of the said incident, a First Information Report dated 30.9.2015 was lodged by the revisionist No. 2 namely Indrajeet, who is the husband of the revisionist No. 1-Sheela Devi with the Police Station-Gonda, District-Aligarh, which was registered as Case Crime No. 206 of 2015 under Sections 376 (d), 34, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.-Gonda, District-Aligarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., seven persons were named as accused, who are the opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 herein.

4. According to the F.I.R. dated 30.9.2015, it is alleged that the accused persons initially assaulted the revisionist No. 2, Indrajeet causing injuries upon his person. Thereafter, in front of the revisionist No. 2, Indrajeet, the accused persons namely, Sukhveer-opposite party No. 8, Babu Lal-opposite party No. 2 and Sukka-opposite party No. 4 are said to have committed rape upon revisionist No. 1-Sheela Devi. While the aforesaid act was being committed, Phulwati-opposite party No. 5 and Dulari Devi-opposite party No. 6 stood there on guard.

5. After the lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R. dated 30.9.2015, the injured, i.e., the revisionists/the victims were sent for medical examination. The Doctor, who conducted the medical examination upon the revisionist No. 1-Sheela Devi, prepared an injury report wherein it is recorded that three injuries were found on the body of the revisionist No. 1-Sheela Devi. Two of the injuries were contusions and one injury was of abrasion. The Doctor opined that all the injuries are simple in nature caused by hard blunt object. It was further stated that all the injuries are fresh in nature. In respect of the medical examination conducted upon revisionist No. 1-Sheela Devi, the lady Doctor, who conducted the medical examination upon her person clearly opined the commission of the offence as complained by the revisionist No. 1.

6. With regard to the revisionist No. 2, Indrajeet, the doctor, who conducted the medical examination upon his person, found four injuries on his body. Two of the injuries were abrasions whereas the other two injuries were lacerated wounds. In the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries except injury No. 4 were found to be simple in nature caused by hard blunt object and were fresh in nature. After the medical examination of the injured, the statement of the revisionist No. 1-Sheela Devi was got recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 27.6.2015 wherein the victim Sheela Devi clearly implicated Sukhveer, Babu Lal and Skukka for an offence punishable under Section 376 (d) I.P.C.

7. Upon completion of the statutory investigation as contemplated under Chapter 12 Cr.P.C., the police submitted a charge-sheet dated 11.2.2016 in Case Crime No. 206 of 2015 under Section 376 (d), 34, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Gonda, District-Aligarh. All the named accused persons, i.e. opposite party Nos. 2 to 8 herein were charge-sheeted under Section 376(d), 34, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The charge-sheet contained the names of as many as five witnesses including the present revisionists namely Sheela Devi and Indrajeet. Upon submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon the same and the matter was committed t