In cases of sexual assault, a conviction based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony requires the evidence to be of 'sterling quality' and unblemished. Where the narrative is inherently implausible and lacks medical or forensic corroboration, such evidence cannot support a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Kunwar Rudra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Mohd. Asif Khan, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State of U.P. Vakalatnama of Shri Kunwar Rudra Pratap Singh is already there in Criminal Appeal Nos.1613 of 2012 and 1652 of 2012 and he has filed his vakalatnama in Criminal Appeal No.1625 of 2012, which is taken on record

2. All the three appellants in the aforesaid three appeals are present in person and they stated that they have already submitted bail bonds and sureties in furtherance of the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegation in the present case is that Smt. Alia called the victim from her home, locked her inside a room along with Shakeel (husband of Smt. Alia) and Shanu and both of them raped the victim while Smt. Alia was sitting outside the room. He has submitted that it is highly improbable that a lady would call another young lady to her home, lock her inside with her husband and another person and get her raped while she would keep on sitting outside.

4. This was the entire submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and upon request of the Court to elaborate the submissions and support the same with the material on record, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he has not brought his paper book. Therefore, the Court proceeds to examine the record and decide the appeal on its own, virtually without any assistance from the learned Counsel for the appellants.

5. All the aforesaid three appeals have been filed challenging the validity of the judgment and order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge (T.E.C.P.-5) Lucknow in Session Trial No. 1237 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 92/07 under Sections 342/376/506 I.P.C., P.S. Mall, Lucknow whereby Shakeel (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1652/2012) and Shanu (the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.1613/2012) have been convicted for the offences under Section 376(g), 342 and 306 IPC and have been sentenced them for rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and payment of Rs.5,000/- each as fine for the offence under Section 376 (g) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months and payment of Rs.500/- each as fine for the offence under Section 342 IPC and three years rigorous imprisonment and payment of Rs.1,000/- as fine for the offence under Section 506 IPC. The trial Court has convicted Smt. Alia Begum (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1625 of 2012) for the offence under Section 376/120-B IPC and Section 342 IPC and has sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for five years and payment of Rs.3,000/- fine for the offence under Section 376/120-B and rigorous imprisonment for three months and payment of Rs.500/- as fine for the offence under Section 342 IPC.

6. The record reveals that the FIR was lodged on the basis of a written complaint given by the complainant on 10.06.2007 at 14:10 hours stating that while the informant's daughter was working inside her home at about 03:00-04:00 pm on 06.06.2007, Alia wife of Shakeel, who resides in the neighborhood, called the victim's daughter on the pretext of making embroidery on a Kurta. When the informant's daughter reached the home of the appellants Alia, Shakeel and Shanu were present there under a plan. Both of them caught hold of the victim and took her