The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code in determining the guilt of the appellants for rape and abetment.

JUDGMENT :

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31-5-2003 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 180/2 convicting appellant No. 1 Satish for the offence punishable under sections 342 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code and further convicting appellant No. 2 Suneeta for the offences punishable under section 376/109 and 342 of Indian Penal Code and thereby sentencing them to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 16-5-2002, Munni (PW4) who is the mother of the prosecutrix had gone to the hand pump. At that juncture, prosecutrix and Ramdulari were inside the home. It is said that appellant No. 2 Sunita arrived there and told prosecutrix that her mother had gone to store water and the prosecutrix should accompany her. By keeping faith on the version of appellant No. 2 Sunita, the prosecutrix accompanied to Sunita's house. It is the further case of prosecution that inside the house of appellant No. 2 Sunita, appellant No. 1 Satish was present and after the prosecutrix had entered inside the house of appellant No. 2 Sunita, she (appellant No. 2) came out of her house and bolted the chain from outside. Inside the house of appellant No. 2 Sunita, Satish (appellant No.1) committed rape over the prosecutrix as a result of which, the prosecutrix raised hue and cry. On hearing shriek of the prosecutrix, Mohanlal and Lakhan arrived at the spot and it is said that Mohanlal opened the door which was closed and bolted by a chain from outside. It is also said that appellant No. 1 Satish caused marpeet to Mohanlal.

3. Since, father of the prosecutrix was in the jail, the prosecutrix along with her Tau (father's elder brother) went to police station and lodged the first information report by mentioning the cause of delay.

4. On lodging of the first information report, criminal law was triggered and set in motion. A case under sections 342, 323 and 376(1)/34, Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. In furtherance to its investigation, the investigating agency arrived at the spot, prepared the spot map; arrested both the appellants and sent appellant No. 1 Satish for medical examination where he was found to be potent by Dr. Ratnesh; injured Mohanlal was also sent for medical examination, relevant seizure memos were prepared; statements of witnesses including the prosecutrix were recorded; the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination, and a slide of her vaginal swab was sent for chemical examination. After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet was submitted in the committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the trial Court for trial.

5. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of allegations made in the charge sheet, framed charges punishable under sections 342 and 376, Indian Penal Code against appellant No. 1 Satish, while appellant No. 2 Sunita was charged under sections 342 and 376/109, Indian Penal Code. Needless to say that both the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence.

6. In order to bring home the charges against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and placed Ex.P/1 to P/14 the documents on record. The defence of the appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set forth in their statements recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, and in support of their defence they examined one Suraj Singh Rawat (DW1).

7. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that the charges are proved against the appellants and eventually convicted them and passed sentence as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

8. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and or