JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989,Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, in S.C.No.72 of 2008 dated28.02.2011, whereby the appellants/A-1 and A-2 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. However, the learned Special Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants/A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 385 read with 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.01.2006 at 3.00P.M., PW.5 lodged a report stating that on 22.01.2006, she consumed toddy in two spells at Shastripuram toddy shop. At about 6.00 P.M., while she was returning home, theappellants/A-1 and A-2, who have also consumed toddy, followed and intercepted her near Kingsway Colony, Sastripuram and they caught hold of her, forcibly dragged her in to e bushes at the outskirts of Kingsway Colony, assault her with sticks and also comthmitted rape on her one after another without her will and consent. The appellants/A-1 and A-2further snatched away the gold and silver ornaments comprising gold gundlu, pair of gold ear studs, a pair of silver kadas, silver waist band of her son and silver ring. Basing on the said report, P.W.11-Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajendranagar Police Station registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 394 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the appellants/A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (g) and 392 of I.P.C., and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The plea of the accused is one of total denial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21 and M.O.1. The learned Special Sessions Judge, on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g) of I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. However, the learned Special Sessions Judge, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 385 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/A-1 and A-2 preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants/A-1 and A-2 submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has materially erred in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of I.P.C. It is further submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not supported by the medical evidence since no blood group is determined on the petticoat of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, and therefore, it is not safe to convict the accused on the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix. It is also submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that the victim was a married woman and she was examined by the doctor with an inordinate delay and that the trial Court has failed to see that there was no material to establish the fact that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 committed rape on her. The trial Court should have seen that P.Ws.5 and 6 did not speak about the gold ornaments of the victim.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that ordinarily the evidence of a