The conviction for gang rape requires reliable testimony from the prosecutrix, corroborated by medical evidence, which was not present in this case, leading to acquittal.

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Sarguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 07/16, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as " IPC ") and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 1-1 month to each of the appellants.

2. The allegations against the present appellants are that, on 05.09.2015, at about 09:00 PM in village-Darima Mod within the ambit of Police Station- Ambikapur, they have committed gang- rape with the prosecutrix one after the other.

3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 05.09.2015, the prosecutrix (PW-9) was going with her fiancee Sandeep Panna (PW-8) and was waiting for a vehicle at Darshani Mod to go to her maternal uncle’s place. In the meanwhile, one of the accused, Sushil Lakda, came with his motorcycle and offered a lift, and took her along with Sandeep Panna (PW-8) to a newly built house near Devnathnagar. At around 09:00 PM, suddenly the accused who were laborers of the said house arrived. The accused Sushil Lakda caught hold of her, and the remaining accused also caught and assault Sandeep Panna (PW-8). Thereafter, accused Sushil Lakda took the prosecutrix into another room and committed raped with her. Thereafter he called Shravan and he too raped with the prosecutrix. In the meanwhile, accused Sushil Lakda caught hold of Sandeep Panna (PW-8), and another accused, namely, Guddu Binjhiya has also committed rape with the prosecutrix (PW-9). Thereafter, Sandeep Panna (PW-8) ran towards the road crying for help and then the accused left the prosecutrix in a field nearby. The prosecutrix (PW-9) save her life and went to her cousin sister’s house (PW-1) at village Bishunpur and narrated the whole incident to her. Thereafter, a named written report was lodged on 10.09.2015 at Police Station Ambikapur against the appellants, upon which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P/12 and medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-9) was conducted. Dr. Rozlin R. Ekka (PW-3) conducted the medical examination of prosecturix (PW-9) and in her report (Ex.P/4), no definite opinion was given regarding forceful intercourse/rape. Statements of witnesses were recorded and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/10. Thereafter, appellants were arrest vide Ex.P/28. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, in defence, appellants have not examined any witness, but exhibited two documents.

5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 13.09.2019, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein-above, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants calling in question the legality, validity and