Page 1

JUDGMENT

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

NO.

2486

OF

2009

Rai Sandeep @ Deepu

…Appellant

VERSUS

State of NCT of Delhi

…Respondent

With

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

NO.

2487

OF

2009

Hari Singh

…Appellant

VERSUS

State (NCT) of Delhi

…Respondent

J U

D

G

M

E N

T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1.

These two appeals at the instance of the accused arise

out of the common judgment dated 27.01.2009. Hence, we

will dispose them of by this common judgment. Both the

appellants were convicted for the offence of gang rape by the

trial Court and were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for 10 years each with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

each, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment

for one year each under Section 376 (2)(g), IPC.

2.

The case of the prosecution was that on 15.08.2001 in

the night at about 1.30 a.m. the prosecutrix (PW-4) aged

about 34 years was in her sister’s house, namely, Seema,

that she heard the noise of knocking at the door, that the

minor daughter of her sister, namely, Noju (PW-10), opened

the door and both the accused persons entered and the

accused Rai Sandeep @ Deepu told the prosecutrix that he

wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. According to

the prosecutrix (PW-4), she rebuked their demand stating

that she was not of that type and that the appellants

threatened her, that in the meantime one Jitender (PW-11),

minor son of her sister Seema appeared and both the minor

children asked the appellants to go out of their house but

the appellants pushed the minor children into a room and

bolted the door of the room from outside. The further

allegation of the prosecutrix (PW-4) was that the appellant-

Rai Sandeep @ Deepu in Criminal Appeal No.2486 of 2009

made her lie down in the Verandah outside the room and

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

had

forcible

sexual

intercourse

with

her

while

his

companion, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2487 of

2009 was guarding the main door of the house. It was

further alleged that after the appellant in Criminal Appeal

No.2486

of

2009

had forcible intercourse

with

the

prosecutrix (PW-4), he took the turn of guarding the door

while his companion, the appellant in Criminal Appeal

No.2487 of 2009 also had forcible sexual intercourse with

her, that both the appellants wiped their private parts with a

red colour socks which was lying in the Verandah and while

leaving the place of occurrence, they took away a gold chain

and a wrist watch which was lying near the TV inside the

room. The appellants stated to have left the place by bolting

the main door from outside. According to the prosecutrix

(PW-4), since it was dark in the night she did not venture to

go out at that time and in the morning she asked her

nephew Jitender (PW-11) to get out of the house from roof

top and open the door which was bolted from outside.

Thereafter, she is stated to have reported the incident to the

police.

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

3.

Based on the investigation, the appellants were

arrested and thereafter the gold chain and the wrist watch

was recovered at the instance of the appellant in Criminal

Appeal No.2486 of 2009 and subsequently on his disclosure

the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2487 of 2009 was also

arrested. The prosecutrix (PW-4) and the appellants were

stated to have been medically examined, that the appellant

in Criminal Appeal No.2487 of 2009 refused to participate in

the test identification parade, that FSL report of Exhibits

were also obtained and the charge sheet was filed for the

offence of gang rape. Seventeen witnesses were examined on

the side of the prosecution which included the prosecutrix

(PW-4) as well as her niece Noju and nephew Jitender, minor

children of prosecutrix’s sister Seema who were examined as

PWs-10 and 11. PWs 1 and 5 w