ARWIND PAL Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Sec. 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 dtd. 10/8/2017 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh in Special Sessions Trial No.136 of 2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

(2.) The fact of the case is that on 25/11/2016, in between 1:15 PM to 5:30 PM, appellants forcibly took the prosecutrix (PW-1), who was below 18 years of age, to Muktidham waiting room at village Kareli Badi on a motorcycle without her consent and committed gang rape one after the other.

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 25/11/2016, at about 2:00 PM, the prosecutrix (PW-1), who was below 16 years of age, was going to Baheredi Khar on a bicycle to the field where her mother was working, on the way, the appellants stopped her. Accused Gitu Sahu @ Jeetu forcibly took the prosecutrix on a motorcycle, which was being driven by accused Arwind Pal. She was taken to Muktidham waiting room situated near nursery on the banks of Nava Talab and forcibly she was raped first by Arwind Pal, then by Gitu Sahu @ Jeetu, Hirendra Sahu and Rajendra Kumar Sahu. While searching, prosecutrix's brother and brother's friend reached to Muktidham and upon seeing them, appellants ran away from the spot, then, her brother and brother's friend caught Hirendra Sahu and Arwind Pal. Subsequently, on the same day, a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) vide Ex.P/1 at Police Chowki Kareli Badi, Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.), on the basis of which, First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P/2. After consent, medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-1) was conducted by Dr. Pushpa Janbandhu (PW-17) on 26/11/2016 at about 1:00 PM. She opined that it was not possible to give opinion regarding immediate sexual intercourse and advised to do X-ray to check age of prosecutrix, but ossification test was not conducted. The prepared slides and seized clothes were sent for its chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory and as per FSL report (Ex.P/41), semen stains and human sperm were found on the vaginal slides of prosecutrix as well as on the underwears of appellants Rajendra Kumar Sahu and Gitu Sahu @ Jeetu.