SONU AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by a judgment dated 19.09.2005 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 12/04 arising out of FIR No. 354/02 PS Nangloi by which they were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 376(2) (g) & 452/34 IPC. The appellant - Birju in addition was convicted under Section 323 IPC. By an order dated 22.09.2005, various prison terms with fine were awarded to them.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge - sheet was that on the night intervening 21/22.04.2002 in between 02.00 to 03.00 a.m. at L -248, Camp No. 3, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention after committing house tress -pass committed gang rape upon 'X' (assumed name). She was also beaten by the appellant - Birju. The police machinery swung into action on receipt of Daily Diary (DD) No. 8A (Ex.PW -3/C) at 11.17 hours on 22.04.2002 at PS Nangloi to the effect that there was a quarrel with 'X' resident of L -248, Camp No. 3, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, Delhi, and a wrong act had been committed. The investigation was assigned to SI Sudesh Ranga who with Const.Jitender went to the spot. After recording X's statement (Ex.PW -1/E), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report by making endorsement (Ex.PW -14/A) over it. 'X' was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were arrested and medically examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. Upon completion of investigation, a charge - sheet was filed against all the appellants in the Court for committing the aforesaid offences. To establish its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the appellants pleaded false implication and denied their complicity in the crime. They did not examine any witness in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the above said appeals have been preferred.

(3.) ON scanning the evidence in its entirety, it is not possible to draw a reasonable conclusion that 'X' was gang raped by the appellants. The prosecution version as projected by 'X' is highly improbable.