On 28.12.1995, at about 5.00 a.m., when the prosecutrix PW 3 came out of her house to attend the call of nature, Shimbhu A 1 and Balu Ram A 2 the appellants herein, met her and asked her to accompany them to their shop.
The Division Bench of the High Court, by a companymon order dated 22.02.2011, dismissed the appeals and companyfirmed the order of companyviction and sentence dated 30/31.03.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
They took her inside the shop of Balu Ram A 2 and raped her, turn by turn.
195 dated 30.12.1995 under Sections 376 2 g , 366, 342, 363, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
On 30.12.1995, the prosecutrix, accompanied by her father Luxmi Narain Sharma PW 4 , went to the Police Station Nangal Chaudhary and lodged a First Information Report FIR being No.
577 and 479 of 1998 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein while affirming the companyviction and sentence dated 30/31.03.1998 awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.
It was only on 29.12.1995, she was allowed to leave the said place when the appellants accused learnt that her family members were on her look out.
These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 22.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Brief facts The case relates to the gang rape of the victim in village Nangal Durgu, Haryana.
They kept her companyfined in the same shop for two days, i.e., 28.12.1995 and 29.12.1995 and companymitted rape upon her repeatedly.
When she tried to resist their attempt, they threatened her by pointing out a knife with dire companysequences.
After investigation, the case was companymitted to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul which was numbered as Sessions Case No.
RT 9 of 28.08.1997/11.03.1996 and Sessions Trial No.
During the pendency of the above appeals, the appellants accused placed on record an affidavit dated 24.12.2011 signed by the victim.
In the light of the limited relief prayed, there is numberneed to go into the aspects relating to companyviction and sentence.
Being aggrieved of the order of companyviction and sentence, the appellants herein preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.
When she reached her house, she narrated the entire incident to her family members.
4 of 28.08.1997/25.03.1996.
Balu Ram the appellant herein also had a shop adjacent to the shop of Purushottam.
Being aggrieved of the above, the appellants herein have preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
Purushottam her grandfather, had a shop in the said village.
577 and 479 of 1998 before the High Court.
In other words, the only question to be companysidered in these appeals is whether the appellants accused have made out a case for imposition of a lesser sentence than ten years?
Leave granted.
Sathasivam,CJI.
Heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned companynsel for the appellants accused herein and Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior companynsel for the respondent State.
