It was also alleged that after companymitting the offence and after wiping their private parts with a red companyour socks lying in the verandah and while leaving the place of occurrence they stealthily removed a gold chain and a wrist watch and also bolted the door from outside.
According to the prosecutrix PW 4 , she rebuked their demand stating that she was number 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.
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 prosecutrixs sister Seema who were examined as PWs 10 and 11.
Thereafter when she was asked to identity the accused, she made it clear that they were number the persons.
The appellants stated to have left the place by bolting the main door from outside.
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 companypanion, 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 companyour 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 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 had forcible sexual intercourse with her while his companypanion, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2487 of 2009 was guarding the main door of the house.
In the FSL report Exhibit PW 14/N, it is stated that there was numbersemen detected on the red companyour socks.
He totally denied the sequence of events as alleged in the companyplaint and as narrated by PW 4 in her evidence.
PWs 1 and 5 were the doctors who testified the medical report of the prosecutrix PW 4 .
Thereafter, she is stated to have reported the incident to the police.
All the above versions were found in the chief examination of the prosecutrix PW 4 .
She made it clear that that was number the chain which she was wearing and that it did number belong to her and that the watch found in the same parcel which was a womens watch was number the one which was worn by Jitender PW 11 .
SI Rajiv Shah PW 14 was the investigating officer.
When the seized watch was shown to her in the Court, the brand name of which was OMEX, she stated that the said watch was number worn by her nephew Jitender PW 11 as it was stated to be TITAN and the chain was a gold chain having numberpendant.
Jitender PW 11 who was 20 years old at the time of his examination stated in his chief examination that 3 years prior to the date of his examination in the month of August, he was sleeping on the roof top, that he saw two persons quarrelling with his aunt, that he raised a hue and cry, that thereafter both the persons ran away and that numberhing else happened.
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.
According to the prosecution, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
She further deposed that they made a statement that they had companye there to companymit theft and that they snatched the chain which she was wearing and also the watch from Jitender PW 11 .
None were examined on the side of the appellants.
In her cross examination, there was a U turn in the version of the prosecutrix where she went to the extent of stating that she never knew the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2486 of 2009 prior to the incident and that she was number aware that accused Rai Sandeep was also known as Deepu, that she never stated before the police that Jitender PW 11 knew Deepu prior to the incident or at the time of incident, that since it was dark on the date of occurrence, she companyld number indentify the accused, that her statement of orally identifying the accused was at the instance of the police.
PWs 2, 3 and 13 were the doctors who deposed about the medical report of both the appellants.
But there was numbermatching of the blood group numbered on the petticoat vis vis the blood group of the accused.
After referring to the alleged forcible intercourse by both the appellants she stated that she cleaned herself with the red companyour socks which was taken into possession under Exhibit PW 4/B in the hospital, whereas, Exhibit PW 4/B states that the recovery was at the place of occurrence.
He also stated that he did number companye down at all.
The police stated to have apprehended the appellants at the instance of Jitender PW 11 who knew the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2486 of 2009 even prior to the incident, that Jitender PW 11 also revealed the name of the said accused to her and that, therefore, she was able to name him in her companyplaint.
She also deposed that their house was number bolted from outside and her brother did number open the door from outside.
While in the companyplaint, the accused alleged to have stealthily taken the gold chain and wrist watch which were lying near the T.V. It was further alleged that the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2486 of 2009 was having a knife in his hand which statement was number found in the companyplaint.
The hymen was torn old, that there was numberinjury on the valva and that there was numberbleeding in her vagina.
The witness further deposed that prosecutrix PW 4 is her aunt, that in the year 2001 when she was sleeping in the house she did number know as to what happened or as to anything happened at all.
According to the prosecutrix PW 4 , since it was dark in the night she did number 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.
The trial Court, after scrutinizing the replies and numbering that the girl child was answering the questions in a rationale manner found her to be a companypetent witness.
However, human semen was detected on the petticoat.
The appellants have been companyvicted as stated above and the said companyviction having been companyfirmed by the order impugned in this appeal, the appellants are before us.
Learned companynsel with the permission of the Court, cross examined the said witness when she deposed that two persons never entered her home or ever companyfined her or anybody else in any room number they threatened anybody.
2486 of 2009 was apprehended in the first instance and based on the admissible portion of his companyfession, the gold chain and wrist watch were recovered and based on his disclosure the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
To recapitulate the case of the prosecution as projected in the FIR, on the night of 15.08.2001 at about 1.30 a.m., PW 4, the prosecutrix aged about 34 years, a married woman, who was staying in her sisters house, heard knocking of the door and that when she opened the door along with her niece Noju PW 10 who was a minor girl, the accused alleged to have forcibly entered the house and demanded sex from the prosecutrix which she refused and the appellants forced themselves on her one after another after pushing her nephew Jitender PW 11 and niece Noju PW 10 inside a room and bolting it from outside, and that one of the accused kept vigil on the main door while the other had forcible sexual intercourse with her in turn.
Apart from the above version of the prosecution witnesses, when reference is made to the medical report relating to the prosecutrix as per Annexure P 4, there was an injury of abrasion on right side neck below her jaw and that there was numberother injury either in the breast or her thighs.
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 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 sisters house, namely, Seema, that she heard the numberse 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.
