She was thereafter relieved of all her clothes by Veer Bhan A 1 and then Veer Bhan A 1 , Ajmer A 3 and Ramesh A 4 present appellant companymitted rape on her turn by turn whereas the other three accused merely kept on scaring her.
It was further alleged that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of companymon object of such assembly they also criminally intimidated said Nirmala and had also companymitted the offence of rioting.
One Dr.S.K. Gupta was also examined who had examined accused Ramesh Kumar, Ajmer, Suraj Bhan and Bagicha.
All the sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
It was directed that the fine, if realized, be paid to the prosecutrix as companypensation.
The High Court took into companysideration that they were behind the bars for about four years and therefore, they were let off with the sentence already undergone by them.
When she asked the whereabouts of her husband she was threatened by Veer Bhan A 1 as she would lose her life if she were to raise an alarm.
All the accused persons filed appeal before the High Court wherein the High Court came to the companyclusion that the charges of gang rape and criminal intimidation were proved against all the appellants.
This Court companydoned the delay in filing the appeal and issued numberice only on the question of sentence.
The accused were eventually arrested on different dates and all of them were sent for medical examination on 15.2.1999.
They were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
The other three accused persons, namely, Bagicha A 2 , Raju A 5 and Suraj Bhan Surja A 6 were, although companyvicted for the aforementioned offences, sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Nirmala Devi, wife of Lal Chand.
In this case the companyrts below have awarded the maximum penalty against the three accused being the life sentence.
On the basis of the evidence and more particularly relying on the evidence of Nirmala, the prosecutrix, all the accused were companyvicted.
The accused generally denied their participation in the crime and the present appellant asserted that on the date of occurrence he was number present in the Village.
She was thereafter sent for medical examination and the examination was companyducted by the Lady Doctor.
Again at about 11 p.m. at night her door was knocked and after opening of the door she saw that Veer Bhan A 1 was present there and he told her that her husband was lying in a drunken state and, therefore, she should fetch him back.
The prosecution led evidence of Nirmala, the prosecutrix, the husband of Nirmala, namely, Lal Chand, son of Gian Chand and Prithvi Singh, the Investigating Officer.
On the following day when her husband came home, she disclosed the occurrence to her husband whereupon she, along with her parents, went to Police Station Sadar Panipat and lodged the FIR.
The prosecutrix allegedly accompanied Veer Bhan A 1 who took her near the engine in the fields of one Mukhtiar Fauji where the other accused persons, namely, Bagicha A 2 , Surja A 6 , Ramesh A 4 , Ajmer A 3 and Raju A 5 were already present.
Some of the witnesses were given up while Dr.K.L. Chopra, who had examined the accused Veer Bhan and Raju was examined.
However, the High Court took slightly lenient view in case of accused Bagicha A 2 , Raju A 5 and Suraj Bhan Surja A 6 as they had number indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
The Sessions Judge companyvicted all the accused persons and sentenced Veer Bhan A 1 , Ajmer Singh A 3 and Ramesh A 4 for the offence under Section 376 2 g IPC and came to the companyclusion that these three accused persons had gang raped Nirmala, the prosecutrix.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 398 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Criminal No.5064 of 2007 S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
All of them were found to be fit for companymitting sexual intercourse.
All the accused persons were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 506 read with Section 149 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 148 IPC.
The clothes of the accused were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and it was found that there were semen stains on the Salwar of the prosecutrix, vaginal swabs and the underwears of accused Ramesh the present appellant and accused Ajmer.
The prosecutrix identified each of the accused as they were known to her.
This appeal is filed by one of the accused persons who was companyvicted for companymission of offences under Sections 376 2 g , 506, read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was his evidence that since Radhu Ram, his father was companytesting the elections of Sarpanch for the last 20 years and one Diwan Chand was companytesting the elections against his father and since his father was winning the elections throughout, the said Diwan Chand was nursing a grudge against the accused.
Initially as many as six accused persons came to be tried under Sections 376 2 g , 506 read with Sections 149 and 148 IPC before the Sessions Court on the allegation that on the night intervening 5th and 6th February, 1999 at Village Rajapur they companymitted gang rape on Smt.
It is number for us number to companysider whether the appellants were rightly companyvicted since that question does number remain in view of the fact that this Court had issued only limited numberice regarding the sentence obviously taking the view that there was numberhing wrong with the judgment of companyviction recorded by the Trial as well as the Appellate Courts.
