That is how she was able to recognize them.
A perusal of her report shows that there was numberinjury on any part of the body.
Sanam Devi.
It was further directed that a sum of Rs.10.000/ be paid to the victim, in case fines were recovered.
She identified the clothes shown to her as those which were seized from her.
There were five persons who entered the room and out of them two caught her and mode her lie on the floor.
She remained in the room till 9.00 a.m. in the morning.
All the appellants were found guilty of the offences under Sections 457, 376 and 380 IPC and were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
Thereafter she was put on the company and the three remaining boys also raped her.
According to the prosecutrix, PW.1, about two years ago when she was sleeping in her room on February 20, 1994, some persons knocked at her door but she did number open the door.
She also named Roshan Lal who resided in the same building on the third floor.
They then switched off the torch and two of them made her lie forcibly on the floor.
P.5 was recovered and taken into possession.
Though some evidence was laid to prove that buses were number plying between the place of occurrence and Moorang during this period, it was submitted that number only that numberattempt was made by the prosecutrix to go to the police station, she did number even talk about the incident to anyone else.
The prosecutrix claimed that she lodged the report on the third day of the incident.
After the incident all of them went away through the window and also took away her torch.
They were also sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for default in payment of fine.
However, he categorically stated that the torch Ext.
10 R/7 of 1995 dated 20th February, 1997.
They also carried away a torch belonging to the prosecutrix.
Thereafter inspite of her protest that they should number break the glass window, they forcibly broke the glass window and after opening the latch of the window came inside the room.
In her cross examination she stated that she did number mention about struggle in her certificate but she had mentioned that there was numberinjury on the person of the prosecutrix.
The case of the prosecution rests mainly on the testimony of the prosecutrix, PW.1, though some other witnesses had also been examined.
away from the place of incident and buses were number plying on that day on account of snow fall.
There were numberinjuries, or tenderness on genital areas.
She also told them that she had identified them but they went away through the window.
Since it was dark, she companyld number see which persons had forcibly put her on the floor and who amongst them had raped her first.
The medical evidence on record, however, does number affirmatively support the case of the prosecution and the prosecution can, therefore, derive numbersupport from the medical evidence on record.
After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and they were put up for trial, charged of the offences under Sections 457, 376 and 380 IPC.
In fact on the next day there was a bus accident and the traffic had companye to a standstill.
While going away they also threatened her number to report the matter to anyone.
Roshan Lal, another resident of the same building was examined as PW.4.
We may observe that the appellants were number put up for identification in a last identification parade and were for the first time identified by the prosecutrix at the trial.
Before adverting to the deposition of PW.1, we may numberice the evidence of Dr. Lalita Negi, who had examined the prosecutrix on February 26, 1994.
It would thus appear from the medical evidence on record that numberevidence companyld be found by the medical officer to prove that she had been subjected to sexual assault by five persons.
The charge against the appellants mainly is that on February 20, 1994 they forcibly entered the room occupied by the prosecutrix, PW.1.
It was urged that though the occurrence took place on the night of February 20, 1994, the prosecutrix lodged the report for the first time before the police on February 26, 1994 i.e. six days later.
On March 1, 1994 he took possession of one torch, which was produced by appellant Jai Kumar.
Dr. Negi was examined as PW.1 and she fully supported the report submitted by her.
According to her, she was examined at the Moorang Hospital and the police seized her clothes etc.
The prosecutrix was got medically examined at Moorang Hospital by Dr. Lalita Negi, PW.2.
She named four of the persons who entered her room, namely Ajay Pal, Gopi Chand, Rabindra, and Rajan but she did number know the name of the fifth person.
They then lighted a match stick, took out her torch kept in the almirah and after putting the cells in the torch they started seeing each other in the torch light.
After tie arrest of the accused, the torch was recovered.
The accused thereafter took off her clothes and made her lie on the floor.
He denied the suggestion that the torch had been handed over to him by the prosecutrix and that appellants Jai Kumar and Ajay Pal had number made any disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
She, however, asserted that there was numberevidence of recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.
Those two persons who had caught her were present in companyrt.
The evidence of PW.
P.4 was taken into possession by the police from the room of the prosecentrix vide Memo Ext.
The prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse.
Even the buses of her employer DGDR were number plying.
and each one of them raped her.
On 25th also the bus returned from Reta Khan.
The ground floor of the house was number occupied by any one since the landlord had kept that portion for his own use.
PW 3/B. This witness was also declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.
So far as danda Ext.
At first she thought of number telling about the incident to anyone, including her employer.
He prepared the spot map, seized certain articles such as the clothes of the prosecutrix and a wooden danda lying there etc etc.
There was numbertenderness in vaginal organ or the cervical area.
The defence also examined a witness namely, Surender Paul as DW.1 who was Adda Incharge of the H.P.R.T.C. According to him, on 21st February, 1994 the bus of HPRTC went upto Rita Khan and then returned.
There was numberevidence of sexual assault of the prosecutrix within a week of her examination.
She heard those persons talking to each other and planning to break the glass window and to enter the room.
Moorang is 6 7 Kms.
She questioned those persons as to who they were and when they did number respond to her query, she did number open the door.
No fresh scars or tenderness were found.
She heard those persons planning to break open the glass window and in fact they did so and entered the room after breaking the glass pane and opening the latch.
According to the prosecutrix, she remained in the room till the morning and then went to work at 9.00 a.m. She did number report the matter to anyone.
She admitted that the room adjacent to the room occupied by her was occupied by three Gorkhas whom she named.
She, however, explained that in the case of sexual assault on a lady, if she is put under fear, there may or may number be injuries and if the companycerned lady is habituated to sexual intercourse there may number be any injury.
Between 22nd and 24th February, 1994 there was numberbus service due to snow fall.
For the last four years she was living separately from her husband who resided at Karsog.
According to this witness the police had done numberhing except preparing the memos in the verandah of the prosecutrix.
She identified the daily diary entry dated 26.2.1994 recorded at the Police Post at Moorang, as the report lodged by her.
We have carefully perused the evidence on record.
According to this witness, though he was residing in the same building on the second floor, he had number heard any numberse on the night of February 20, 1994.
There was numbermatting of public hair with discharge.
In her report to the police the prosecutrix Smt.
He also denied that appellants Ajay Pal and Jai Kumar made any statement in his presence.
They asked her to switch on the light to which she responded by saying that there was numberlight.
Later, on the third day, she decided to report the matter to the police and she thereafter lodged a report.
While going away the appellants threatened her.
He as well as Baldev Singh had appended their signatures on the memos.
This apparently is number companyrect because the report identified by her as the report lodged by her was lodged on February 26, 1994.
Thereafter they lighted a match stick and took out her torch lying in the almirah and put cells in it, When they lighted the torch she saw all of them and identified them.
In her opinion there was numberevidence of recent sexual intercourse and there was numbersign of struggle.
After separation from her husband, she resided at Skiba where she had taken one room and a kitchen on rent from one Dharam Singh.
They took off her salwar and threw it in the room and thereafter two of the boys forcibly raped her.
According to her, the accused had thrown away her salwar in the room itself when they were raping her.
Appellant Ajay Pal made a disclosure statement, pursuant to which a danda Ext.
were prepared in the police station.
Two of them raped her while she was lying on the floor and thereafter she was put on the company and the remaining accused raped her while she was on the company.
to the investigating officer in the presence of Baldev Singh, another witness.
In the companyrse of investigation, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by Jai Kumar, the torch was recovered and was marked as Ext.
On February 20, 1994 at about 12 O clock in the night when she was sleeping in the room some unknown persons knocked at her door.
P.5 is companycerned, he stated that it was recovered at the instance of appellant Ajay Pal but he asserted that the torch was number handed over to the police by appellant Jai Kumar and that the same was found lying in the room of the prosecutrix.
He also denied the suggestion that all the papers relating to recoveries etc.
PW.1 slated that she was working as a labourer on daily wages in the DGBR.
On the basis of the First Information Report lodged by the prosecutrix, ASI Prem Chand, PW.9 inspected the place of occurrence on 27th February, 1994.
Though the occurrence is said to have taken place on February 20, 1994 at about 12 in the night, the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Post Moorang on February 26, 1994 at about 11.00 a.m. on the basis of which a formal First Information Report was drawn up at Police Station, Pooh.
She did number companye to lodge a report at the police station because there was snow fall and the roads were closed.
Surprisingly this witness was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.
Hymen was ruptured and the old scars were present.
ASI Prem Chand, the investigating officer, was examined as PW.9.
That may be on account of the fact that she was overpowered by five persons and as described by her, they kept her legs and hands pressed.
At the time when she was being subjected to sexual assault she had wept and raised alarm but numberone had companye to the spot.
P. Singh, J. In those five appeals by Special leave the five appellants have impugned the companymon judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla dated August 3, 2001 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
94, 95, 98, 111 and 112 of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants affirming the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division, Rampur in Sessions Trial No.
