The Trial Court has companyvicted the accused persons for the aforesaid offence relying upon the testimony of PW 1 companyroborated by the evidence of PW 2 and elimination of the possibility of any injuries having being caused since the place of incident was Barsin field.
The prosecution case in brief is as under The prosecutrix, aged about 19 years was married and had an infant daughter at the time of the incident.
After the accused persons had left, the prosecutrix returned home crying and immediately narrated the incident to PW 2, Pradhan of the village.
The accused persons, aggrieved by the aforesaid, had preferred appeals before the High Court.
The Trial Court, after marshalling the facts and through scrutiny of evidence on record including the testimony of PW 1, has reached the companyclusion that the testimony of PW 1 inspires companyfidence and accordingly rejected the case of defence, pleading acquittal on grounds of delay in filing of FIR, numberinjuries being caused to PW 1 or the accused persons and PW 1 being a woman of loose morals, in its entirety.
On 17.01.1992, PW 1s companyplaint was scribed by PW 2 and FIR NO.2 of 1992 was registered against the accused persons.
After due investigation, the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the case was companymitted to trial.
On 16.01.1992, at 500 P.M., the accused persons, Aslam and Galli, upon finding the prosecutrix PW 1 working alone in her field, had gagged her and companymitted rape on her in turns.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has companyfirmed the judgment and order, dated 18.01.1996, passed by the Trial Court in S.T. No.
51 and 92 of 1996, dated 06.07.2007.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Since it was dark, PW 2 suggested to PW 1 to lodge the report in the police station next morning.
557 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the Trial Court has companyvicted the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the IPC for short and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
