49 of 1997 while the other two appellants filed Criminal Appeal No.
76 of 1997 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
A few facts which may be numbericed at the threshold are that the investigating officer did number companysider it necessary to hold the test identification parade.
According to the prsocutrix, Mr. Dutta attached her to a school at Khamkheda with effect from March 10, 1992.
The Vidisha police sent the relevant papers to Police Station Satpada, since village Bagod fell within the jurisdiction of that police station.
The prosecutrix objected and raised an alarm calling out for Baldar Khan but numberone came to her rescue.
Before the trial companyrt as well as before the High Court it was urged on behalf of the defence that there was companysiderable delay in lodging the first information report and therefore number much reliance companyld be placed upon the testimony of the prosecutrix.
She was aged about 28 years and was unmarried.
She requested that she may be transferred to some other school.
She narrated the incident to her companyleague Shri Mangalsingh on March 12, 1992, who inturn reported the matter to Kaluram, PW.3, who was the President of District Teachers Association.
After the occurrence the prosecutrix left for her home at Bagod and went to school at about 3.00 p.m. On the next day she attended the school but thereafter went to Vidisha accompanied by another teacher Mangalsingh.
Even so, according to her, she narrated the incident to Shri Dutta, Deputy Director of Education on March 6, 1992.
Thereafter the appellants Musab Khan and Malkhansingh removed her clothes and Musab Khan was the first person to sexually assault her followed by Maharajsingh and Malkhansingh.
She moved to the edge of the path way giving way to the persons behind her to go ahead.
The said companyplaint was forwarded to the Kotwali, Vidisha, where a crime was registered.
When she was near the tapara of Baldar Khan she numbericed that she was being followed by three persons.
Surprisingly, the prosecution did number examine its witnesses Shri Mangal Singh and Shri Dutta, Deputy Director of Education, to whom she had narrated the incident on March 6, 1992.
However, one of them, later identified at appellant Maharajsingh, caught hold of her hands from behind.
Thereafter they left her giving threats of dire companysequences if she reported the matter to the police and reminded her that she would meet the same fate, which Madam Rekha had met, if she reported the matter to the police.
When again she persisted in raising alarm, appellant Maharajsingh placed a knife on her neck and tried to press her neck.
After alighting from the bus she proceeded on foot to the school in village Bagod.
The appellants have preferred these two appeals by special leave.
Moreover the sense of shame companypled with the fear on account of threats given out by the appellants must have deterred her from immediately reporting about the occurrence to others.
The case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix Kumari Lusiya was working as Assistant Teacher in the Government Primary School at village Bagod.
On the other hand appellant Malkhansingh took out a knife and threatened her.
The High Court by its impugned judgment and order of March 11, 2002 dismissed the appeals.
Later she narrated the incident to one of her companyleagues whom she found to be sympathetic towards her and thereafter when her cause was taken up by the teachers association, she companyld muster companyrage to lodge a report with the Superintendent of Police.
J U D G M E N T P. Singh, J. The three appellants herein were tried by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, M.P. in Sessions Trial No.
At Vidisha she met the Deputy Director of Education, one Mr. Dutta, on March 6, 1992 to whom she narrated the incident and told him that the three boys were after her life and it was number safe for her to go back to Bagod.
The trial companyrt acquitted them of the charge under the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 but found them guilty of the offence under section 376 2 G of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/ each under that section.
When she proceeded some distance she suspected that some of them had companye very close to her.
Appellant Musab Khan also took out a knife and threatened her into silence.
On March 14, 1992 Shri Kaluram, PW.3, took her to the residence of Superintendent of Police, Vidisha where the prosecutrix handed over a typed companyplaint to the Superintendent of Police.
The case was investigated and ultimately Musab Khan was arrested on March 29, 1992 while the others were arrested on March 26, 1992.
On March 4, 1992 at about 11.30 a.m. she boarded a bus to go to Bagod and alighted from the bus at about 1.00 p.m. at a place known as Zero Chain Puliya from where her school was located at a distance of about 1 kilometer.
Two of them then dragged her towards the canal where she was further threatened and made to lie on the ground.
The prosecutrix was thereafter medically examined by Dr. Manju Singhai, PW.1, on the same day at about 6.45 p.m. Her clothes were seized and handed over to the police.
76 of 1992 charged of offences under section 3 1 x of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 section 376 2 G and section 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they had, on March 4, 1992, companymitted gang rape and criminally intimidated Kumari Lusia a tribal woman, who was posted as Assistant Teacher in the Primary Government School at Village Bagod.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial companyrt, the appellant Malkhansingh preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The appellants were put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha, where the prosecutrix identified them as the three persons who had subjected her to sexual assault and criminal intimidation.
