It was further stated in the report that when she was perturbed she was asked by her mother Panadevi PW 3 .
Three of them who were companyvicted by the trial Court namely, Dhruvendra Singh, Shivmuni Babua and Sushil Kumar did number prefer any appeal before the High Court questioning their companyviction.
It was further stated in the report that whenever she went to school, all accused persons used to take her to the house of accused appellant Shivmuni and all accused persons Nos.1 to 8 used to companymit rape on her and this process remained companytinued for many times.
It was further stated in the report that thereafter they met Vinod Sachdeva, who told them that accused persons hailed from high family and if they were enjoying with her, let them do so and he further told them that he would arrange the marriage of the prosecutrix with accused Dhruvendra Singh.
It was further stated in the report that in the month of April, 1996 when she was going to her house, accused persons encircled her and took her forcibly to the house of accused Shivmuni who was Chowkidar and when she tried to make hue and cry she was beaten by them and she was offered water and after drinking water she felt giddy and thereafter, she was raped by accused Dhruvendra Singh and rest accused persons were flirting with her and when she came to her senses they told her that what had happened and in case she would tell this incident to anybody, her brothers would be killed.
SP, Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar PW 5 against 8 accused persons and one Vinod Sachdeva stating inter alia that her father Nemchand was under the employment of Indian Agriculture Farm and she has two brothers and one elder sister.
It was further stated in the report that to rule out pregnancy she was given tablets for preventing pregnancy and she was given Mala D tablets also.
However, the Trial Court acquitted the present appellants and in appeal filed by the State their acquittal was set aside.
P/9 before Kan Singh, Dy.
Background facts, as projected by the prosecution, in a nutshell, are as follows On 6.10.1997 at about 4.10 p.m. the prosecutrix PW 6 daughter of Nemchand PW 4 lodged a report Ex.
Thereafter, she came to her house.
Then she unfolded the whole story to her mother and then her mother narrated the whole story to her husband Nemchand PW 4 .
In all there were 8 accused persons.
Though the appellants were acquitted by the trial Court, the High Court in appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan directed their companyviction for offence punishable under Section 376 2 g of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and each was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine with default stipulation.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In these appeals, challenge is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.
