HARSH KUMAR,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Awadh Behari Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party in Criminal Appeal/Criminal Misc. Application under Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal) No.50 of 2014 and learned A.G.A. for the appellant in Government Appeal No.1149 of 2014 under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 10.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No.680 of 2013 arising out of case crime no.91 of 2013 under Sections 376, 452 and 506 I.P.C. and perused the record as well as the record of lower court, which has been summoned.
(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant-appellants contended that as per F.I.R., "on 12.4.2013 at 11.00 p.m. when the first informant was sleeping in her house with her two daughters, and her husband had gone out for work, the accused respondents Anees, Talib and Sharik, entered the house by leaping boundary wall and just after entering in the house they caught hold of the daughters of first informant and Anees forcibly committed rape with one daughter while Talib committed rape with another daughter and at the time of leaving, threatened the first informant and her daughters of life in case of reporting; that the miscreants were identified in the light of Dibbi (kerosene lamp) and upon alarm raised by first informant Jabuddin, Naim and several other persons arrived at the spot who seen the miscreants leaving from the spot and identified them; that next day in Panchayat pressure was created upon the first informant that if she lodged report her entire family will be finished, for which reason she could not lodge the report immediately; that during the entire incident accused Sharik remain standing by her side."
(3.) Learned counsel for applicant-appellants Shri Zafar Abbas and learned A.G.A. contended that after framing of charges prosecution produced as many as 10 witnesses including the formal witness, first informant and both the prosecutrixes; that the statements of first informant and two prosecutrixes were consistent and duly supported by the evidence of medical officer and the eye witness Naim P.W.-4; that the learned trial court has acted wrongly in disbelieving 1 the trustworthy and reliable evidence of prosecution and acquitting the accused persons merely for the reason that F.I.R. was lodged with a delay of five days; that in cases of sexual offences, the delay of five days may not be material to disbelieve the prosecution case.;