PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By way of this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. the accused appellants, who are real brothers, have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bundi in Sessions Case No.137/2011 whereby learned trial Court after holding the appellants guilty for offence under Section 376 (2) (g) I.P.C. sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
(3.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that prosecutrix (PW.1) appeared before Mahila Thana, Bundi on 27.10.2011 at 12:15 am i.e. at midnight of 26.10.2011 and 27.10.2011 along with her father and submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) alleging therein that she on 26.10.2011 at about 9-10 pm on the occasion of festival of Diwali visited house of her friend residing nearby and when she was returning back alone from there to her home in the way near 'Bada of Brahmins' appellant- Lokesh, brother of her friend, caught her and at the same time appellant- Mukesh, elder brother of Lokesh, also came there from behind and after lying her on the ground and removing her pant and underwear both of them committed rape on her one by one. It was averred that when she tried to cry they shut her mouth and after committing rape she was left alone. It was also averred in the report that after returning home she narrated the entire incident to her mother upon which her mother went to the house of appellants to complain about the incident but appellants instead of feeling sorry quarreled with her mother. On the basis of written report so submitted, FIR No.07/2011 for the offences under Sections 341, 376 and 34 IPC came to be registered against appellants and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against them. Appellants were charged and tried for offence under Section 376 (2) (g) I.P.C. and in order to prove the charge prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the evidence produced by the prosecution and it was specifically stated by them that the prosecutrix used to visit to their house in the night and some times on the pretext of coming to their house she used to visit some other places and when they and their parents objected her visit to their house in the odd hours of the night, she and her parents got annoyed and due to this annoyance they have been falsely implicated. Appellants did not produce evidence in defence. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and appreciating and evaluating the evidence made available on record convicted and sentenced the appellants as already stated.;