SHARMA, J. - (1.) `p' (name with held by us) a married lady of 30 years was gang raped by Yad Ram and Natthu Ram, appellants herein, who were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur. Learned Judge vide judgment dated September 29, 2007, convicted and sentenced each of them under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10000/- in default to further suffer two years rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this: P along with her small child aged four years had come to her Peehar (parental house) Nangdiwas. On December 21, 2006 she left Peehar with her nephew Ranveer (P. W. 17 ). THEy came to Bus-stand Kotputli in a Jogad (local made vehicle ). From Kotputli P wanted to go to her Sasural (in-laws house) Dhanwas. In the afternoon while they were waiting for the Bus to go to Dhanwas, Natthu came to them and asked as to why they were standing. Ranveer told him that he came to see off his Bhua (father's sister) who was going to her Sasural Dhanwas. Natthu then immediately said that he was also going in the jeep to Dhanwas and he would drop P there. Jeep No. RJ-14c-1085 was standing at Bus Stand and Yad Ram was sitting in the jeep. P along with her child and baggage boarded the jeep. But Natthu and Yad Ram on the pretext to leave P to Dhanwas took her to some other lonely destination in the forests of Kharkadi and committed rape on her. She somehow came back to her Peehar and informed about the incident. On December 22, 2006 her brother Ram Karan (P. W. 14) submitted a written report (Ex. P-14) at Police Station Kotputli. On that report case under Sections 376/511 and 379 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kotputli District Jaipur. Charge under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the accused claimed innocence. One witnesses in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge considered the testimony of P sufficient to prove guilt and convicted the appellants as indicated herein above. In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants canvassed that the prosecution version is highly improbable. The manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, clearly demonstrates that it was a false charge. Furthermore, the evidence of P is highly unreliable. She is a lady of easy virtue and earlier also she falsely implicated many persons and recovered lacs of rupees. From the appellants also she demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and the trial Court should not have acted on her evidence. It is further contended that the written report which was scribed by an Advocate, case under Section 376/511 IPC was registered but it was falsely magnified under Section 376 IPC. Placing reliance on Radhu vs. State of MP (JT 2007 (11) SC 91) it is urged that this Court should bear in mind that false charges of rape are not uncommon these days and the instant case is founded on the false report since P wanted to blackmail the appellants. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor contended that in our traditional bound country a rural woman would not tarnish her own reputation and image by voluntary to falsely claim that she had been raped and defiled. According to him the evidence of P not only shows the intention to commit the rape and attempt to do it and successful completion thereof. Therefore the evidence of P cannot be discarded. The Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar vs. Union Admn. (2006) 10 SCC 608 observed that in order to establish the charge of gang rape following ingredients are required to be proved:-      " (i) that more than one person had acted in concert with the common intention to commit rape on the victim; (ii) that more than one accused had acted in concert in commission of offence of rape with pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of mind and with element of participation in action. Common intention would be action in concert in pre-arranged plan or a plan formed suddenly at the time of commission of offence which is reflected by the element of participation in action or by inaction when the action would be necessary. The prosecution would be required to prove pre-meeting of minds of the accused persons prior to commission of offence of rape by substantial evidence or by circumstantial evidence; and (iii) that in furtherance of such common intention one or more persons of the group actually committed offence of rape on victim or victims. Prosecution is not required to prove actual commission of rape by each and every accused forming the group. " In her deposition P stated that around 12 in the noon while she and her nephew Ranveer were standing at Kotputli Bus-stand and waiting for the Bus to go to her Sasural at village Dhanwas Nathu came over there and asked that he was also going in the jeep to Dhanwas and he would take P in the jeep and drop her at Dhanwas. Since Ranveer knew Nathu, she boarded the jeep along with her child. One other person (whom she identified in the Court as Yad Ram) was also sitting in the jeep. After proceeding to some distance, the jeep took turn towards other road which was not going to Dhanwas when she objected, they told her that they would drop her at Dhanwas. After sometime when Nathu touched her breast, she raised alarm and her child began to weep. Nathu then threatened her that if she continued to make hue and cry, they would kill her child. Nathu then removed her `lehanga' and committed rape on her. At that time Yad Ram was driving the jeep. After ravishing her Nathu started driving the jeep and Yad Ram came back. In the meanwhile she put on `lehanga' and started seeing outside in search of person, but nobody could be seen. Yadram then lifted her `lehanga' and committed rape on her. She then saw a house and pretended to vomit. At that time she removed the curtains of the jeep and made attempt to jump from the jeep. She simultaneously raised hue and cry. People from outside rushed towards the jeep and took her back in `jogad' to Kotputli where her brother and nephew met her. Seeing her weeping her brother asked as to what had happened but she did not tell him about the incident. After she reached her Peehar she narrated the incident to her Bhabhis. In her cross examination P explained that she did not disclose the names of the appellants to the police because her nephew knew their names. She was sitting on the rear seat of the jeep and immediately after the jeep took turn, the curtains were put on by Nathu. She was made to lie on the seat and then ravished. Semen was discharged. She handed over her `lehanga' to police. When she jumped from the jeep she did not sustain injury.
(3.) P denied this suggestion that her husband and brother demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs from the appellants to enter into compromise. After jumping from the jeep she did not narrate the incident to the persons gathered there because Nathu and Yadram had threatened to kill her son. During cross examination P was asked as to in what posture she was raped. She was made to lie on the bench available in the trial Court to demonstrate her posture. It appears to us that while the victim was cross examined, the trial Court was sitting as a silent spectator and did not effectively control the recording of evidence in the Court. In State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 = (1996 (2) RLW (SC) 98), the Supreme Court indicated that while every latitude should be given to the accused to test the veracity of prosecutrix and the credibility of her version through the cross examination, the Court must also ensure that cross examination is not made a means of harassment or causing humiliation to the victim of crime. A victim of rape, it must be remembered, has already undergone a traumatic experience and if she is made to repeat again and again, in unfamiliar surroundings, what she had been subjected, she may be too ashamed and even nervous or confused to speak and the silence or a confused stray sentence may be wrongly interpreted as "discrepancies and contradictions". (Emphasis supplied) ;