VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the appellants named above has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.7.1999 and 26.7.1999 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1998 by Shri Shital Prasad Thakur, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the appellants were found guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and they were each convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. However, they were not found guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is relevant to mention here that four other co -accused persons, namely, Albabu Ansari, Maklu @ Shamim Ansari, Altu Ansari and Sher Mohammad were also found guilty for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years except co -accused Albabu Ansari, who was awarded sentence to the period already undergone by him but they have not preferred appeal against the impugned judgment.
(2.) THE prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of P.W.7 Lakhi Devi, the informant and said to be the victim of ravishment in this case recorded by S.I. S.K. Poddar of Govindpur Police Station Camp Jangalpur Road, Shri Ram Briquet on 1.9.1997 at 19.00 hours inside the premises of Shri Ram Briquet aforesaid regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place in the night between 31.8.1997 and 1.9.1997 at 1.15 hours in the staff quarter in occupation of P.W.2 Ranjit Gope, the husband of the informant within the premises of the said Shri Ram Briquet and a case was instituted against the appellants and other co - accused persons on 1.9.1997 at 19.45 hours by drawing of a formal first information report (Ext.3). The fardbeyan and the first information report were received on 4.9.1997 in the Court empowered to take cognizance. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.7, the informant, was sleeping with her husband P.W.2 Ranjit Gope after taking meal in the northern room of her residence situate inside the premises of Shri Ram Briquet and P.W.5 Savitri Devi, her mother -in -law, along with her daughter Amita was sleeping in the southern room adjacent the room of the informant and her father -in -law P.W.1 Arjun Gope was sleeping on a Chouki in the verandah in front of her room and at about 1.15 hours in the night there was cry of P.W.1 Arjun Gope as a result of assault perpetrated on him and her husband P.W.2 Ranjit Gope opened the door of his room to see the occurrence and in the meantime four accused persons came in her room and enquired as to where the other members of the family are sleeping and out of fear P.W.2 and P.W.1 told them that P.W.5 Savitri Devi and Munsi of the said Shri Ram Briquet are sleeping separately in the nearby rooms and thereafter four accused persons got the room of P.W.5 opened and they brought P.W.5 and Amita to the room of the informant and thereafter they confined P.W.5, P.W.2 and P.W.1 along with Amita aforesaid in the said room of the informant and closed the door of the said room from outside and the door of the room in which Munsi of Shri Ram Briquet was sleeping, was also closed from outside and two of them forcibly brought the informant catching hold her arms in the southern room in which P.W.5 was sleeping and they forcibly led her on the Chouki near the eastern wall of the said room and thereafter one of them came out of the room and the other accused persons closed the door from inside and he after removing her Sari and also his full -pant ravished her and in course of ravishment on her protest he has also broken the buttons of her blouse and molested her breast and also kissed her and in course of ravishment she has raised alarms but none came to rescue her and after satisfying his lust he came out of the said room and asked co -accused Makulu to ravish her and co - accused Makalu after closing the door from inside ravished her and on her protest he intimidated her to be done to death. It is also alleged that there was a lantern burning in the said room and she has identified co - accused Maklu, resident of village -Matiyala, who used to visit Shri Ram Briquet and after satisfying his lust he called co -accused Altu Ansari and directed him to ravish her and thereafter he went out from the said room and co -accused Altu closed the room from inside and he also ravished her and on her alarms he also intimidated her to be done to death and told that all the accused have come for the purpose of ravishing her. It is alleged that after satisfying his lust he called co -accused Sher Mohammad and directed him to close the room from inside and to ravish her and thereafter Altu came out of the room and co -accued Sher Mohammad started ravishing her and in course of ravishment she became unconscious and swelling was caused to her private parts and she had pains in her face, breast and private parts. It is alleged that she has identified co - accused Altu, Maklu, Sher Mohammad and Albabu, who has first ravished her in the light of the lantern. It is Bulaki Ram Versus Jatru Mahali also alleged that the aforesaid co -accused persons used to visit the said Shri Ram Briquet and due to that she has identified them. The prosecution case further is that she remained unconscious on the said Chouki and when she regained consciousness P.W.2, P.W.1 and P.W.5 told her that she has regained consciousness after administering water and sweet drinks and they all stated that co -accused Albabu, Maklu, Altu and Sher Mohammad had ravished her and they further told that they also identified them in the light of the lantern and the flash of the torch and two other co -accused persons were also there, who had fled away with them and they are all residents of village -Matiyala. It is further alleged that P.W.1 informed the proprietor of Shri Ram Briquet regarding the occurrence and due to that delay has been caused in lodging this case.
(3.) THE appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charge levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the owner of Shri Ram Briquet factory, as they were agitating for the appointment of the local person in the said factory. It has also been contended that they used to take their breakfast and meal in the shop of the informant and there was some differences regarding the payment in respect thereof and due to that the informant had falsely implicated them in this got up case and no occurrence as alleged has ever taken place.;