JUDGMENT MEHTAB S. GILL, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dated 17.4.2001, whereby he convicted Nahar Singh son of Bachan Singh, Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh sons of Nahar Singh, Balbir Kaur wife of Nahar Singh, Jit Singh son of Hazara Singh, Sher Singh son of Pritam Singh, Ram Kishan son of Bir Singh, Baldev Singh son of Ram Kishan and Amarjit Singh son of Gian Singh under Sections 147/148/302/363/364/376/323/394/149 IPC and sentenced the appellants to undergo the various terms of sentence as enumerated in the judgment. 2. Appellant Ram Kishan has died. Thus, his appeal has abated 3. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.DA of Rajinder Kaur wife of Sukhchain Singh to Gurdeep Singh ASI, Police Station Bhawanigarh. Rajinder Kaur stated that she had recorded her statement Ex. P.K. a day before yesterday. At that time, she did not state about rape being committed on her due to shame. Later on, she narrated the incident to her husband. On the night intervening on the fourth and the day before yesterday i.e. on the night of Friday and Saturday at about 2 A.M. Nahar Singh son of Bachan Singh, his three sons Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh armed, with gandasis entered her house. Nahar Singh’s Sala (brother-in-law), Sher Singh and Ram Kishan’s Behnoi (sister’s husband) were standing behind them. It appeared that he had a gun with him, while Sher Singh was armed with a Soti. Baljit Singh and other sons of Nahar Singh started causing injuries to her Jeth (husband’s elder brother) Sukhhev Singh. They also started twisting the arms and legs of Rajinder Kaur. Nahar Singh then gave a gandasa blow on the arm of Sukhdev Singh. Sons of Nahar Singh and Sher Singh started giving thrustwise fist blows to her son Gurwinder Singh. Ram Kishan and Baljit Singh caught hold of Rajinder Kaur and tied her arms behind her back. Sukhdev Singh, Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Kaur were then dragged to the house of Nahar Singh. This was seen by Bharpur Singh. All the accused took Rajinder Kaur to the Sawat (hall room), where she was thrown on the cot. After tying the arms of Sukhdev Singh from behind, he was thrown aside also. Sukhdev Singh, Gurwinder Singh and Rajinder Kaur were then dragged to the house of Nahar Singh. This was seen by Bharpur Singh. All the accused took Rajinder Kaur to the Sawat (hall room), where she was thrown on the cot. After tying the arms of Sukhdev Singh from behind, he was thrown aside also. Arms of her son Gurwinder Singh were also tied and he was made to sit on one side. Thereafter, all the three sons of Nahar Singh and his brother-in-law Sher Singh committed rape on Rajinder Kaur, turn by turn against her consent. Out of fear, Sukhdev Singh had to see all this. At about 6/7 A.M. Rajinder Kaur and her son were told to go out of the house. Baljit son of Nahar Singh armed with a gandasa chased the complainant. Nachhattar Singh son of Gurdial Singh came to the spot and stopped the accused from inflicting injuries. Accused Nahar Singh came from behind with a gandasa and gave a blow to Nachhattar Singh on his head. Nahar Singh removed the television set, fridge, radio set, tape-recorders, utensils, beddings and ear-rings of the complainant and took them away. Apart from this, some money and two ceiling fans were also taken. Two buffaloes and one Rehra (cart) were also taken away. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PW9/B was recorded. Special report reached the ACJM Sangrur on 20.9.1988 at 10.15 P.M. 4. Prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. Parbhat Kumar as PW1, Dr. S.K.Goyal as PW2, Dr. S.P.Gupta as PW3, Dr. G.K.Raikhy as PW4, Rajinder Kaur as PW5, Gurwinder Singh as PW6, Ghuman Singh as PW7, Dharminder Singh Draftsman as PW8, Hardev Singh as PW9, DSP Om Parkash as PW10, ASI Gurdeep Singh as PW11, Constable Karta Ram as PW12, DSP Ashok Puri as PW13, Jagatjit Singh as PW14, ASI Bhagwan Singh as PW15, CII Leela Singh as PW16 and H.C. Sukhdev Singh as PW17. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that occurrence allegedly had taken place on 16/17.9.1988 and FIR No.122 Ex.PW9/B came into existence on 20.9.1988 at 7 P.M. after the statement Ex. DA of Rajinder Kaur was recorded by ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 on 19.9.1988. ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 had also recorded the statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur on the basis of which FIR No.120 dated 17.9.1988 was recorded regarding the same occurrence. DA of Rajinder Kaur was recorded by ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 on 19.9.1988. ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 had also recorded the statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur on the basis of which FIR No.120 dated 17.9.1988 was recorded regarding the same occurrence. Appellant Balbir Kaur was examined on 17.9.1988 by Dr. S. P. Gupta PW3 at 9.15 A.M. Complainant Rajinder Kaur gave her statement Ex.PK to Gurdeep Singh ASI PW11 on 17.9.1988 after FIR No.120 dated 17.9.88 had come into existence. Rajinder Kaur was also examined on 17.9.1988 at 3.30 P.M. by Dr. Parbhat Kumar PWl. Similarly, Nachhattar Singh gave statement Ex. P AA and was medically examined by Dr. S.K. Goyal PW2 on 17.9.1988 at 10.15 A.M. This witness was not brought into the witness box as being won over by the accused. Ghuman Singh son of Nachhattar Singh PW7 gave statement Ex.DB to ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 on 17.9.1988. He was also examined by Dr. S.K. Goyal PW2 on 17.9.1988 vide report Ex.PGG. It is clear that appellant Balbir Kaur, complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, Ghuman Singh PW7 and his father Nachhattar Singh were examined at about the same time and on the same day by different doctors, qua their injuries. In her statement Ex.PK given to Gurdeep Singh ASI PW11 on 17.9.88 complainant Rajinder Kaur has stated, that at about 2 A.M. she was sleeping in her verandah in front of her house. Nahar Singh along with his sons Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh came and started inflicting injuries/blows with their hands and legs on her. They caused internal injuries on her right thigh, left knee and right shoulder. After giving her a beating, they lifted her household articles and also took two buffaloes away. Her wheat etc. was also taken. Ram Kishan was also present with them. Her (Rajinder Kaur’s) husband had gone to village Kahnaheri to meet his relations. He was called back in the morning through a messenger. Her husband was told the entire story and she was then brought to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Her statement was recorded by ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 on 17.9.1988. It was thumb marked by complainant Rajinder Kaur. 6. Appellant Balbir Kaur in her statement Ex.DC stated that at about 7 in the morning on 17.9.1988 she along with her son Charan Singh were standing in front of the house. Her statement was recorded by ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 on 17.9.1988. It was thumb marked by complainant Rajinder Kaur. 6. Appellant Balbir Kaur in her statement Ex.DC stated that at about 7 in the morning on 17.9.1988 she along with her son Charan Singh were standing in front of the house. Sukhdev Singh son of Ballam Singh, Nachhattar Singh and Bharpur Singh sons of Gurdial Singh armed with gandasas, Ghuman Singh, Lal Singh and Balbir Singh sons of Nachhattar Singh armed with soties came there raising lalkaras. Nachhattar Singh gave gandasa blow which hit on her right ear and Bharpur Singh gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side which hit her on the left ann. Sukhdev Singh gave gandasa blow from its reverse side on the right shoulder of her son Charan Singh. Ghuman Singh, Lal Singh and Balbir Singh continued raising lalkaras and were shouting that they will not spare them and the decision of the case will be seen later on. They were saying that they will get the possession of the house and deliver it to Sukhchain Singh. In the meantime, her husband Nahar Singh and uncle Jit Singh, who were standing in the disputed house nearby, came running and rescued her. While going, accused inflicted more injuries. The motive for commission of the offence was that the accused were helping Sukhchain Singh regarding the possession of the house. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that from the statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur and statement Ex.PK of complainant Rajinder Kaur given on the same day i.e. on 17.9.1988, it comes out that the complainant party are the aggressors. The injuries on the persons of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, Nachhattar Singh and Ghuman Singh PW7 are simple and superfluous in nature. FIR No.122 Ex.PW9/B as per statement Ex.DA made by complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 is an after thought. Statement Ex.DA was made after consultations and confabulations. In statement Ex.DA, names of only appellant Nahar Singh and his sons Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh and Ram Kishan are mentioned. Names of the other appellants do not figure in statement Ex. PK or in FIR Ex.PW9/B. FIR Ex.PW9/B came into existence after three days of the alleged occurrence. In statement Ex.PK made by Rajinder Kaur PW5, it has been stated that her husband Sukhchain Singh had gone to another village to meet his relations. Names of the other appellants do not figure in statement Ex. PK or in FIR Ex.PW9/B. FIR Ex.PW9/B came into existence after three days of the alleged occurrence. In statement Ex.PK made by Rajinder Kaur PW5, it has been stated that her husband Sukhchain Singh had gone to another village to meet his relations. It is after he was called back, that she was taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. There are no allegations in statement Ex. PK about rape being committed upon her. In statement Ex. DA, it is clear that the injuries were inflicted on the deceased Sukhdev Singh in the house of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 and not in the house of appellant Nahar Singh. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the alleged injuries inflicted on the persons of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, Gurwinder Singh PW6, Ghuman Singh PW7 and Nachhattar Singh are simple and superfluous injuries. It has come in FIR No.122 Ex.PW9/B, that the appellants were. carrying gandasas, takuas, soties and a gun. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account. There is no sharp edged injuries on the persons of the complainant party and the injured witnesses. If gandasas and takuas, were used, they would have caused sharp edged injuries. During the course of the trial, the learned Public Prosecutor wanted to admit statement Ex.DA, on the basis of which, FIR No.122 Ex.PW9/B came into existence, but the trial Court disallowed it, stating that it is not the first information (See statement of Rajinder Kaur PW5). Meaning thereby, the Court came to the conclusion that the first information was statement Ex.PK made by complainant Rajinder Kaur and not statement Ex. DA. Statement Ex.DA in fact did not come into existence on 19.9.1988, but came into existence after the post mortem Ex. PC was performed on 20.9.1988 at 4 P.M. It is thereafter that statement Ex.DA of complainant Rajinder Kaur was recorded. In inquest report Ex. PE, all the documents were furnished to Dr. S.K. Goyal PW2 for the purposes of preparing the post mortem report Ex. PC. The inquest report Ex.PE had FIR No.120, statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur and statement of Nachhattar Singh attached with it. This clearly shows that till 20.9.1988 by 4 P.M. FIR Ex.PW9/B and statement Ex.DA of Rajinder Kaur PW5 had not come into existence. S.K. Goyal PW2 for the purposes of preparing the post mortem report Ex. PC. The inquest report Ex.PE had FIR No.120, statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur and statement of Nachhattar Singh attached with it. This clearly shows that till 20.9.1988 by 4 P.M. FIR Ex.PW9/B and statement Ex.DA of Rajinder Kaur PW5 had not come into existence. If document Ex.DA had come into existence, then FIR Ex.PW9/B and statement Ex.DA would have been attached with the documents for performing the post mortem on the dead body of Sukhdev Singh. Gurwinder Singh PW6 in his testimony before the Court has stated that he went to the hospital and had himself medically examined on 17.9.1988. But strangely, his statement under Section 161 Cr. PC was recorded on 22.9.1988. In his statement, he also does not name all the appellants. It is when he came into the witness box after a gap of five years, that he named the other accused apart from Nahar Singh and his sons. 9. Learned counsel for the State has argued that on 17.9.1988 when complainant Rajinder Kaur along with her son Gurwinder Singh PW6 was going to the Tobha (village pond), they were attacked by the appellants and it was Nachhattar Singh and Ghuman Singh PW7 who rescued them. It is at that time that appellant Balbir Kaur also received injuries. Appellant Balbir Kaur made statement to Gurdeep Singh ASI PW11 and FIR No.120 was recorded. In fact from statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur, it is clear that the appellants and the complainant had a fight. ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 after FIR No.120 was recorded, on the basis of statement of. appellant Balbir Kaur, that he (ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11) came to village Bhattiwal Kalan and found Sukhdev Singh in the house of appellant Nahar Singh in an injured condition. He immediately took Sukhdev Singh to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, where he admitted him, so that medical aid be given to him. 10. Injuries No.1 to 4 on the person of complainant Rajinder Kaur, show that rape had been committed upon her. Dr. Parbhat Kumar PW1 on 17.9.1988 at 3.30 P.M. examined Rajinder Kaur PW5 and found injuries on her person. She also complained of bleeding. 10. Injuries No.1 to 4 on the person of complainant Rajinder Kaur, show that rape had been committed upon her. Dr. Parbhat Kumar PW1 on 17.9.1988 at 3.30 P.M. examined Rajinder Kaur PW5 and found injuries on her person. She also complained of bleeding. She was referred to a Gynae Cologist Complainant Rajinder Kaur in her statement before the Court has stated that she had named, apart from Nahar Singh and his sons the other appellants also, but ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 did not record their names. ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 was favouring the appellant party and it is thereafter, that Om Parkash Inspector PW10 was appointed as the Investigating Officer. Document Ex.PFF the Chemical Examiner’s report states, that there was semen on the underwear of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5. This shows that rape was committed upon her. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 12. Statement Ex.DC was made by appellant Balbir Kaur and statement Ex.PK was also made by complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 to ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 on 17.9.1988. Statements Ex. DC and Ex. PK came into existence at the first instance on the same day i.e. on 17.9.1988. Time when they were recorded is not mentioned. These statements are in fact the first information given to ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11. Complainant Rajinder Kaur PW11 was examined by Dr. Parbhat Kumar PW1 on 17.9.1988 at 3.30 P.M. He found four injuries on her person. Similarly, appellant Balbir Kaur was examined by Dr.S.P.Gupta PW3 on 17.9.1988 at 9.15 A.M. and found two injuries on her person. The first injury was an abrasion on the lower front part of left fore arm above the wrist and the second injury was an incised wound, skin deep on the outer margin of pinna of right ear. Appellant Balbir Kaur in her statement Ex.DC stated, that a case on her husband Nahar Singh is pending in the Court with Sukhchain Singh son of Ballam Singh regarding the house, which is with complainant Rajinder Kaur wife of Sukhchain Singh. On 17.9.1988 at 7 in the morning, appellant Balbir Kaur along with her son Charan Singh were standing in front of their house. On 17.9.1988 at 7 in the morning, appellant Balbir Kaur along with her son Charan Singh were standing in front of their house. Sukhdev Singh son of Ballam Singh armed with a gandasa, Nachhattar Singh and Bharpur Singh sons of Gurdial Singh armed with gandasas, Ghuman Singh, Lal Singh and Balbir Singh sons of Nachhattar Singh armed with Soties raised lalkaras and inflicted injuries on her and her son Charan Singh. They shouted that they will not spare them and the result of the case will be seen later on. They would also take possession of the house and deliver it to Sukhchain Singh. In the meantime, her husband Nahar Singh and uncle Jit Singh came there and rescued her. While going, the accused inflicted more injuries. Complainant Rajinder Kaur in her statement Ex.PK, which was also given to ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 on 17.9.1988, stated that at 2 A.M. in the night when she was sleeping in the verandah, Nahar Singh and his sons Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh came and started giving her hand and leg blows. They caused internal injuries on her thigh, left knee and right shoulder. After beating her, they lifted all her articles along with two buffaloes and took them away. Appellant Ram Kishan was also present. Her (Rajinder Kaur’s PW5) husband had gone to village Kahnaheri to meet his relatives. He was called in the morning through special a messenger and was told the entire story. Rajinder Kaur PW5 was thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. 13. From both these statements Ex. DC and Ex. PK, it comes out that motive for commission of the offence is regarding the possession of a house, which at that moment of time on 17.9.1988, was with complainant Rajinder Kaur and her family, but appellants Nahar Singh and his sons Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh along with Ram Kishan wanted to take possession of the house forcibly. Ram Kishan is dead and thus his appeal has abated. As per the medical evidence, appellant Balbir Kaur along with complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, Ghuman Singh PW7 and Ghuman Singh’s father Nachhattar Singh were examined on 17.9.1988 at 9.15 A.M., 3.30 P.M., 10.10 A.M. and 10.15 A.M. respectively by. Dr. Parbhat Kumar PWl, Dr. S.K. Goyal PW2 and Dr. S.P. Gupta PW3. As per the medical evidence, appellant Balbir Kaur along with complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, Ghuman Singh PW7 and Ghuman Singh’s father Nachhattar Singh were examined on 17.9.1988 at 9.15 A.M., 3.30 P.M., 10.10 A.M. and 10.15 A.M. respectively by. Dr. Parbhat Kumar PWl, Dr. S.K. Goyal PW2 and Dr. S.P. Gupta PW3. It is dear from the medical evidence and examination of appellant Balbir Kaur and the complainant party, that occurrence had taken place on 17.9.1988 before 10.15 A.M. i.e. some time in the morning. Names of appellant Balbir Kaur, Jit Singh, Sher Singh, Baldev Singh and Amarjit Singh did not figure in statement Ex.PK made by complainant Rajinder Kaur PWS on 17.9.1988, nor do their names figure in the statement Ex. DC of appellant Balbir Kaur. First Information Report i.e. FIR No.120 was recorded on 17.9.1988 on the statement of appellant Balbir Kaur. Second FIR No.122 was recorded after statement Ex.DA came into existence on 19.9.1988. FIR No.122 was recorded on 20.9.1988 at 7 P.M. We are of the considered opinion, that appellants Balbir Kaur, Jit Singh, Sher Singh, Baldev Singh and Amarjit Singh, who were not named in statement Ex.PK, have been roped in, after due consultations and confabulations. Even otherwise the weapons, which they were alleged by carrying i.e. gandasas, Takuas, gun and Soties with which they allegedly inflicted injuries, do not corroborate the medical evidence. Injuries on the persons of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, Gurwinder Singh PW6, Ghuman Singh PW7, Nachhattar Singh and Sukhdev Singh deceased show that there is no injury of gandasa, Takua or gun. In fact, complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 has stated in her first statement i.e. Ex.PK, that she was given fist and kick blows. The learned trial Court rightly disallowed the admitting of statement Ex.DA of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5. First statement given to the police by complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 was Ex.PK and not Ex.DA. Ex.DA in fact came into existence after due deliberations amongst the complainant party and the Investigating Officer. Injuries on the persons of the complainant party are simple and superfluous injuries. Deceased Sukhdev Singh was given an injury on the back by a blunt weapon, which proved fatal. Ex.DA in fact came into existence after due deliberations amongst the complainant party and the Investigating Officer. Injuries on the persons of the complainant party are simple and superfluous injuries. Deceased Sukhdev Singh was given an injury on the back by a blunt weapon, which proved fatal. These injuries were caused at the time when appellants Nahar Singh along with his sons Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh came forcibly to take possession of the house in dispute, which was occupied by complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 and her family. Learned counsel for the appellants has rightly argued that statement Ex.DA of complainant Rajinder Kaur had not come into existence on 20.9.1988 by 4 P.M. when the post mortem report Ex.PC was being prepared by Dr. S.K.Goyal PW2. The papers submitted to Dr. S.K. Goyal PW2, were the inquest report Ex. PE, FIR No.120 dated 17.9.1988, which had been recorded on the basis of the statement of appellant Balbir Kaur No reason has been given by the prosecution as to why statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur was attached with the inquest report. Not only was the statement Ex.DC of appellant Balbir Kaur attached, but the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC of Nachhattar Singh father of Gurwinder Singh PW6, was also attached, which had been recorded on 17.9.1988. It is clear that statement Ex.DA came into existence on 20.9.1988 after 4 P.M. and FIR No.122 was recorded thereafter on 20.9.1988 at 7 P.M. 14. Complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, Gurwinder Singh PW6 and Ghuman Singh PW7 have improved their statements materially, when they came to the Court after a gap of five years. We have carefully scrutinized their statements and have come to the conclusion that appellants Nahar Singh, Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh came to the house of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, to take forcible possession of the disputed house. Appellants Balbir Kaur, Jit Singh, Sher Singh, Baldev Singh and Amarjit Singh have been roped in. They were not involved in the commission of the offence. Gurwinder Singh PW6 was examined on 17.9.1988 by Dr.Parbhat Kumar PW1, but his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded after a gap of five days i.e. on 22.9.1988. He being an injured eye witness, the Investigating Officer should have been vigilant in recording his statement on the same day i.e. on 17.9.1988. Gurwinder Singh PW6 was examined on 17.9.1988 by Dr.Parbhat Kumar PW1, but his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC was recorded after a gap of five days i.e. on 22.9.1988. He being an injured eye witness, the Investigating Officer should have been vigilant in recording his statement on the same day i.e. on 17.9.1988. No explanation has come forward from DSP Om Parkash PW10 or ASI Gurdeep Singh PW11 in their testimony, as to why the statement of Gurwinder Singh PW6 was recorded on 22.9.1988 and not on 17.9.1988. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out against the appellants. There was no intention on the part of the appellants to commit the murder of Sukhdev Singh, though they may have had the knowledge that, if such like injuries are inflicted, Sukhdev Singh could die. We are not in consonance with this argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Motive for commission of the offence was to take forcible possession of the house. In the process, Sukhdev Singh deceased was given a fatal injury on his back. It is on 18.9.1988, when deceased was re- examined by Dr.S.P.Gupta PW3 that the doctor observed three injuries on his person, which are reproduced as under:- 1. A contusion 4 cm x 3 cm on the medial part of right buttock which was flushed with the surface and was 3 cm away from mid line. 2. An illdefined abrasion on the back of right elbow spread in an area of 5 cm radius. 3. An abrasion 2.5 cm x 1 cm on the back 2.5 cm to the right of mid line at the level of iliac crest. 16. He further opined that patient developed swelling diffused in nature on the lower part of neck. The cause of death was due to the spinal injury. Further, he opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 17. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that not only the motive for commission of the offence was to take possession of the disputed house, but also to commit rape on the person of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5. 17. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that not only the motive for commission of the offence was to take possession of the disputed house, but also to commit rape on the person of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5. We are constrained to add out here that the Investigating Officer has been negligent in collecting evidence qua rape being committed on complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5. Dr. Parbhat Kumar PW1, who examined Rajinder Kaur PW5 on 17.9.1988 at 3.30 P.M. has stated in his report, that complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 complained about bleeding in her vagina. She was referred to a Gynae-Cologist for expert opinion. But for. reasons best known to the Investigating Officer and the medical officer, she was not taken to a Gynae-Cologist. Dr.Parbhat Kumar PWI also did not pursue the matter, so that she be examined by a Gynae-Cologist. We do not find any medical evidence on record, showing that rape had been committed upon Rajinder Kaur PW5. Nothing has been mentioned regarding she being raped in her statement Ex.PK. It is only in statement Ex.DA, which already discussed above, which came into existence on 20.9.1988 after 4 P.M., that she alleged, that the appellants had committed rape on her, by tying her hands and feet. In fact Dr.Parbhat Kumar PW1 has stated in his testimony before the Court that complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 when she was brought to the hospital by her husband, did not tell anything about rape at the time of her medical examination. He has further opined that injuries No.1 and 3 are superficial and could be caused due to rubbing against some hard surface. He enquired from complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5, as to any injury on her person except those mentioned, but she stated that there was no other injury apart from the injuries mentioned in his report. He has further opined that he did not find any sign of hands and legs being tied with a rope. The medical evidence qua complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5 being raped does not corroborate the ocular account. No rape was committed on the person of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5. Qua charges of rape, the appellants are acquitted. 18. Appellants Nahar Singh, Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. No rape was committed on the person of complainant Rajinder Kaur PW5. Qua charges of rape, the appellants are acquitted. 18. Appellants Nahar Singh, Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Fine under Section 302 IPC imposed upon them by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. They are acquitted of all the other charges framed against them. Appellants Balbir Kaur, Jit Singh, Sher Singh, Baldev Singh and Amarjit are acquitted, as the case against them is doubtful. 19. Appeal of appellants Nahar Singh, Baljit Singh, Darshan Singh and Charan Singh is dismissed and appeal of appellants Balbir Kaur, Jit Singh, Sher Singh, Baldev Singh and Amarjit Singh is allowed.