Judgment :- Oral Judgment: 1. The appellants were charge-sheeted and prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code ( in short “IPC”) for having committed rape upon prosecutrix on 27.1.2004 at about 00.20 hours. By judgment and order dated 11.9.2008 in Sessions Trial No.11/2004, the learned Special Judge, Pandharakwada Dist. Yavatmal, found them guilty and imposed punishment for offence of rape awarding jail sentences for ten years each and fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for three months to each of the appellants for offences of house trespass, punishable under section 450, for period of thee years and fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- each, and further imprisonment of three months. 2. The said judgment and order is under challenge by means of these Appeals. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is : On 27.1.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. the prosecutrix-Sujata took her meals was alone in house at Akoli (Khurd), Taluqa Kelapur ;while her husband Kapil had gone to Nagpur. At about 12.00 midnight, as she heard a knock on the door she got up and saw accused coming from outside the door. Accused Ramamurti, Praful and Sheikh Javed Sk.Kurban R/o Akoli were playing carrom in the locality and, therefore, were known to the prosecutrix. They had asked prosecutrix to open the door and also asked whether Kapil (husband of prosecutrix) was in the house. Prosecutrix told them that her husband was not in the home and she would not open the door. Preosecutrix went again to sleep on the cot. After about 20 minutes, those three accused persons had trespassed in the house form the rooftop removing the Mangalore tiles on the house. Accused Praful Padelwar woke her up by his hand and by another hand pressed her mouth so that she should not raise shouts; while accused Sk. Javed opened buttons of her blouse. Ramamurti caught her hands and legs. They did not allow the prosecutrix to move or raise shouts. Sk. Javed removed her saree, lifted her petticoat and removed her nicker. He forcibly pressed her breasts and committed sexual intercourse. Then he opened the door and went outside. Thereafter, Ramamurthi Bominwar committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in same manner. Lastly, Praful pressed her mouth and did not allow prosecutrix to shout. Sk. Javed removed her saree, lifted her petticoat and removed her nicker. He forcibly pressed her breasts and committed sexual intercourse. Then he opened the door and went outside. Thereafter, Ramamurthi Bominwar committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in same manner. Lastly, Praful pressed her mouth and did not allow prosecutrix to shout. Praful had helped other two to commit sexual intercourse through he himself did not commit sexual intercourse. On 28.1.2004 at about 8.00 a.m., the prosecutrix narrated the incident o her nighbour-Gulabrao Bhanarkar who advised prosecutrix to wait till arrival of her husband from Nagpur and then to lodge a complaint at Police Station. Thus, after arrival of her husband, she narrated the whole incident to him and then both of them approached the Police Station. Her complaint gave rise to Crime No. 16/2004 registered at Pandharkwada Police Station on 28.1.2004 at 23.00 hours. The prosecutrix-Sujata (PW 1) deposed before the Court about the incident and oral report and FIR (Exhs. 34 and 35). FIR was recorded by Deelip Tidke (PW 5). Learned APP submitted that her evidence as above, remained unshaken in material particulars so as to identify the accused since prior to the incident, as also the incident of gang-rape. According to prosecutrix, her hands and legs were caught and her mouth was gagged and, therefore, she could not resist. She had also suffered injury on her private part and her chests (breasts) were swollen. PW 2-Kapil (husband of prosecutrix) had returned to Akoli on 28.1.2004 when prosecutrix narrated the incident to him. One Gajanan Madikuntwar (Accused No.4), {maternal uncle of the accused Ramamurthi} tried to bribe the witness Kapil in order to prevent lodging of FIR. PW 3 Siddhartha is a panch witness about Panchnama Exh.38; seizure of nicker; bedsheet, shawl; petticoat. Spot Panchnama (Exh.39) mentions that three tiles of roof above hearth near northern wall, was seen removed from which place accused trespassed in. Semen stains were seen on mattress. 4. Dr. D.A. Chaudhary (PW 4) deposed as to the certificate (Exh. 44) issued by him. According to him, the prosecutrix was capable of performing intercourse. Although he could not give expert opinion as to commission of forcible sexual intercourse, he had collected pubic hair, vaginal swab, blood sample sealed and handed over to lady Head Constable Vanmala. 5. About medical examination of accused Praful, Dr. 44) issued by him. According to him, the prosecutrix was capable of performing intercourse. Although he could not give expert opinion as to commission of forcible sexual intercourse, he had collected pubic hair, vaginal swab, blood sample sealed and handed over to lady Head Constable Vanmala. 5. About medical examination of accused Praful, Dr. Chaudhary found that all accused were capable to do sexual intercourse. 6. Dr. Choudhary did not notice general symptoms of forceful sexual intercourse on prosecutrix on the person of Sujata (Prosecutrix). 7. PW6Sheshrao Pande deposed about investigation done in the case. 8. The accused led defence evidence of Matil Shaikh and Arun Bontawar who deposed about accused who were friends of Kapil (husband of prosecutrix) were often visiting house of Kapil. The identity of the accused, therefore, is beyond dispute as they were known to prosecutrix prior to the incident. 9. Learned Advocates for appellants contended that the appellants could not have entered from the roof by removing Mangalore tiles and by that time the prosecutrix would have raised shouts to invite attention of neighbours. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix had stated that she narrated the incident to Gulabrao Bhanarkar on the next morning; but he was not examined to prove this fact. Kapil, husband of the prosecutrix, came back from Nagpur at about 4.00p.m. Then prosecutrix narrated the incident to him; but the FIR was lodged after much delay which ought to have been explained. It is lastly submitted that suspicion howsoever strong can not amount to proof and, therefore, for want of legal proof the appellants ought to have been acquitted by the trial Court. Reference is made to the ruling in Krishna Raut vs. State of Maharashtra : 2008 All.M R (Cri) 656. 10. Learned APP in support of the impugned judgment and order submitted that the accused/appellants were known to the prosecutrix because they were friends of Kapil. (her husband) and as such, they were well-acquainted with house; had climbed on roof, chose to remove big Mangalore tiles of the roof to make an entry in the house from rooftop as they intended to commit the heinous crime. (her husband) and as such, they were well-acquainted with house; had climbed on roof, chose to remove big Mangalore tiles of the roof to make an entry in the house from rooftop as they intended to commit the heinous crime. Considering the time of arrival of her husband Kapil at about 4.00 p.m. on next day, the prosecutrix waited for his arrival and after narrating the incident to him, they must have pondered over to decide to lodge a complaint at nighttime by going to Pandharkwada Police Station. Therefore, there was no inordinate delay to lodge the complaint. According to learned APP, necessary evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the charge and non-examination of Gulabrao Bhanarkar was of no consequence as it was of a hearsay nature. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and perused the evidence on record. From the evidence on record, it appears that the incident had occurred on 27.01.2004 at about 12 O’ clock midnight when husband of prosecutrix had gone to Nagpur. He returned at 4.00 p.m. On 28.1.2004. After prosecutrix narrated the incident to him, they went to Pandharkwada Police Station to lodge report. Thus, there was reasonable and plausible reason for delay which was not inordinate, in the facts and circumstances considering that a lady who is raped go through great emotional turmoil before deciding to lodge the complaint. 12. Although the prosecutrix was cross-examined at length, her evidence as to the incident remained unshaken in the main and, therefore, veracity of her evidence can not be doubted. There is no reason to doubt evidence of her husband Kapil (PW 2) also. 13. It is also argued that there were no injuries on her private part and on physical body, according to medical evidence led in this case. This submission is advanced with an argument that the trial Court should have disbelieved the prosecutrix. However considering the fact that prosecutrix is a married lady, it was not necessary that injuries should have been found on her private part. The defence suggested, in the course of cross-examination of the prosecutrix, “it is not true to say that in the absence of my husband I was calling boys in the village in day and night”. However considering the fact that prosecutrix is a married lady, it was not necessary that injuries should have been found on her private part. The defence suggested, in the course of cross-examination of the prosecutrix, “it is not true to say that in the absence of my husband I was calling boys in the village in day and night”. The appellants had not taken plea of a consensual sex in their statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. There was no evidence of any political enmity as suggested, which can lead to such serious complaint about gang rape by a married lady. 14. Thus, looking to the totality of evidence there was enough, cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Hence the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court was well-founded and there is no merit or substance whatsoever in these Appeal. In the result, all Appeals are dismissed.