Judgment 1. The instant four appeals have been filed by the accused/appellants against the judgment /order dated 7-4-1999 passed by Shri N. C. Nahata, the then Additional Sessions Judge (I), Jind in Sessions case No.3 of 20-1-1998. By the impugned judgment the appellants have been convicted under Sections 364 and 368 read with sec. 365 IPC. Raj Pal, Raju and Chaman lal have also been convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. However, accused Ram Sarup, giani Ram and Hawa Singh have been acquitted. Vide separate order dated 8-4-1999, accused Raj Pal, Satta, Rajju, Phool Kumar, ashok Kumar @ Sapatter and Chaman Lal have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 each for the offence under Sec.364 IPC and in default of payment of fine, each accused has been ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Sec.368 read with Sec.365 IPC. Accused Raj Pal, Raju and Chaman Lal have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec.376 (2) (g) IPC. In default of payment of fine, each of them has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences except the sentences awarded in lieu of fine have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution version, as unfolded during trial, is as follows : pw Harphool complainant has six daughters and three sons. His eldest daughter murti was married with accused Ram Sarup. His another daughter Krishna was married with accused Phool Kumar. Rani, prosecutrix is also daughter of PW Harphool and she was married with accused Satta. Accused Satta started to harass the prosecutrix in connection with demand of dowry and, therefore, the prosecutrix filed a divorce petition at Hisar against accused Satta and the divorce petition was fixed for 6-10-1997 in the Court of District Judge, Hisar for hearing. 3. The prosecution case further is that on 26-9-1997, P. W. Harphool, his wife Phool pati, PW Dhupa, Chandro and the prosecutrix were present near village Brahmanwas and were grazing goats and sheep. 3. The prosecution case further is that on 26-9-1997, P. W. Harphool, his wife Phool pati, PW Dhupa, Chandro and the prosecutrix were present near village Brahmanwas and were grazing goats and sheep. At about 4.00 p. m. , a four wheeler came there from the side of Dorar Railway Crossing and the same stopped near Harphool and others. Accused Raj Pal, Raju, Satta, Chaman Lal, phool Kumar and Sapatter along with 8 to 10 other persons got down from the said four wheeler. The accused persons forcibly kidnapped the prosecutrix and pushed her in the four wheeler. Thereafter they lifted dhupa and pushed him also in the four wheeler. The accused persons thereafter ran away in the four wheeler with prosecutrix and Dhupa. The accused had also threatened Harphool and others that they would teach a lesson for instituting a divorce petition and that they would kill the prosecutrix. Harphool then went in Search of the prosecutrix and Dhupa and for that purpose he went to kaithal to the house of his daughters Murti and Krishna but his daughters told him that the accused had not reached there with the prosecutrix and dhupa. Accordingly, Harphool lodged his report with the police which was incorporated in FIR Exhibit PO at Police Station julana on the next day i. e.27-9-1997. 4. The investigation of the case was taken up by ASI Krishan Lal, PW-16 who recorded the statements of Chandro and Phool Pati under Secs. 161 Cr. P. C. on 28-9-1997 and inspected the place of occurrence. He prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes Exhibit FT on the same day. On 29-9-1997, ASI Krishan Lal conducted a raid at the Kotha of tubewell of accused Hawa singh situated in the Beed of village Rehria and PW Harphool was with him on that occasion. Accused Raj Pal, Satta, Phool Kumar, raju and the prosecutrix were found in the kotha of tubewell of accused Hawa Singh and accordingly ASI Krishan Lal recovered the prosecutrix from that place and arrested the above said four accused. 5. Accused Raj Pal, Satta, Phool Kumar, raju and the prosecutrix were found in the kotha of tubewell of accused Hawa Singh and accordingly ASI Krishan Lal recovered the prosecutrix from that place and arrested the above said four accused. 5. It is further the prosecution case that on the next day of occurrence, accused Raju, raj Pal, Chaman Lal, Phool Kumar and sapatter took the prosecutrix to the Beed of village Rehria situated near Kaithal in the said four wheeler and that accused Raj Pal, raju and Chaman Lal committed rape upon her in the said Beed. When the above-said three accused committed rape upon her, the remaining accused persons had gone to their houses and were not present in the Beed. During night time, she was taken in the kotha of accused Hawa Singh where accused hawa Singh was present. Accused Hawa singh supplied liquor to accused Raj Pal, raju and Chaman Lal. She was kept there for three days. Accused Raj Pal, Raju and chaman Lal committed rape upon her during those three days. 6. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. 7. The accused were charge sheeted accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Malti Gupta, pw-2 Dr. Balram, PW-3 Dr. N. K. Verma, pw-4 Dr. Dhan Kumar, PW-5 SI Wazir Singh, pw-6 Constable Raghbir Singh, PW-7 Constable Mangat Ram, PW-8 HC Jai Singh, pw-9 Rani, PW-10 Harphool, PW-11 Dhupa, pw-12 HC Bhanu Bhushan, PW-13 Constable Pratap Singh, PW-14 Constable naresh Kumar, PW-15 Constable Balwant singh and PW-16 ASI Krishan Lal. 9. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. They pleaded that father of Rani namely Harphool was reluctant to send her to her matrimonial home and for that purpose, panchayats were also held. PW harphool demanded a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to send Rani and that accused Satta, Phool kumar and Ram Sarup had assured PW harphool that they would send money within or 6 days of sending Rani to the matrimonial home. PW harphool demanded a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to send Rani and that accused Satta, Phool kumar and Ram Sarup had assured PW harphool that they would send money within or 6 days of sending Rani to the matrimonial home. Consequently Rant was sent to her matrimonial home but the accused persons could not make arrangement of the money and hence this false case was got registered by the father of prosecutrix against the accused persons. The father of the prosecutrix had even been visiting the jail premises at Jind for demanding a sum of Rs.50,000.00 from the accused, after registration of the present case. 10. In defence, the accused examined dw-1 Shri R. K. Yadav, Deputy Superintendent, District Jail, Jind and DW-2 Sat narain, Reader to the District and Sessions judge, Jind. 11. After the conclusion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced whereas their co-accused Ram Sarup, Giani ram and Hawa Singh were acquitted, vide the impugned judgment, as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that according to the FIR, 8 or 10 other persons accompanied the accused /appellants at the time of alleged kidnapping of prosecutrix. Those persons have not been arrayed as accused. In these circumstances, the case against the appellants is false. 13. I have carefully considered the said submissions but do not find any force in the same. 14. Mere fact that except the appellants and the other persons who have been acquitted by the trial Court, other persons have not been arrayed as accused does not render the prosecution story doubtful. The material witnesses i. e. prosecutrix and her father, Harphool have categorically stated that other accused were not known to them and they can be identified on their coming in front of prosecurtix. So, it is the fault of the prosecuting agency for not arraying the other persons as accused and the prosecution cannot be penalised for the same. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the name of Sapatter alias Ashok Kumar is not mentioned in the FIR and, on that count, the prosecution story is doubtful. 16. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. 17. The FIR is only meant to set the law into motion. 16. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. 17. The FIR is only meant to set the law into motion. No doubt, PW-10 Harphool, father of the prosecutrix has not given the name of Sapatter alias Ashok Kumar accused in the FIR, but, in the statement of material witness witness i. e. PW-9 prosecutrix Rani, the name of Sapatter as driver of the vehicle is mentioned. In the statement by PW-9 Rani, prosecutrix recorded under sec. 161 Cr. P. C, active part has been attributed to Sapatter alias Ashok Kumar in the kidnapping. So much so as per her testimony, this accused had supplied meals to the other co-accused when she was confined in the tubewell. So, it cannot be said that Sapatter has been falsely implicated. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that all the family members of Satta accused have been implicated. In fact, motive for false implication of the accused is that PW Harphool was demanding Rs.50,000.00 from Satta and his family members and was further putting pressure for getting divorce and, on that count, Satta accused and his other members have been implicated. It has been further contended that Harphool met Satta accused while he was in judicial custody twice and demanded Rs.50,000.00 . 19. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the record of the case. 20. This aspect of the case has been elaborately dealt with by the learned trial court and the trial Court has arrived at definite conclusion that the story of demanding rs.50,000.00 is wrongly propounded by the accused. On re-appreciating the evidence on the file, I have no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial Court in this respect. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the prosecution has made material improvements regarding the allegations of the accused having weapons at the time of alleged kidnaping. It has been further submitted that in the FIR, there is no mention of accused being armed with any weapon. It was only later on that the factum of weapons with the accused has been mentioned in the statement of prosecutrix. It has been further submitted that in the FIR, there is no mention of accused being armed with any weapon. It was only later on that the factum of weapons with the accused has been mentioned in the statement of prosecutrix. It has been further contended that since there was no weapon of offence with the accused, so the ingredients of offence under Sec.364 IPC are not made out against any of the accused. In case the accused are acquitted for offence under Sec.364 IPC, then it is a serious dent in the prosecution version and the prosecution case should be thrown away and the accused be acquitted. 22. I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the record of the case. 23. Mere fact that in the FIR, the factum of accused having weapons is not mentioned, does not create any dent in the prosecution version. In the testimony of prosecutrix in the Court and in her statement under Sec.161 Cr. P. C. it is categorically mentioned that the accused were armed with weapons. PW-11 Dhupa has also corroborated the said version. So, the above arguments do not cut any ice before me. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that according to prosecution witnesses, Dhupa received head injury but no medical report has been produced on the file to prove the said injury. This fact clearly shows that the prosecution version is concerned. 25. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. 26. All the three material witnesses PW-9 prosecutrix, PW-10 Harphool and PW-11 dhupa have supported the prosecution version on all the material particulars. They have been cross examined at length but nothing could be brought on the file to discard their sworn testimony. Mere non production of medical report of Dhupa does not create any doubt in the prosecution version. There was a strong motive for the accused to kidnap the prosecutrix. She was, later on, raped by Raj Pal, Raju and Chaman Lal, accused. All the above mentioned three accused have been convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC i. e. gang rape. The other two sisters of prosecutrix were married with other two accused and as such the complainant and his family members must have thought thousand of times before lodging the report. 27. All the above mentioned three accused have been convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC i. e. gang rape. The other two sisters of prosecutrix were married with other two accused and as such the complainant and his family members must have thought thousand of times before lodging the report. 27. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the prosecutrix is a married lady. The fact that hymen was absent does not prove the factum of gang rape. The prosecutrix was not having any visible injuries. Thus, the allegations of gang rape are wrong. The swabs taken from the vagina of prosecurtix do not prove the factum of rape. No semen was found on the clothes of the accused. In these circumstances, the allegations of rape are wrong. 28. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. 29. The prosecutrix has stated about the factum of gang rape by Raj Pal, Raju and chaman Lal, accused. She was cross examined at length but nothing could be brought on the file to discard her sworn testimony. These three accused were arrested from the place of occurrence. The Salwar of the prosecutrix was stained with human blood. Traces of blood were also detected on public hair. Chadar of one of the accused was also stained with blood. As per report at serial no.4, human semen was detected at pyjama. So, the report of Forensic Science laboratory corroborates the version given by the prosecutrix. The arrest of the accused from the place of occurrence further corroborates the version given by the prosecution. Moreover, as discussed above, the prosecutrix would be the last lady to falsely implicate her two brothers-in-law in such a heinous offence. The testimony of PW-9 prosecutrix, PW-10 Harphool and PW-11 Dhupa prove the prosecution version. PW-16 ASI krishan Lal has categorically stated that on 29-9-1997, he raided the tubewell of Hawa singh and from there he arrested Raj Pal, satta, Phool Kumar and Raju accused. The prosecutrix was got recovered from that place. The arrest of the accused and the presence of prosecutrix in the tubewell lends support to the prosecution version. The medical examination of accused Raj Pal, raju and Chaman Lal prove the fact that there was nothing to suggest that they were not capable of performing sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix was got recovered from that place. The arrest of the accused and the presence of prosecutrix in the tubewell lends support to the prosecution version. The medical examination of accused Raj Pal, raju and Chaman Lal prove the fact that there was nothing to suggest that they were not capable of performing sexual intercourse. The story of demand of Rs.50,000.00 by the complainant does not inspire confidence and has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. The factum of filing divorce petition by the prosecutrix against her husband Satta is not disputed. So, in these circumstances, the appellants have failed to make out a case of acquittal and consequently the findings of learned trial Court stand confirmed. 30. Consequently, all the four appeals are without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 31. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial Court for strict compliance so that the appellants undergo the remaining part of their sentence. Appeal dismissed.