JUDGMENT 1. - The three appellants faced trial for allegedly having caused rape and homicidal death of Smt. Sajna in the night of 17.12.2003 in between 11:30-12:00 PM. They were tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 450, 376(2)(g) and 364 Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Camp Rajgarh, District Churu, by the judgment dated 16.07.2004 convicted them for all the charges and sentenced as under:- Offence under Section Sentence Fine Rs. In default to pay fine 450 I.P.C. 5 yrs. R.I. 200/- 1 month's S.I. 364 I.P.C. 10 yrs. R.I. 500/- 3 months' S.I. 376(2)(g)I.P.C. 10 yrs. R.I. 500/- 3 months' S.I. 302/34 I.P.C. Life imprisonment 1000/- 6 months' S.I. 2. The prosecution version, as unfolded during the trial, is that on 17.12.2003 at about 11:30-12:00 PM all the three accused persons entered in the house of Smt. Sajna (deceased), where she was sleeping. In the same room her two kids of 3 and 5 years of age and mother-in-law Smt. Banarasi (PW-7) were also sleeping. All the three accused persons after entering in the room raped Smt. Sajna and then abducted her. Hearing the noise coming from the house Mahendra (PW-8), Tulchha Ram (PW-9) and Satish (PW-10) reached at the spot and witnessed the act of abduction in a pickup van. The dead body of Smt. Sajna was found in a private hospital next morning at Bhadra. The first information report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Taranagar by Tulchha Ram and investigation was made for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. A charge sheet then was filed before the court competent alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(g), 364 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, charges were framed and on denial of the same regular trial commenced.3. The prosecution substantiated its case with the aid of 15 witnesses out of whom Banarasi (PW-7), Mahendra (PW-8), Tulchha Ram (PW-9) and Satish (PW-10) were cited as eye witnesses. Shri Jinku Ram (PW-15) being Investigating Officer narrated all the steps taken during the course of investigation. The medical evidence was adduced by Dr. Subhash Rajput (PW-1) who alongwith two other doctors conducted the autopsy on the person of deceased. Several documents were also exhibited to support the prosecution story.4. Shri Jinku Ram (PW-15) being Investigating Officer narrated all the steps taken during the course of investigation. The medical evidence was adduced by Dr. Subhash Rajput (PW-1) who alongwith two other doctors conducted the autopsy on the person of deceased. Several documents were also exhibited to support the prosecution story.4. The accused persons, while pleading innocence, stated that some money of accused Mahendra was due against Mahadev (husband of deceased Smt. Sajna) and his brother and on demanding the same a quarrel took place. Neither assault nor abduction of Smt. Sajna was made by them. They further stated that deceased Sajna was a woman of easy virtues. They also produced eight witnesses in defence and exhibited six documents.5. The trial court after analysing the evidence on record found the prosecution evidence reliable, thus, recorded the conviction and awarded sentence.6. In support of appeal, it is submitted that the trial court lost sight of relevant factors including that the medical evidence in no manner substantiates the prosecution case. It is asserted that the eye witnesses cited by the prosecution are planted and the circumstances are sufficient to disbelieve them. It is pointed out that according to the prosecution the gang rape took place in a room, where beside the victim three other persons including Banarasi (PW-7) were present but they did not choose to raise alarm of any kind and also not made any effort to save Smt. Sajna. This conduct of atleast Banarasi, who happens to be a mature lady, is not in accordance with a normal human nature. The incident was said to be seen by Smt. Banarasi as a kerosene lamp was lighting in the room but no such lamp is shown in the site plan that was prepared immediately after lodging of first information report, thus, this witness is not reliable one. The factum of arrival of three eye witnesses viz. Tulchha Ram, Satish and Mahendra at the spot of occurrence is also alleged to be highly improbable being these persons were residing at some distant place than the neighbourhood. It is also urged that Smt. Banarasi Devi was admittedly residing at a different place and not with Smt. Sajna but her presence at the site of occurrence is shown and i.e. absolutely a false. It is also urged that Smt. Banarasi Devi was admittedly residing at a different place and not with Smt. Sajna but her presence at the site of occurrence is shown and i.e. absolutely a false. No effort is made by the prosecution to establish that how and why Smt. Banarasi was present on the fateful day at the house of deceased Smt. Sajna, where she was not otherwise living. It is emphasised that neither husband of the deceased nor his brother were produced in the evidence, though they are the persons most relevant to explain presence of Banarasi at the house of Sajna. As per Shri Murlidhar Purohit, learned Senior Advocate, the prosecution intentionally did not choose to produce these persons in evidence, but planted the witnesses just to secure conviction.7. According to counsel for the appellants the evidence adduced in defence is enough to dismental the advice of the prosecution case but that has not been appropriately considered.8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has given adequate reasons for finding the accused persons guilty and sentencing them. The court examined the factual position in great detail and came to the conclusion regarding guilt of the accused and there is no scope of any interference.9. We have examined the record minutely and considered the arguments advanced.Dr. Subhash Rajput (PW-1) alongwith two other doctors conducted autopsy on the person of deceased Sajna on 19.12.2003 and submitted the postmortem report Ex.P/1). As per this witness deceased Sajna was habitual of sexual intercourse and her body was having an antemortem head injury. The occipital and parietal bones were fractured and brain tissues were inflated. The fracture on the base of skull was also found. Above the brain a blood clot measuring 2' x 1' was existing and the injuries were sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. The cause of death given was neurogenic shock due to brain injury. In view of the medical evidence adduced the homicidal death of Smt. Sajna is a definite conclusion.10. The question requires examination is that whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to held the accused appellants guilty for commission of rape, abduction of Smt. Sajna and killing her that amounts to murder as defined under Section 300 Indian Penal Code and punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.11. Smt. Banarasi (PW-7) is mother-in-law of deceased Sajna. The question requires examination is that whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to held the accused appellants guilty for commission of rape, abduction of Smt. Sajna and killing her that amounts to murder as defined under Section 300 Indian Penal Code and punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.11. Smt. Banarasi (PW-7) is mother-in-law of deceased Sajna. This witness stated that Mahadev and Purkharam are her sons and both are residing separately. Mahadev married with Sajna about 11 years back and they were having two children one of five years and another of three years. On the fateful day she was sleeping in a room on a cot and in the same room two children of Sajna were also sleeping on a cot. Sajna was sleeping independently on an another cot. A big box was also lying in the room. The room was closed but not bolted. In night three persons, who are present accused persons, entered in the room and did wrong with Sajna. The wrong was first committed by Kalu and then by Raju and Mahendra respectively. A kerosene lamp was giving light and because of that she saw and recognised the accused persons. The wrong was committed by putting down Sajna on a mattress. This witness also stated that in room she was screaming and the children were weeping. The accused persons threatened them to kill, in the event of not maintaining silence. She also elucidate that by term "wrong" she meant the wrong done by a man on a woman. Smt. Banarasi (PW-7) further stated that after committing wrong the accused persons pulled Sajna out of the room in veranda and then to the open court yard. On coming out from the room she and kids shouted and hearing that three persons viz. Satish, Tulchha Ram and Mahendra came at the spot. According to this witness accused Mahendra Singh gave a bamboo stick blow on the head of Sajna and two other accused were otherwise beating her. The accused persons forcibly carried Sajna in a pickup van. According to Banarasi (PW-7) the accused persons were involved in the business of selling liquor and they are not good people. This witness was subjected to cross examination in lucid and she maintained her version, whatever stated in chief.12. The accused persons forcibly carried Sajna in a pickup van. According to Banarasi (PW-7) the accused persons were involved in the business of selling liquor and they are not good people. This witness was subjected to cross examination in lucid and she maintained her version, whatever stated in chief.12. The submission of counsel for the appellants is that the factum of rape is not supported by medical evidence and, therefore, whatever evidence adduced by the prosecution on basis of the statements of PW-7 Banarasi is required to be ignored. The truthfulness of this witness is also questioned on the count that in the room where commission of rape is alleged was having no light and, therefore, there was no occasion to see any incident or atleast to recognise the culprits.13. I do not find any force in the argument advanced. Smt. Sajna was a mature lady and mother of two children. She was certainly habitual of sexual intercourse and, therefore, the injuries on private parts as suggested by learned counsel for the appellants may not be available. The injuries or abrasions on back or on arms or legs too are not required to be necessarily there specially in the circumstances that as per prosecution evidence rape was committed on a mattress. So far as factum about non-availability of kerosene lamp in site map is concerned, suffice it to mention that merely on this count statements given by PW-7 Banarasi cannot be thrown in totality. A minor error in the site plan is not at all sufficient to throw the ocular evidence adduced by an otherwise reliable witness.14. It is also asserted on behalf of the appellants that no alarm was raised by Smt. Banarasi (PW-7) or two children of deceased Smt. Sajna who were witnessing heinous incident and such a conduct is contrary to the normal course of human nature. This argument too is having no force in view of the fact that from perusal of the site plan it reveals that the room is having one opening i.e. in veranda and thereafter there is huge court yard. Smt. Banarasi (PW-7) specifically stated that she was screaming and children were weeping. Looking to the position of site of incident the possibility of hearing of hue and cry made by Smt. Banarasi and two kids and also of Smt. Sajna from the room is quite feeble. Smt. Banarasi (PW-7) specifically stated that she was screaming and children were weeping. Looking to the position of site of incident the possibility of hearing of hue and cry made by Smt. Banarasi and two kids and also of Smt. Sajna from the room is quite feeble. Their noise was heard by the persons in neighbourhood moment the Sajna was carried out from the room and was tried to be abducted in a pickup van.15. An another argument advanced by counsel for the appellants that no adequate explanation is extended as to why Banarasi stayed at the house of Sajna though she was residing with Purkharam is also of no consequence in view of the fact that Banarasi quite specifically stated that on the day concern, Mahadev was out of station and, therefore, she was staying with her daughter-in-law deceased Sajna. True it is, the above fact could have been further verified by producing Mahadev and Purkharam in evidence, but their non-production in witness box in no manner makes the evidence adduced by Smt. Banarasi unbelievable. The factum of commission of rape by the accused persons and abduction of Smt. Sajna is established beyond doubt on basis of the statements given by Smt. Banarasi. The factum of abduction is further fortified by the statements given by Mahendra (PW-8), Tulchha Ram (PW-9) and Satish (PW-10). These witnesses in quite unambiguous terms stated that on hearing hue and cry coming from the court yard of the house of Mahadev they reached at the spot and saw that the accused persons were beating Sajna and then they abducted her in a pickup van. There is no reason to disbelieve these independent witnesses.16. In view of the evidence discussed above the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 364 and 450 Indian Penal Code are established beyond any shadow of doubt.17. The issue with regard to commission of murder of Smt. Sajna is required to be pondered on basis of the aid of other circumstances available. As already discussed above, the accused persons entered in the house of Smt. Sajna, raped her and abducted her in a pickup van. While doing so, they were beating Smt. Sajna and also gave stick blow on her head. After few hours of the incident, dead body of Smt. Sajna was found and her death was nothing but a culpable homicide. While doing so, they were beating Smt. Sajna and also gave stick blow on her head. After few hours of the incident, dead body of Smt. Sajna was found and her death was nothing but a culpable homicide. The entire evidence and the circumstances available indicate only one conclusion that the accused persons after committing rape and abducting Smt. Sajna killed her too. The evidence adduced in defence in no manner breaks down the trustworthy evidence adduced by the prosecution. As such, we do not find any wrong in recording conviction of the accused persons by the trial court.18. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. The conviction as well as the sentence awarded by the trial court are affirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******