JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same Sessions Trial and have been decided by a common judgment and as such they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Present jail appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 15/18.1.2013 passed in S.T. No. 811 of 2011 (State Vs. Sudhanshu and others), crime no. 390 of 2011, Police Station Sector 20, NOIDA, district Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the appellants Sudhanshu, Poonam and one Reeta (non appellant) have been convicted for the offence under Sections 365, 326, 344, 307 read with Section 34 IPC and appellant Sudhanshu separately for the offence under Section 376 (2) (Cha) IPC. Appellant Sudhanshu has been sentenced for the offence under Section 376 (2) (Cha) IPC for imprisonment of life till death and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment and appellants i.e. Sudhanshu and Smt. Poonam and one Reeta (non appellant) were sentenced for the offence under Section 365 IPC for seven years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-; for the offence under Section 326 IPC for ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/-; for the offence under Section 344 IPC for three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-and also for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 15,000/-and in default in payment of fine accused were directed to undergo one year's additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Half of the fine imposed upon the appellants were directed to be paid to the victim. 3. Prosecution story as unfolded in the missing report (F.I.R.) and recovery memo, in nutshell, are as under : 4. P.W.-1 Smt. Babita, mother of the victim girl moved a written report (Ext. Ka-1) on 31.5.2011 at police station concerned mentioning therein that her daughter (victim) aged about eight years had gone to school on 30.4.2011 and she did not return. Suspicion was made by P.W.-1 that her daughter (victim) has been kidnapped/abducted thus request was made to lodge report for taking necessary action. Ka-1) on 31.5.2011 at police station concerned mentioning therein that her daughter (victim) aged about eight years had gone to school on 30.4.2011 and she did not return. Suspicion was made by P.W.-1 that her daughter (victim) has been kidnapped/abducted thus request was made to lodge report for taking necessary action. On the basis of written report (Ext.-Ka-1) on 31.5.2011 first information report (in short F.I.R.) was registered at Police Station concerned under Section 364 IPC at 8.45 hours and entry was also made in General Diary (in short G.D.). Chik F.I.R. is (Ext. Ka-9) and G.D. is (Ext. Ka-10). 5. It also appears that on registering the F.I.R. police concerned made publication in news paper and had also broadcasted on the Radio and T.V. Channel about the missing of the victim girl. On 1.9.2011 police party received information that victim girl is in custody of accused persons namely Sudhanshu, Poonam and Reeta and they are residing in the house of Ratan Lal Awana in Salarpur Rajeev Colony. Informer also informed that he can tell the location of the house concerned. On this information police party entering the facts in G.D. No. 77, along with Informer came at the said place and after pointing out the house in question Informer went away. Police party tried to obtain witnesses but none was ready to be witness of search/recovery. Thus police party knocked the door of the house in question in the presence of parents of victim girl and on this one person opened the door. When police party enquired about the girl he startledly tried to close the door. At the same time police party heard a sound of moaning of a child. On this police party along with female constable, parents of the victim entered the house and found victim girl sitting in a corner. Parents of the victim present there identified victim girl. Police party made enquiry from the victim about her name and she stammeringly disclosed her name. She hugged her parents. When police party asked for presence of the victim in that house she pointed towards the person who opened the door and other two ladies present in the house and told that they have confined her in this room, used to beat her and also burnt her with candle. It was also stated by the victim that her tongue has been cut. It was also stated by the victim that her tongue has been cut. On this, police party interrogated that person and the ladies present in the house. The person present there disclosed his name as Sudhanshu son of Asharfi Prasad resident of village Maniharpur, Police Station Nath Nagar, district Bhagalpur (State of Bihar). One of the female present there disclosed her name as Poonam daughter of Hari Narayan, resident of village Pamera, Police Station Nogariya, district Bhagalpur (State of Bihar). Another female disclosed her name as Reeta (non appellant daughter of Shiv Narain Singh resident of village Dughaila, district Khagaria (State of Bihar). 6. Accused appellant Sudhanshu also told that he along with the help of accused Reeta abducted victim from her house and are living in this house since then. Both the ladies present in the house were told to be the wives of accused appellant Sudhanshu. Accused appellant Sudhanshu told that he cut the tongue of victim with resham thread (silk thread) along with the help of his wife. They have also burnt victim by candles at several places. He did not explain the reason for kidnapping/abducting the victim. Accused persons were arrested explaining them reason for their arrest. Children of the accused appellant Poonam who were aged about 7-1/2 years and 5 years respectively were also taken along with accused Poonam because there was nobody to look after them. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) was prepared at the place of occurrence and a copy of recovery memo was handed over to accused appellant Sudhanshu. 7. Victim was produced for medical examination on 2.9.2011 at Bhim Rao Ambedkar Multi Specialty Hospital. Following injuries were found on her person in external examination : “I. Abraded contusion 2 x 2 cm over back of skull 9 cm away from left for pina reddish in colour. II. Contused swelling 3 x 2 cm on Rt. side of skull 5 cm away from Rt. ear pinna, reddish in colour. III. Contused swelling 2 x 1 cm Rt side of skull 3 cm away from rt ear pinna redish in colour. IV. Multiple abraded contusion over face involving Rt side orbital area, bluish brown in colour. V. Front portion of tongue is missing, patient did not open her mouth properly so KUO & referred to ENT surgeon for management and further opinion. VI. IV. Multiple abraded contusion over face involving Rt side orbital area, bluish brown in colour. V. Front portion of tongue is missing, patient did not open her mouth properly so KUO & referred to ENT surgeon for management and further opinion. VI. Multiple abraded contusion over area of 13 x 7 cm front of neck, bluish brown in colour. VII. Multiple abrasion over area of 21 cm x 14 cm on front of chest, scab not present i.e. partially healed. VIII. Multiple abrasion over area of 25 x 20 cm on back of chest, scab not present (scab shed off) i.e. partially heald. IX. Multiple abrasion over area of 51 x 8 cm on left arm, left palm, left shoulder, left forearm, extending from palm to left shoulder top scab not present (scab shed off) i.e. partially healed. X. (A) Multiple abrasion area of 40 x 6 cm on rt. arm, rt. forearm, rt. palm, rt shoulder joint (extending from right palm to rt shoulder joint) scab not present. (scab shed off). (b) Complaint of pain over rt. arm swelling present on rt. arm 3 cm above rt. elbow joint, 2 x 2 cm KUO, advised X-ray. XI. Multiple abrasion over area of 34 x 9 cm on left leg and left thigh involving left knee joint. Scab not present (scab shed off) i.e. partially healed. XII. Multiple abrasion over area of 41 x 8 cm on rt. foot, rt. leg and rt. thigh, scab not present (scab shed off). XIII. Multiple abrasion over area of 15 x 10 cm on back of abdomen, scab not present (scab shed off) i.e. partially healed. XIV. Rt. upper lateral incisor & canine is missing. KUO & referred to dental surgeon for expert opinion & management.” 8. In the opinion of Doctor all above injuries were simple in nature except injury no. 5, 10 and 14. Injury report is (Ext. Ka8). 9. On 3.9.2011 she (victim) was produced before a female Doctor in the same hospital and following internal injuries were found : “Vagina old, torn & healed at 6 O'Clock. Vaginal smear slide taken for H.P.E. No bleeding/discharge. . Advised X-ray wrist, elbow and knee joint for age. Vagina smear slide for H.P.E. The report prepared in this regard is (Ext. Ka-6).” 10. On 13.9.2011 a supplementary report (Ex. Ka-7) was prepared. In pathology report no spermatozoa was seen. Vaginal smear slide taken for H.P.E. No bleeding/discharge. . Advised X-ray wrist, elbow and knee joint for age. Vagina smear slide for H.P.E. The report prepared in this regard is (Ext. Ka-6).” 10. On 13.9.2011 a supplementary report (Ex. Ka-7) was prepared. In pathology report no spermatozoa was seen. The age of the victim was found about 12 years. 11. Police also prepared site plan, Ext. Ka-3 and Ka-4, and after interrogating witnesses submitted charge sheet against accused appellants and one Reeta (non appellant) for the offence under Section 365, 326, 344, 307, 376 IPC. Charge sheet is Ext. Ka -5. Concerned Magistrate took cognizance on 31.10.2011 and case being exclusively triable by Sessions Court, was committed to Sessions Court. 12. Accused were brought from jail and charges for offence under Section 365, 326 read with Section 34, 307 read with Section 34, 344, 376 IPC were framed on 16.2.2011 by Sessions Judge. Accused denied and pleading not guilty claimed to be tried. 13. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.-1, Informant, mother of the victim; P.W.-2 victim; P.W.-3 S.I. Balwan Singh, Investigating Offier who recovered victim girl and has finally submitted charge sheet against accused persons after concluding investigation; P.W.-4 Dr. Archana Tyagi, who has medically examined the victim girl on 3.9.2011 as also prepared a supplementary report on 13.9.2011 on the basis of pathology report dated 5.9.2011; P.W.-5 Dr. Arvind Singh, who has medically examined the victim on 2.9.2011; and P.W.-6 Anand Pal, chik writer. 14. On conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of accused appellants were recorded. They stated prosecution case to be false. Recovery of victim girl was said to be false. Confinement of victim, causing of injuries and harassment, committing of rape upon the victim were also denied. It was also stated by accused appellants that charge sheet was falsely submitted. It was next stated that prosecution was started against them on the basis of false facts. Witnesses in the matter have deposed before Court due to enmity. Accused appellant Sudhanshu has specifically stated that 3-4 years back a quarrel took place between both the parties on account of taking of water. Due to this enmity this false case has been started. Age of appellant Sudhanshu is shown in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as 32-33 years. Accused appellant Sudhanshu has specifically stated that 3-4 years back a quarrel took place between both the parties on account of taking of water. Due to this enmity this false case has been started. Age of appellant Sudhanshu is shown in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as 32-33 years. Accused appellant Poonam has specifically stated that she was residing in the house and is wife of co-accused Sudhanshu and due to this reason she has been falsely implicated in this case. She claimed to be aged about 25 years. 15. Accused examined D.W.-1 Shailendra Kumar Rajak in their defence. 16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced appellants as stated above, hence this appeal. 17. We have heard Ms. Seema Pandey, Advocate (Amicus Curiae), Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. in both the appeals and perused the entire record. 18. Ms. Seema Pandey, Amicus Curiae argued that prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Missing report was lodged after a gap of about one month. Victim was not recovered from possession of appellants nor they have committed the present offence. It was further argued that appellants were neighbours of Informant. Some quarrel had taken place between them and due to that reason they were falsely implicated in this case. Referring to medical evidence it was further argued that injuries found on the body of victim could not come in the manner and style stated by her. It appears improbable and unbelievable that she is said to be in the custody of appellants for about four months but no complaint was ever made by her (victim). In fact victim was found somewhere else and appellants were falsely implicated in this case. Victim is a tutored witness. Findings recorded in the impugned judgment and order are illegal and perverse. Referring to the charges framed against the appellants it was also argued that offence under Section 307 IPC is not attracted in the present matter. Other offences have also not been proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Learned A.G.A. argued that a girl aged about eight years was kidnapped/abducted and kept in custody, confining in a house for about four months. Accused appellant Sudhanshu had also committed offence of rape against her repeatedly. Her tongue was cut with the aid of “resham thread”. Other offences have also not been proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Learned A.G.A. argued that a girl aged about eight years was kidnapped/abducted and kept in custody, confining in a house for about four months. Accused appellant Sudhanshu had also committed offence of rape against her repeatedly. Her tongue was cut with the aid of “resham thread”. Several other injuries were also caused on her person. Referring to the statement of victim girl recorded before court on oath it was further argued that victim girl had categorically made statement against accused appellants about their involvement in the present matter. It is a case of extreme brutality. Prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Merely on this basis that charge against accused appellants for the offence under Section 307 and 326 IPC both have been framed entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. 20. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the entire record. 21. In this matter, as is evident from the record, victim girl was said to be missing since 30.4.2011. Prosecution case is that on several occasion informant P.W.-1 informed local police about the said facts but no report was lodged. For the first time on 31.5.2011, on the basis of written report, F.I.R. for the offence under Section 365 IPC was registered. Suspicion was raised against one Kalu. It is also evident from record that local police was trying to search whereabouts of the victim girl exerting all possible efforts i.e. publication of missing report of the girl in local news papers, broadcasted messages on radio, T.V. Channel and has also exerted all available modes. On 1.9.2011 local police was informed by Informer regarding whereabouts of victim girl. Local police entering these facts in G.D. and taking with them parents of the victim girl reached Salarpur Rajeev Colony where victim was kept by accused appellants in a house. It is also the prosecution case that when door in question was knocked by police personnel, accused appellant Sudhanshu opened the door. Police enquired about whereabouts of victim then he tried to close the door but police personnel forcibly opened the door and entered the house. It is also the prosecution case that before making search of the house in question police party tried to obtain independent witnesses but none came forward. Police enquired about whereabouts of victim then he tried to close the door but police personnel forcibly opened the door and entered the house. It is also the prosecution case that before making search of the house in question police party tried to obtain independent witnesses but none came forward. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-2) also reveals that police party including female constables and parents of the victim entered the house and found victim sitting in injured condition in a corner inside the house. Present appellants as well as co-accused Reeta (non appellant) were also present there. As per prosecution, victim herself narrated the whole episode/story to her parents as well as the police. Police arrested accused appellants and prepared recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 2). It is also evident from record that on the day of recovery victim girl was examined at Dr. Bhim Rao Multi Speciality Hospital, Gautam Budh Nagar. On external examination 14 injuries were found on her person. On internal examination made by female Doctor, hymen was found old, torn and healed although vaginal smear was taken and sent for pathological examination but on examination no spermatozoa was found. Age of the victim on the basis of Radiological examination was found about 12 years. 22. As far as lodging of F.I.R. belatedly is concerned it is a case of offence of rape against a girl aged about 12 years; she was missing since 30.4.2011 but missing report was lodged in the matter after hectic efforts made by mother of the victim, on 31.5.2011, victim was recovered in the intervening night of 1 / 2.9.2011. Thus, in the present matter delay occurred in lodging of the missing report or F.I.R. keeping in view the nature of offence, facts and circumstances of the case become immaterial. Victim was missing, Informant made hectic efforts to lodge report informing police thus efforts made by Informant are sufficient to set the law in motion. Non lodging of F.I.R. immediately on the basis of information given by victim's mother is fault on the part of police concerned and prosecution case on this count cannot be disbelieved. 23. Victim was missing, Informant made hectic efforts to lodge report informing police thus efforts made by Informant are sufficient to set the law in motion. Non lodging of F.I.R. immediately on the basis of information given by victim's mother is fault on the part of police concerned and prosecution case on this count cannot be disbelieved. 23. As far as recovery of victim girl is concerned, though name of Informer (approver) has not been disclosed by police concerned nor there is mandatory requirement to disclose name yet on scrutiny of statement of P.W.-1 informant; P.W.-2 victim; P.W.-3 Sub Inspector Balwan Singh, it is clear that victim was recovered from Salarpur Rajeev Nagar Colony and appellants were also arrested from that house itself at the time of recovery of the girl. Contrary submissions raised by the learned Amicus Curiae on this point as well as plea taken by the appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are not substantiated by evidence. Recovery of victim girl from the house in question in the intervening night of 1/ 2.9.2011 by P.W.-3 S.I. Balwan Singh and other police personnel cannot be doubted. Since victim was to be identified hence police concerned took parents of the victim with them at the time of search of the house in question, thus on this ground also fact of recovery of victim girl cannot be doubted. Recovery of girl from the house in question is supported by testimony of P.W.-1 informant, P.W.-2 victim girl and P.W.-3 S.I. Balwan Singh. Minor contradictions in the statement of these witnesses on this issue does not render their statements unbelievable on the point of recovery of the girl. 24. As far as medical evidence is concerned victim has stated that she was confined by accused appellants for about four months in the house in question and was not allowed to go out side the house. When the victim was examined for the first time by Doctor she was unable to open her mouth easily because her tongue was cut from the front side. Several other injuries as disclosed in the medical examination report have also been found. Although duration of the injuries found on the person of the injured/victim shown in (Ext. Ka-8) were of different duration but this situation was due to injuries caused on different occasions as has been stated by victim. Several other injuries as disclosed in the medical examination report have also been found. Although duration of the injuries found on the person of the injured/victim shown in (Ext. Ka-8) were of different duration but this situation was due to injuries caused on different occasions as has been stated by victim. When victim was examined before Court on oath as P.W.-2 she has clearly stated entire facts. Accused appellants cut the tongue on one occasion and on another occasion her hand was twisted which resulted in fracture in her hand. Several injuries are found on her mouth, chest, back, leg etc. caused on different occasions. As regards the offence of rape committed against victim is concerned, if medical evidence is taken into consideration she was aged about 12 years; her hymen was found old, torn and healed. These facts itself indicate that on several occasions offence of rape has been committed against victim. Doctor examining the victim has opined that injury found on the private part of the victim could also come by inserting “Daal Ghotni” (hand masher). One tooth of the victim was also found broken. This fact has also been supported by the Doctor concerned. There are several injuries found on person of injured. We do not find any necessity to discuss each and every injury found on the person of the victim in detail. Suffice it to say that both Doctors have found injuries on the person of victim, as has been stated by her before the court, in the examination made on oath. Victim has also clearly stated that appellant Sudhanshu had committed offence of rape against her on several occasions. He was also extending threat to the victim not to tell this fact to any one. 25. In the present matter, statement of P.W.-1 Smt. Babita, mother of the victim is relevant to this extent only that victim was missing since 30.4.2011. She made hectic efforts to lodge F.I.R. and ultimately F.I.R. was lodged on 31.5.2011. Victim was recovered in her presence from the place of occurrence by the police concerned. This fact also found support from statement of the P.W.-3 S.I. Balwan Singh, who was leading police party. Other facts to constitute offence of rape, kidnapping/abduction, confinement and causing grievous injuries to the victim have been supported by the victim in her statement made before court below. This fact also found support from statement of the P.W.-3 S.I. Balwan Singh, who was leading police party. Other facts to constitute offence of rape, kidnapping/abduction, confinement and causing grievous injuries to the victim have been supported by the victim in her statement made before court below. Statement of victim is also supported by medical evidence. 26. As far as the offence under Section 326 and 307 IPC is concerned, we find it necessary to quote the provisions of both Sections : “326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” 27. If the provisions of both the Sections are minutely analysed in the light of the facts and evidence available on record, we are of the view that findings of Trial Court recorded in the impugned judgment and order for the offence under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable as specific charge has also been framed against accused appellants for offence under Section 326 IPC. Appellants have been held guilty of this charge. Appellants have been held guilty of this charge. Weapon said to have been used in the matter and the manner in which injuries were caused upon the person of victim clearly attract Section 326 IPC and there is no necessity to hold accused appellants guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Thus we are of the view that findings recorded by Trial Court to this extent is illegal and liable to be set aside. 28. As regards the plea taken on behalf of accused appellants regarding P.W.-1 as tutored witness is concerned P.W.-2, victim, is a minor girl, learned trial court at the time of examination before court on oath has tested her competency by putting several questions to her. When court found her to be competent to understand the question and make answer permitted her examination. A perusal of the entire statement of this witness also reveals that during the course of examination on several occasion court itself put several questions and she has replied all the questions correctly. She comes under the category of wholly reliable witness and can not be termed to be a tutored witness. The opinion formed by court below also find support with this fact that what was stated by this witness at initial stage, just after her recovery, the same facts have been given during trial before court concerned. Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved or statement of victim can also not be brushed aside only on this ground that statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.PC. has not been recorded. 29. In Lallu Manjhi & another vs State of Jharkhand, (2003) 2 SCC 401 , Court has classified oral testimony of witnesses into following three categories: (a) Wholly reliable (b) Wholly unreliable (c) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable It has also been held that in third category of witnesses, Court has be cautious and to see that statement of such witness is corroborated either by statement of other witnesses or by documentary or expert witnesses. 30. Hence on close scrutiny of statement of entire prosecution witnesses in the light of the settled legal position as well as submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that deposition/testimony of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are credit worthy. 30. Hence on close scrutiny of statement of entire prosecution witnesses in the light of the settled legal position as well as submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that deposition/testimony of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are credit worthy. P.W.-2 is not a tutored witness but she has stated the facts before court on oath as was stated by her at initial stage. Prosecution case is also supported by P.W.-1, Informant. On the basis of information received from Informer, victim was recovered from the custody of appellants from the house in question. Medical evidence fully support the prosecution case. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 both are wholly reliable witnesses. Their statement are supported by the medical evidence. It is also pertinent to mention here that initially victim was admitted for treatment in the hospital concerned where she was examined first time. She remained there under treatment for about 3 days. Due to precarious condition she was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi and remained there for treatment for a long time. Statement of D.W.-1 examined in the matter is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. 31. Findings recorded by Trial Court in regard to the offence under Section 376 (2) (Cha) IPC against the accused appellant Sudhanshu and also the findings recorded by Trial Court for the offence under Section 365, 326,344 IPC against accused appellants Sudhanshu and Poonam are in accordance with law. Both, appellants and co-accused Reeta (non appellant), have caused grievous injuries to the victim on several occasions during her confinement, jointly or individually. Her one tooth was removed forcibly with the use of pliers. 32. As far as the charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, for the reasons discussed herein above we are of the view that conviction and sentence of accused appellants for this offence is not sustainable and accused appellants are liable to be acquitted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Laches on the part of Investigating Officer in the investigation or discrepancies occurred in prosecution evidence on some points are not material and fatal to prosecution case. 33. As far as punishment imposed upon accused appellants for the charges framed against them is concerned, there is no appeal either by State or by victim against impugned judgment and order. Laches on the part of Investigating Officer in the investigation or discrepancies occurred in prosecution evidence on some points are not material and fatal to prosecution case. 33. As far as punishment imposed upon accused appellants for the charges framed against them is concerned, there is no appeal either by State or by victim against impugned judgment and order. A minor child aged about 12 years was helpless in the cruel hands of accused appellants. She was raped by accused appellant Sudhanshu on several occasions. Several grievous and simple injuries were also caused to her by the accused persons during the period of confinement. Pain and agony caused to her is beyond imagination and is the limit of viciousness. Accused appellants took the victim girl in a relationship of 'trust-belief' and 'confidence' and by their conduct they have belied the said relationship. Victim girl was kept inside the house for about four months in a badly injured condition. This reflects most unfortunate and abusive facet of human conduct for which accused appellants have to blame no one else than themselves. Accused appellants committed the crime in most brutal manner and opted not to explain any circumstance and just took plea of false implication, which is unbelievable and unsustainable. Barbaric acts done by accused appellants are not only shocking to bereaved family but also to conscience of society. Trial court while imposing punishment for the offence under Section 304 IPC has itself adopted lenient view, therefore, we are of the opinion that no further leniency can be extended to accused appellants. As regards punishment imposed for the offence under Section 376(2)(cha) IPC is concerned, for the reasons discussed here-in-above, appellant Sudhanshu does not deserve any leniency. 34. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and manner in which present offence has been committed, we are of the view that impugned judgment and order dated 15/18.1.2013 to the extent of charge under Section 365, 326, 344 IPC against both appellants and charge under Section 376 (2)(Cha) IPC against appellant Sudhanshu is well thought, well discussed and Trial Court has rightly held that prosecution has succeeded to prove the guilt of accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. As such impugned judgment and order to this extent passed by Trial Court is liable to be upheld and appeal to this extent having no force is liable to be dismissed. 35. As such impugned judgment and order to this extent passed by Trial Court is liable to be upheld and appeal to this extent having no force is liable to be dismissed. 35. Accordingly, both the jail appeals are partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 15/18.1.2013 in regard to the charge for the offene under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC is concerned is hereby set aside. Accused appellants Sudhanshu and Poonam are hereby acquitted for the offence/charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. 36. So far the impugned judgment and order against the accused appellant Sudhanshu for the offence under Section 376 (2) (Cha) IPC is concerned, it needs no interference and is hereby affirmed. Impugned judgment and order against both the appellants Sudhanshu and Poonam in regard to the offence under Section 365, 326, 344 IPC is also hereby affirmed. 37. Copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar for compliance. A copy of this order be also sent to appellants through concerned Jail Superintendent. Compliance reports be also sent by all concerned to this Court. 38. A copy of this order be also placed on record of Jail Appeal No. 1372 of 2013 (Smt. Poonam Vs. State of U. P.). 39. Ms. Seema Pandey, learned amicus curiae has assisted the Court very diligently. We provide that she shall be paid counsel's fee as Rs. 10,000/-. State Government is directed to ensure payment of aforesaid fee through Additional Legal Remembrancer posted in the office of Advocate General at Allahabad to Ms. Seema Pandey, amicus curiae without any delay and in any case within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.