S.P. Garg JUDGMENT
S.P. Garg, J.
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 06.08.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 48/09 arising out of FIR No. 999/06 registered at Police Station Sultan Puri by which the appellants were convicted under Sections 366A IPC and Section 109 read with Section 376(2)(g) IPC, they have preferred the instant appeals. By an order dated 20.08.2011, the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/- each under Section 366A IPC and RI for ten years with fine ` 5,000/- each under Section 109 read with Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on 09.06.2006 at 8.30 a.m. the appellants kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged around 14 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents with intent that she was likely to be seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. During the period from 10.06.2006 to 27.06.2006, 'X' was subjected to gang-rape by three individuals during her stay at Ruksana Begum's house in the presence of the appellant- Urmila. Kamal Singh (PW-8), victim's father, after lodging FIR on 27.06.2006 informed the police that her daughter 'X' who was missing from the house since 09.06.2006 was kidnapped by a woman. Vide DD No. 85B (Ex.PW-6/A) recorded at on 09.05 p.m., information was recorded that a lady who had abducted 'X' has been apprehended near B- Block, House No. 480, Jalebi Chowk. 'X' was recovered from Ruksana's house. She got arrested Urmila. 'X' was medically examined; she recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the court. To bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses. In 313 statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Vital infirmities and discrepancies in 'X's statement were overlooked without any cogent reasons. Her statement cannot be taken on its face value as she has given divergent and conflicting versions. She was more than 16 years of age on the day of incident and was a consenting and willing party throughout. She had left her parents' home on her own and there are no allegations of kidnapping whatsoever. The actual rapists with whom physical relations were established, were not apprehended; their identity remained undisclosed. Inordinate delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. No visible injuries were found on 'X' body at the time of her medical examination. PW-10 (Sukhbir Singh Guliya) and PW-14 (Reshma) have turned hostile. Neither Sonia nor her mother who allegedly introduced 'X' to the appellants were examined. Learned APP urged that no sound reasons exist to disbelieve the prosecutrix who was around 14 years on the day of occurrence.
4. At the outset it may be mentioned that the prosecutrix was aged below 16 years on the day of incident. In the FIR (Ex.PW-2/A); MLC (Ex.PW-1/A) and state........