The respondents were convicted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for an incident dating back to 1989. They were sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 50,000 each.

Initially acquitted, the accused were retried and convicted after the High Court's intervention. The judgment under appeal converted the acquittal into conviction, though with a sentence below the statutory minimum.

Vijay's counsel argued two previous acquittals, inconsistency in the prosecutrix's testimony, and doubts about her conduct, suggesting consensual relationships. State emphasized the gravity of the crime and flaws in the Sessions Court's judgment.

The State contended that the Sessions Court's leniency was unwarranted, urging for the imposition of the statutory minimum sentence.

The Court assessed the evidence, including the accused's statements under Section 313 of Cr.PC and the prosecutrix's testimony. It emphasized the reliability of the victim's account and rejected the defendants' claims of consensual relationships.

Considering the legal provisions and precedents, the Court highlighted the victim's testimony's significance and underscored the lack of corroboration requirements.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision. Vijay was given one month to surrender for the remaining sentence, considering the gravity of the offence.