JUDGMENT : Das, J. - The Petitioners have been convicted u/s 376, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each in default to undergo further R.I. for one month. 2. The two Petitioners are the forest guards of Titiguda reserve forest in the district of Koraput. It is the case of the. prosecution that on 26-12-1962, P.W. 2 Subai Kandhuni went to collect fuel in that forest, accompanied by some other women of her village including p.ws. 3 and 4. While all these women were collecting fuel, the two Petitioners appeared at the spot and caught hold of P.W. 2 and committed rape on her one after the other in spite of her protest. Thereafter P.W. 2 came and reported this matter to one Budhu Majhi, a cousin of her husband. A punchayati was held in the village where it was decided to bring this matter to the notice of the police. Accordingly a station diary entry (ext. 1) was made at the Tikari police outpost and later on it was treated as the formal F.I.R. and after investigation the Petitioners were charge-sheeted for an offence u/s 376, Indian Penal Code and committed to the Court of sessions to stand their trial. The defence pleas was one of denial. The case was tried by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput-Jeypore who convicted the Petitioners as above. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of conviction and sentence and hence the Petitioners have come up with this revision. 3. Mr. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended (1) that the evidence of the prosecution is thoroughly, unreliable owing to series of discrepancies and the evidence of the prosecutrix being inherently incredible, the prosecution case should have been rejected; and (2) the medical evidence does not at all support the prosecution story inasmuch as the doctor found no injury either on the person or in the private parts of the victim or of the Petitioners. 4. With respect to the first contention out of the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W. 2 is the victim herself. It appears from her evidence that on the date of occurrence, she and her companions, p.ws. 3 and 4 went to collect fuel in the forest. 4. With respect to the first contention out of the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W. 2 is the victim herself. It appears from her evidence that on the date of occurrence, she and her companions, p.ws. 3 and 4 went to collect fuel in the forest. While she was tying the fuels, the two Petitioners appeared at the spot, caught hold of her and laid her on the ground and committed rape on her. She was first raped by Petitioner Bhagaban and then by Biswanath against her will and without her consent. She had then two pieces of cloth on her body, such as M.O. IV a napkin and M.O.V a Gamochha. In course of the struggle one of her glass bangles broke and she sustained some injuries on her back. Her cloth was found stained with blood. She left the axe which she carried with her to the forest and reached home sometime before the sunset and reported this incident to P.W. 6. her husband's cousin. On the following day this incident was reported at the Tikri outpost in the presence of P.W. 9, Bhagirathi Naik, NaibSarpanch and P.W. 8 Mundra Majhi a member of the Tikri Punch. Before going to the police station, there was a punchayati in the village where it was decided to lodge information at the police station. The police seized her cloth and she was medically examined by the doctor. P.ws. 3 and 4 corroborate the story of P.W. 2 to the extent that they came together to the forest and that the two forest guards caught hold of P.W. 2 when they out of fear ran away from the place. P.w. 3 informed this matter to P.W. 6. Both p.ws. 3 and 4 have deposed to have seen the Petitioners catching hold of the victim, P.W. 2 and the latter crying out. P.w. 1 is a brother of P.W. 5. It appears that he holds a tea stall near the forest. It is the evidence of P.W. 5 that the accused persons used to come to his shop while they remain on duty in the forest. On the date of occurrence, they also came to the shop and asked him to accompany them. He himself was unable to go and sent his brother Kapu (p.w. 1) in the company of the accused persons. On the date of occurrence, they also came to the shop and asked him to accompany them. He himself was unable to go and sent his brother Kapu (p.w. 1) in the company of the accused persons. His brother returned before the sun-set and informed him about the occurrence. P.w. l is a boy of 16 years. It is his evidence that he accompanied the Petitioners to the forest. He has stated that he saw five females there. On seing the guards they escaped, but the Petitioners caught hold of P.W. 2, Sabei, and committed rape on her. Sabei wp.s then crying. He saw the occurrence from a distance of about thirty to fourty yards. After committing the rape the Petitioners came near the witness after seizing the axes of the females. The victim went away weeping. The axes that were seized were kept under the zimanama of P.W. 5. After departure of the accused persons, he narrated the incident to his brother. It is the evidence of P.W. 6 who was sitting with P.W. 7 that P.W. 2 went to the forest to collect fuels. When he and some others were sitting like that p.ws. 3 and 4 came running and informed them that the forest guards caught hold of Sabei. Then he and some of his companions came to the village to can others with a view to rescue Sabei. But in the Meanwhile Sabei arrived and narrated her story. She was putting on a rag. A punchayati was called on the same night who advised them to file a case against the Petitioners before the police. P.w. 8 is a member of the Tikri Punchayat Samiti and P.W. 9 is the Naib Sarpanch. They have stated how after the occurrence Sabei narrated the incident to the villagers who decided to bring the matter to the notice of the police. Thus, the story of P.W. 2 has been corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses at different stages of the prosecution case. Both the Courts on an analysis of the evidence came to hold that the story of the prosecution about the commission of rape by the two Petitioners on P.W. 2 is quite credible and they accepted the prosecution version as true. 5. Both the Courts on an analysis of the evidence came to hold that the story of the prosecution about the commission of rape by the two Petitioners on P.W. 2 is quite credible and they accepted the prosecution version as true. 5. It was contended by the defence that the place where P.W. 2 was said to have been laid on the ground was a rockey place and P.W. 2 in her evidence has stated that she received some injuries on her back while struggling in course of the commission of rape on her; one of her glass bangles broke and she got a bleeding injury on her hand and she sustained some nail marks on her breast as was shown to the doctor, but from the evidence of the doctor it appears that he examined P.W. 2 on 29-12-1962 and found only a dry scratch 2?' ? 1/6' on the left upper and outer part of the leg below her knee-joint, and there was a dry scratch also on the left shoulder region towards back According to the doctor these injuries could have been caused by a blunt instrument or by moving in the jungle and they could also be caused while struggling on a rough and rocky ground. He was, however, of the opinion that in that event more injuries were likely to be caused. According to the doctor there were no spermatozoa or semen in the private parts of P.W. 2, there was no internal injury nor any nail marks on her breasts. He had not seen any injury on her hand. It was elicited from the doctor that there would be big abrasions in case of struggle on rocky ground. There was no inflammation on her private parts. He stated that there would be inflammation in case of struggle. He further stated that there was no sign of rape on P.W. 2. Ext. A is the injury report in respect of p.w.2. The doctor also examined the Petitioners and found no injuries on their private parts. Exts. B and C are the injury reports in respect of the Petitioners. 6. He further stated that there was no sign of rape on P.W. 2. Ext. A is the injury report in respect of p.w.2. The doctor also examined the Petitioners and found no injuries on their private parts. Exts. B and C are the injury reports in respect of the Petitioners. 6. On the basis of this medical evidence, it was contended that the story of the prosecutrix that she sustained some injury on her person particularly on her breast and the bleeding injury on her hand, cannot be accepted as the doctor himself did not find any such injury, though it is the case of P.W. 2 that by the time the doctor examined her there were Still marks of injury on her breast. Apart from this discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 2 and the doctor regarding the marks of injury on her breast, it was suggested that when successive persons commit rape, it was unlikely that there would be only such small injuries as has been noticed by the doctor. Moreover it was said that the doctor himself was of the opinion that there would have been big abrasions and no injury was found on the private parts of the Petitioners. The sum total of the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners was that the medical evidence being inconsistent with the prosecution story it rather nullified the prosecution version and the prosecution story should have been rejected on that ground alone. This, in fact, is the most substantial contention advanced by the defence. Regarding the minor discrepancies, it cannot be said that they are fatal to the prosecution are particularly when the Courts below have found the same to be of a minor nature. With respect to the medical evidence, the Courts below took the view that the victim being a married woman, was accustomed to sexual connection and it was not unlikely that no marks of injury would be found on her private parts, as in the case of a virgin. Moreover, both the accused and the victim were examined by the doctor only after three days of the occurrence and the traces of injuries might have vanished by that time. Moreover, both the accused and the victim were examined by the doctor only after three days of the occurrence and the traces of injuries might have vanished by that time. This, however, is a case where we have got direct evidence of the prosecutrix herself supported by the evidence of P.W. 1 who actually saw the occurrence and the evidence of other witnesses such as of p.ws. 3 and 4 who actually saw the Petitioners catching hold of the lady and that immediately thereafter they came to the village and reported this matter to P.W. 6. In fact, nothing has been brought to discredit the evidence of p.ws. 3 and 4. If their evidence is accepted the Petitioners caught hold of P.W. 2 while she was in the company of p.ws. 3 and 4 in the forest. Excepting some minor discrepancies, there is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1 to discredit his version. Thus, the story of rape ham been substantially corroborated by a number of witnesses and the circumstances. The medical evidence also partly supports the prosecution case. The evidence of the prosecutrix supported by other direct evidence also should be taken as conclusive in the case. 7. Mr. Kanungo, learned Counsel for the Petitioners cited some decisions in support of his contention that non-existence of injuries on the victim is a material factor to be considered and in this respect the evidence of the doctor should be preferred to that of the prosecutrix. 8. In a case Lala Sahu v. State 21 C.L.T. 527, a girl aged 17 or 18 was raped. There were two young boys p.ws. 2 and 8 who had noticed the occurrence. Their Lordships did not place any reliance on the two eye-witnesses, p.ws. 2 and 8. The evidence of P.W. 2 was rejected he being a child witness. Moreover, he did not speak anything very material to the case in his statement u/s 164. They also did not attach much importance to the evidence of P.W. 8 as his name did not appear in the first information report and he gave some prevaricating statements. In that case, however, the doctor did not find a single injury on the private parts or other parts of the victim girl. 9. In the case Dusasan Padhan v. State 23 C.L.T. 57, there was no independent witness. In that case, however, the doctor did not find a single injury on the private parts or other parts of the victim girl. 9. In the case Dusasan Padhan v. State 23 C.L.T. 57, there was no independent witness. The doctor who examined the victim shortly after the occurrence did not find any bleeding or any other sign of rape on the girl. No stains were found over her body or in her Saree. These were the circumstances which weighed with the learned Judges to set aside the conviction of the Appellant u/s 376, Indian Penal Code. Some other authorities were cited to show that medical opinion has been given due consideration while examining the evidence of the prosecutrix. But the question is if the evidence of the prosecutrix otherwise stands corroborated, could it be rejected merely on the ground that her version does not get support from the medical evidence. The Privy Council in a case Antonio Dias v. Frederick Augustne AIR 1936 P.C. 154 , while dealing with the question regarding the assessment of relative value of the testimony of expert wit ness and the other witnesses of fact said: In assessing the relative value of the testimony of expert witnesses, as compared with witnesses of fact their demeanour, their type, their personality, and the impression made by them upon the trial Judge, e.g., whether they confined themselves to giving evidence, or acted as advocates-may powerfully and properly influence the mind of the Judge who sees and hears them in deciding between them. These advantages which are available to the trial Judge, are manifestly denied to the appellate Court.... In relation to a question whether medical evidence should be given preference to the evidence of other witnesses the Supreme Court in a case Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. The State of Bombay observed that to rely upon the findings of the medical men who conducted the post mortem examination and of the Chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. Thus it cannot be taken as a matter of rule that expert evidence must always be given preference to the evidence of other witnesses of fact, if that evidence is otherwise found to be unimpeachable. 10. Thus it cannot be taken as a matter of rule that expert evidence must always be given preference to the evidence of other witnesses of fact, if that evidence is otherwise found to be unimpeachable. 10. The trial Court who had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses of fact, in this case, gave preference to their evidence including that of the victim to that of the doctor. That apart, the doctor's evidence also does not falsify the story of the prosecution, though it does not support it to the fullest extent. In fact the doctor has said that there was some injury on P.W. 2 on her back and such injuries were possible in a struggle by the victim, though in the background of the circumstances, he expected a large number of injuries the victim, P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 2 gets some corroboration from the evidence of the doctor and is fully supported by the evidence of the direct witnesses, such as p.ws. 3, 4 and 1. The Courts below have accepted their evidence as true. 11. Another contention of the defence was that the Petitioners who were guards in the forest would not allow this Kond woman to go and collect fuels from the forest except on pain of prosecution and that is the reason why the Petitioners have been implicated in this false case. This however, cannot be accepted, as it is unlikely that a married woman at the cost of her reputation would falsely involve the Petitioners in a case of this nature. As already stated, immediately after the occurrence P.W. 2 brought this matter to the notice of the Punches and there is absolutely no reason why the two respectable witnesses such as p.ws. 8 and 9 would falsely depose against the Petitioners. Thus, the case against the Petitioners must be held to have been well made out by the prosecution and I would accordingly maintain their conviction u/s 376, Indian Penal Code. But so far as the sentence passed on them is concerned, taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence took place some years ago, I would reduce their sentence to a period of two years' R. I. while maintaining the sentence of fine passed upon them. With the above modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed