Short Note : 1. Mst. Kumaribai (PW 4) is the wife of Shyamlal (PW 5). Kamlabai (PW6) and Shatibai (PW 7) are close relations of Shyamlal (PW 5). Between the intervening night of 27th and 28th of August 1975, Kumaribai (PW 4) accompanied by her husband Shyamlal (PW5) had visited the house of Kamlabai (PW 6). The five appellants entered inside the house of Kamlabai and took away Kumaribai against her wishes and her husband Shyamlal. They also assaulted Shyamlal. Thereafter, Shyamlal started search of Kumaribai who was recovered by the police from the house of appellant Rameshwar, as per Panchanama, Ex P-19. During the period of detention, the five appellants repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. 2. Dr. J.N. Roy (PW 3) examined the appellants and found each of them capable of performing sexual intercourse. Dr. (Ku.) Sudha Vyas (PW11) examined Kumaribai and found superficial incised wound and superficial lacerated wound on her person. She found her age between 17 to 19 years and could not opine whether she was subjected to intercourse or not (Ex. P.21). Held: The statement of Kumaribai is corroborated by the report (Ex. P-9). This report contains full narration of the incident inducting the names of the appellant Rameshwar and her recovery from his house the evidence of Dr (Ku) Sudha Vyas shows that she had sustained two injuries on her person. She is a married woman accustomed to sexual intercourse and therefore, injuries on her private part could not be expected. But the presence of two injuries on her person indicated that she had resisted the appellants attempt to take her away and to commit sexual intercourse. I find no substance in the argument that the prosecutrix did not raise a hue and cry or resisted inside the room. At that time, there were five appellants inside the room who were committing sexual intercourse with her one by one. In these circumstances, she could not have either protested or resisted when she was alone faced with five persons. The evidence of Dr. (Ku.) Sudha Vyas (PW 11) also lent corroboration to the evidence of Kumaribai (PW 4). 3. Shyamlal (PW 5) is the husband of Kumaribai (PW 4). He stated that 2 or 3 persons caught hold hands of his wife and took her away. He searched for this wife. The evidence of Dr. (Ku.) Sudha Vyas (PW 11) also lent corroboration to the evidence of Kumaribai (PW 4). 3. Shyamlal (PW 5) is the husband of Kumaribai (PW 4). He stated that 2 or 3 persons caught hold hands of his wife and took her away. He searched for this wife. His sister Kamlabai (PW 6) told the names of the miscreants as Ramarao, Kallo and Munna. He stated that his wife was recovered from a house in Chuchiyapara ward. His evidence also lent corroboration to the story of Kumaribai that she was taken forcibly by the miscreants. 4. Kamlabai (PW 6) stated that all the appellants that entered inside her house, she knew them by names and face. They assaulted Shyamlal. She further stated that they took away Kumaribai forcibly in a rickshaw. Shantibai (P.W 7) also stated that the five appellants had entered inside the house and had taken away Kumaribai by force in a rickshaw. She also stated that appellant Kallo had assaulted Shyamlal. 5 The above evidence lent corroboration to the prosecution version that Kumaribai (PW 4) was forcibly taken away from inside the house of Kamlabai (PW 6) and was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellants. Further corroboration to the prosecution version is available from the reports of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.P-23) and the Serologist (Ex. P-24). The sari, petti-coat and vaginal slides of the prosecutrix were found stained with blood and spermotozoa. Sentence reduced from 4 years to 3 years R.I. Appeal partly allowed.