JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the appeallants, Gopiram @ Gopikishan and Dhanraj, against the judgment dated 18th April, 1977, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in sessions case No. 33/75. In the sessions case aforesaid the appellants, alongwith one Hanuman, were prosecuted. Appellant Gopiram @ Gopikishan was charged with the offences under sections 376 and 448 IPC, Dhanraj was charged with the offences under sections 376/114 and 448 IPC and Hartman was charged with the offences under sections 376/106 and 448 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused Hanuman of all the charges but convicted appellant Gopiram @ Gopikishan of the offences under sections 376 and 448 IPC and appellant Dhanraj of the offences under section 376/114 and 448 IPC. Gopiram has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 376 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under sanction 448 IPC. Dhanraj has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for three months under section 376/114 IPC and one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for one month under section 448 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Rajamma, P. W. 1. was employed as a staff nurse at Government Hospital, Sujangarh. She was staying in the staff quarters within the hospital compound and she was sharing the quarter No. 2 with another : staff nurse, Vijayamma. On the date of the incident Girija, the younger sister of Viajaymma, was also staying in the said quarter. On 21st March, 1975 Rajamma, after completing her duties in the hospital, returned to the quarter at about 8.30 p.m. and after taking her meals she retired to bed at about 9.15 p. m. Vijayamma and her sister. Girija, were sleeping on another cot in the same room. After about half an hour there was a knock at the door and the door was opened by Vijayamma. Girija, were sleeping on another cot in the same room. After about half an hour there was a knock at the door and the door was opened by Vijayamma. The person who knocked the door told Vijayamma that Smt. Slianti, the wife of compounder Deep Chand, who was living in the adjacent quarter No. 3, was calling her and thereupon Vijayarmnan left after closing the door from outside. About 15 minutes thereafter the appellants opened the door and entered the room and switched on the light and told Girija that her sister was calling her and thereupon Girija left the room and Rajamma was left alone with the. appellants. The case of the prosecution is further that thereafter the appellants closed the door, switched off the light and appellant Gopiram committed rape on Rajamma and while he was doing so, appellant Dhanraj had caught hold of the hands of Rajamma. After some tine, Vijayamma returned and knocked at the door and thereupon appellants switched on the light and opened the door and Vijayamma entered the room along with her sister Girija and accused Hanuman. Thereafter all the three accused left and while leaving Hanuman as well as Gopiram extended the threat to Rajamma that if she told anybody about this incident, she would be killed. After they had gone away, Rajamma started crying loudly and other persons staying in the quarters nearby arrived at the scene. At about 12-12,30 P. M. Dr. Girish Prasad Mathur P. W. 9, Dr. Raghuvirsingh Shekhawat P. W. 8 and Dr. Miss Shanti Jain PW 7 arrived at the quarter of Rajamma and Rajamma complained to them about her having been raped by the appellants and thereupon Dr. Girish Prasad Mathur telephoned the police station and the police constable came to the hospital. Rajamma went to police station Sujangarh and lodged the report (Ex. P. 1) at the police station on 22nd March, 1975 at 2.30 i a. m. Rajamma was medically examined by Dr. P. P. Gupta, P. W. 10 Medical Jurist, S. M. J. Hospital, Ratangarh, on 22nd. March, 1975 at 12.30 p. m. and after 1 the said examination Dr. Gupta prepared the injury report Ex. P. 7. On 24th March, , Dr. Gupta sent a supplementary report Ex, P. 8 wherein lie expressed the opinion that rape had been committed on Rajamma. March, 1975 at 12.30 p. m. and after 1 the said examination Dr. Gupta prepared the injury report Ex. P. 7. On 24th March, , Dr. Gupta sent a supplementary report Ex, P. 8 wherein lie expressed the opinion that rape had been committed on Rajamma. The petticoat which was worn by Rajamma at the tine of the incident was seized by the police vide memo Ex. P. 3 and was sent to the Department of Chemical Examiner, Rajasthan Jaipur. The report Ex. P. 14, of the chemical examiner shows that semen and spermatozoa could not be detected on the petticoat. After completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, who committed the accused persons for trial to the court of sessions and there upon the accused persons were tried for the charges referred to above by the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution in support of its case, has examined 14 witnesses out of whom the complainant Rajamma is P. W. 1, Smt. Shanti P. W. 2 is the wife of compounder Deep Chand, Smt. E. L. Chand P. W, 3, Sushil Kumar P. W. 5, and Smt. Vijay Kumari P. W. 6 were staying in quarter No. 4 adjacent to the quarter of Deep Chand compounder and had reached the quarter of Rajamma shortly after the incident. Dr. Miss Shanti Jain, P. W. 7, Dr. R. S. Shekhawat P. W. 8 and Dr. ; Girish Prasad Mathur P. W. 9 are the doctors attached to the Government Hospital, Sujangarh and had reached the quarter of Rajamma at about 120 Clock in the night. Dr. P. P. Gupta, P. W. 10 is the Medical Officer at Ratangarh Hospital, who had medically examined Rajamma. Mumtaz Ali P. W. 14 is the head constable attached to the police station, Sujangarh who had conducted the investigation in the cases. Vijayamma and Girija had returned to Kerala after the incident and they could not be examined. 4. The accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. have denied the prosecution case. Appellant Gopiram has submitted that he has been falsely implicated by Sushil, the son of Smt. Chand bai. The accused persons also examined one witness, Babulal D. W. 1 in their defence. 5. 4. The accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. have denied the prosecution case. Appellant Gopiram has submitted that he has been falsely implicated by Sushil, the son of Smt. Chand bai. The accused persons also examined one witness, Babulal D. W. 1 in their defence. 5. The Additional Sessions Judge has held that from the evidence of Rajamma P. W. 1 it is established that on 21st March, 1975 at about 10:30 p. m. appellant Gopi had sexual intercourse with her without her consent in her quarter within the compound of the Government Hospital, Sujangarh and that as a result of the said sexual intercourse Rajamma had sustained injuries on her person as well as on her private parts and that the evidence of Rajamma in that regard is supported by the evidence of Dr. P. P. Gupta P. W. 10 and the reports Ex. P. 7. P. 8 and P. 10. The Additional Sessions Judge has also found that the evidence of Rajamma is also corroborated by the evidence of Smt. E. L. Chand P. W. 3, Smt. Vijay Kumari Chand P. W. 6 Dr. Shanti Jain P. W. 7 Dr. Raghuvir Singh Shekhawat P. W. 8 and Dr. Girish Prasad Mathur P. W. 9 and to certain extent from the evidence of Smt. Satya Bhama P. W. 4. The Addl. Sessions Judge also found that at the time when Gopi was having sexual intercourse with Rajamma, appellant Dhanraj was present with him and that he had caught hold of the hands of Rajamma and had thereby enabled Gopi to commit rape on Rajamma The Additional Sessions Judge further found that both the appellants had committed house trespass in the quarter of Rajamma which was used by her as residence. The Addl. Sessions Judge was, however, of the view that the involvement of accused Hanuman in the incident had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the findings aforesaid the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Hanuman of all the charges but convicted the appellants of the charges levelled against them, Hence this appeal. 6. Shri B. R. Purohit, the learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and has submitted that Rajamma P. W. I is a wholly unreliable witness and that the Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in placing reliance on her testimony. 6. Shri B. R. Purohit, the learned counsel for the appellants, has assailed the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and has submitted that Rajamma P. W. I is a wholly unreliable witness and that the Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in placing reliance on her testimony. Shri Purohit has further submitted that even if it be held that reliance can be placed on a part of the testimony of Rajamma, it was necessary that the evidence of Rajamma should be corroborated by other independent evidence and that in the present case the evidence of Rajamma is not corroborated by other independent evidence. Shri Purohit has also submitted that the medical evidence also does not corroborate the testimony of Rajamma. Shri Purohit has also urged that in any event there is no evidence on the basis of which the conviction of appellant Dhanraj can be up held. 7. Shri S. S. Bhandawat, the learned Public Prosecutor has on the other hand supported the judgment of the Addl. Sessions judge. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix can be made the basis for conviction in a charge of rape and that in the present case the conviction of the appellants can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant alone. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that in the present case the testimony of Rajamma has been amply corroborated by other independent evidence. 8. The question as to corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix in a case of rape has been considered by the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1952 SC 54 ) . In that case the Supreme Court has observed that a woman who has been raped cannot be equated to an accomplice. The learned Judge have however, laid down the following rule : "The true rule is that in every case of this type the rule about the advisability of corroboration should be present to the mind of the judge. In a jury case he must tell the jury of it and in a non-jury case he must show that it is present to his mind by indicating that in his judgment. In a jury case he must tell the jury of it and in a non-jury case he must show that it is present to his mind by indicating that in his judgment. But he should also point out that corroboration can be dispensed with if, in the particular circumstances of the case before him, either the jury, or, when there is no jury, he himself, is satisfied that it is safe to do so. The rule, which according to the case, has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter' of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge, and in jury cases, must find place in the charge, before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. The tender years of the child, coupled with other circumstances appearing in the case. Such, for example as its demeanour, unlikelihood of tutoring and so forth, may render corroboration unnecessary but that is a question of fact in every case. The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand." In that case the learned Judges did not consider it feasible to formulate the kind of evidence which should be regarded as corroboration and observed that its nature and extent must necessarily vary, with the the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged. In this regard the learned Judges have referred to the following rules:- (i) It is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice should, in itself, be sufficient to sustain conviction, and all that is required is that there must be some Additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (complainant) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it. (ii) The independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed but must in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it by confirming in some material particular the testimony of the accomplice or the complainant that the accused committed the crime. In this regard all that is necessary is that there should be independent evidence which will make it reasonably safe to believe the witness' story that the accused was the one, or among those, who committed the offence. (iii) The corroboration must come from independent source and thus ordinarily the testimony of one accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that of another. (iv) The corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of the connection with the crime. 9. In Krishanlal v. State of Haryana ( 1980(3) SCC 159 ) the Supreme Court after referring to the decision in Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) have observed:- "We must bear in mind human psychology and behavioural probability when assessing the testimonial potency of the victims version. When girl would foist a rape charge on a stranger unless a remarkable set of facts of clearest motives were made out ? The inherent bashfulness the innocent naivete and the feminine tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression are factors which are relevant to improbability the hypothesis of false implication. The injury on the person of the victim, especially her private parts, has corroborative value. Her complaint to her parents and the presence of blood on her clothes are also testimony which warrants credence. More than all, it baffles belief in human nature that a girl sleeping with her mother and other children in the open will come by blood on her garments and injury in her private to parts unless she has been subjected to the torture of rape. And if rape has been committed, as counsel more or less conceded, why, of all persons in the world, should the victim hunt up the petitioner and point at him the accusing finger ? To forsake these vital considerations and go by obsolescent demands for substantial corroboration is so sacrifice common sense in favour of an artificial concoction called Judicial probability. Indeed, the court loses its credibility if it rebels against realism. To forsake these vital considerations and go by obsolescent demands for substantial corroboration is so sacrifice common sense in favour of an artificial concoction called Judicial probability. Indeed, the court loses its credibility if it rebels against realism. The law court is not an unnatural world." Again in Rafiq v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1981 SC 559 ) the Supreme Court has held : "Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of a prosecutrix is not a matter of law, but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. Indeed, from place to place, from age to age, from varying life-styles and behavioural complexes, inferences from a given set of facts, oral and circumstantial, may have to be drawn not with dead uniformity but realistic diversity lest rigidity in the shape of rule of law in this area be introduced through a new type of precedential tyranny. The same observation holds good regarding the presence or absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor or the aggressed." 10. I will first deal with the evidence of Rajamma and the criticism that has been levelled against her testimony by the learned counsel for the appellants. Rajamma has stated that on 21st March, 1975 she returned to her quarter from the hospital at about 8.30 p.m. and after taking her meals she retired to bed at about 9 15 p.m. In the same room Vijayamma and her sister Girija were sleeping on another cot. The door of the room was closed from inside. About half an hour after she had retired to bed somebody knocked at the door and Vijayamma opened it and talked to a person and that from his voice she could recognise that the said person was accused Hanuman. Hanunan told Vijayamma that his "Bhabi" (Smt. Shanti bai wife of Deep Chand) was calling her and therefore, Vijayamma left with Hanuman after bolting the door from outside. About fifteen minutes later the door was opened and the appellants entered the room and light was switched on by Girija. Both of them told Girija that her sister was calling her and there upon Girija left the room and Rajamma was left alone with the appellants. About fifteen minutes later the door was opened and the appellants entered the room and light was switched on by Girija. Both of them told Girija that her sister was calling her and there upon Girija left the room and Rajamma was left alone with the appellants. Rajamma sat on her bed and there upon Gopi asked her whether she knew him and when she replied in the affirmative he again asked whether she knew the other person, to which she replied that she knew him by face but not by name and then appellant Dhanraj told her that his name was Dhanraj. Thereafter Gopi enquired as to what business she was carrying on and when Rajamma said that she was unable to understand the meaning of the question, both the appellants got up. Rajamma thought that they were leaving the room and she got up to bolt the door but suddenly Gopi caught hold of her neck and switched off the light and made her lie on the cot and gave a slap on her face. Dhanraj caught both of her hands and Gopi, after lifting her petticoat and removing her under wear committed sexual intercourse with her and although she tried to resist by moving her legs, but since they had caught hold of her throat and also put the bed sheet in her mouth, she could not cry. Rajamma has further stated that after about 10-15 minutes Vijayamma knocked at the door and appellants asked her to wait for five minutes and after sometime Vijayamma again knocked the door and thereupon the light in the room was switched on and she saw Gopi was completely naked and Dhanraj was in his underwear. Both of.them put on their clothes and opened the door. Vijayamma entered the room and thereafter Shantibai and Girija also entered the room and Shantibai told the appellants to go. Hanuman had also entered the room alongwith Vijayamma and thereupon the accused persons left and while leaving Hanuman and Gopi told Rajamma that if she told anybody about this incident, she would be killed. 11. Shri Purohit has pointed out that there are differences between the version given by Rajamma in the trial court and the version given by her in the FIR lodged by her. 11. Shri Purohit has pointed out that there are differences between the version given by Rajamma in the trial court and the version given by her in the FIR lodged by her. In this connection Shri Purohit has pointed out that in the FIR Rajamma had said that Gopi switched off the light of the room and that with great difficulty she was able to switch on the light, indicating that the electric light was on when rape was being committed on her, but in her statement in the trial court Rajamma does not state that she had switched on the light. Shri Purohit has also pointed out that in the FIR Rajamma has mentioned that the kerchief lying on the bed was put into her mouth and she has not made any mention of the bed sheet being put in her mouth where as in her statement in the court she has stated that the bed sheet was put in her mouth. Shri Purohit has also pointed out that in the FIR Rajamma has stated that Hanuman had shouted from outside and thereupon Dhanraj had opened the door and Hanuman had also entered the room and at that time Gopi was having sexual intercourse with her and Dhanraj and Hanuman had threatened her that if she shouted they will kill her and that she was able to remove the cloth from her mouth and had shouted and thereupon Vijayamma and Girija entered the room, but she has given a different version and has stated that Hanuman had come alongwith Vijayamma when the door was opened by the appellants, after the completion of the sexual intercourse and that the threat was extended to her by Hanuman and Gopi while they were going. Shri Purohit has also pointed out that in her statement during the examination in chief, Rajamma has disclaimed a part of the FIR lodged by her. It is true that there are some variations between the version which was given by Rajamma in the FIR and the version of the incident given by her in the court on certain matters. Both the versions are, however, consistent in so far as the substantial part of the incident is concerned. It is true that there are some variations between the version which was given by Rajamma in the FIR and the version of the incident given by her in the court on certain matters. Both the versions are, however, consistent in so far as the substantial part of the incident is concerned. In both the versions it has been stated by Rajamma that after she had retired to bed somebody knocked at the door and the door was opened by Vijayamma and the person who knocked the door told Vijayamma that she had been called by Shantibai, the wife of Deep Chand and thereupon Vijayamma had left the quarter and that after sometime the appellants entered the room of Rajamma and told Girija that she had been called by her sister and Girija left the room and Rajamma was left alone with the appellants and the appellants thereafter closed the room and Gopi forcibly had sexual intercourse with Rajamma and while doing so Dhanraj caught hold of the hands of Rajamma and the mouth of Rajamma was gagged with cloth and as a result of that she could not shout and after sometime Vijayamma knocked at the door and that door was opened and Vijayamma entered the room and thereafter the appellants went away. In my opinion the matters in respect of which there is variation between the F.I.R. and the statement of Rajamma in the trial court, viz, whether the light was switched on by Rajamma before Gopi started having sexual intercourse, whether the mouth of Rajamma was gagged with a handkerchief or the bed sheet and which of the accused had extended the threat before leaving, are of minor significance. It has to be borne in mind that Rajamma hails from Kerala and may not be so well versed in Hindi and further more; at the time when the F. I. R. was recorded she must have been under great emotional stress and some errors could have been made in the report that was lodged by her. In my opinion, therefore, not much importance can be attached to the variation referred to above between the F. T. R. and the statement of Rajamma in the trial court. 12. In my opinion, therefore, not much importance can be attached to the variation referred to above between the F. T. R. and the statement of Rajamma in the trial court. 12. It may also be pointed out that during the -course of cross examination of Rajamma an effort was made to impeach her credit by suggesting that she was having illicit relations with Deep Chand compounder. No suggestion was, however, made that she was having any illicit connection with any of the. appellants. Nor was it suggested to her that she had any reason to implicate the appellants in a false charge of rape which would involve defaming herself also. 13. At this stage, reference may be made to the medical evidence. The report Ex. P. 7 prepared by Dr. P. P. Gupta after examination of Rajamma on 22nd March, 1975 at 12-30 p. m. shows as under. Marks of violence on the body. 1. Abrasion (a) 1cm x 1/10cm (b) 1cm x 1/10cm transverse in direction right arm front lower 1 /3rd. 2. Abrasion 2cm x 1/10cm on medical aspect and upper part of right are transverse in direction. 3. Teeth bite 5 abrasion marks circular on right shoulder front. 4. Abrasion l/10cm on right cheek upper part. 5. Abrasion 1cm x 1/10cm on left upper lip near nostril. "Examination of private parts. (a) Public hair-cut short. (b) Secretions present on vulva (c) Hymen-ruptured posteriorly. It was swollen, tender and inflammed. (d) Bruise 1cm x l/4cm each (such three) present on posterior fourchette. Semen taken from the secretion present at labia and fourchette showed occasional dead sperms. Injuries were 6 to 18 hours Olds. The said report thus shows that Rajamma was having injuries on her right arm, right shoulder-front, right cheek and the left upper lip near the nostril and that she also had injury on her private parts namely a bruise on the fourchette. According to the report the hymen was ruptured posteriorly and it was swollen, tender and inflamed. The said report further show that a swab was taken from the secretion present at labia and fourchette and it showed occasional dead sperms. In his supplementary report Ex. P. 8. Dr. P. P. Gupta had expressed his conclusion that rape had been committed on Rajamma. 14. The said report further show that a swab was taken from the secretion present at labia and fourchette and it showed occasional dead sperms. In his supplementary report Ex. P. 8. Dr. P. P. Gupta had expressed his conclusion that rape had been committed on Rajamma. 14. Shri Purohit has challenged the aforesaid reports mainly on two grounds : (i) there was no mention about any injuries on the person of Rajamma in the FIR and (ii) there was no reason why the medical examination of Rajamma was not conducted at Government Hospital, Sujangarh soon after the incident and why it was conducted at Ratangarh. As regards that non-mention of the injuries in the FIR it may be observed that Rajamma, in her statement as P.W. 1. has said that at the time when she lodged the FIR nobody had asked her about the injury on her person and therefore she did not mention about the same at that time. Head constable, Murataz Aii, P.W. 14, who conducted the investigation, has also deposed that at the time the F.I.R. was recorded he did not pay any attention to the injuries. The injuries found on the exposed parts of the person of Rajamma are, however, mentioned in the Requisition, Ex. P. 6. that was sent by Mumtaz Ali to Govt. Hospital, Ratangarh, for medical examination of Rajamma. Mumtaz Ali has deposed that Rajamma was sent for medical examination to Ratangarh alongwith a constable at 7.30 a m. in the morning. This shows that the injuries on the person of Rajamma had been noticed by Mumtaz Ali before 7.30 a.m. on 22nd March, 1975, i e. within 5 hours of the lodging of the F I.R. No suggestion was made to Rajamma during the course of cross examination that the injuries mentioned in the requisition Ex. P. 6 and the report Ex. P. 7 were self inflicted after the lodging of the F.I.R. In the circumstances the only reason for the failure to mention the injuries in the F.I.R. can be the inexperience on the part of Mumtaz Ali, P.W. 14, who was only a head constable. It may also be mentioned that Rajamma must have been greatly disturbed at the time when the F.I.R. was lodged and it may not have occurred to her to mention about the injuries sustained by her. It may also be mentioned that Rajamma must have been greatly disturbed at the time when the F.I.R. was lodged and it may not have occurred to her to mention about the injuries sustained by her. In the circumstances I find no reason to disbelieve the explanation that has been offered by Rajamma about her failure to make a mention of the injuries in the F.I.R. and in my opinion, merely because there is no mention about the injuries in the F.I.R. the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution about the injuries that were found on her person by Dr. Gupta when he examined her on 22nd March, 1975 at 12.30 p.m. cannot be disbelieved. 15. As regards the submission of Shri Purohit about the non-examination of Rajamma soon after the incident at Govt. Hospital, Sujangarh, it may be observed that Rajamma, during the course of her evidence as P.W. 1. has stated that she had not asked the doctors at Sujangarh to examine her medically and she did net say so to the police also because she was not aware of the fact that medical examination was necessary in cases of rape. It was expected from the medical officers attached to the Govt. Hospital as well as the Police Officer who had recorded the F.I.R. to suggest the medical examination of Rajamma at Govt. Hospital, Sujangarh. The evidence of Dr. Miss Shanti Jain, Dr. Shekhawat, Dr. Mathur as weil as the evidence of Head constable Mohammad Ali does not show why this was not done. From the evidence of Rajamma and Smt. Chand P.W. 3 it does appear that the doctors at the Govt. Hospital, Sujangarh were of the view' that the matter should be closed. It is quite possible that in view of the aforesaid attitude of the doctors of the Sujangarh Hospital Rajamma may have felt that it would be better if she got herself examined by a medical officer at a different hospital. The mere fact that Rajamma was not medically examined at Govt. Hospital, Sujangarh but was medically examined at the hospital in Ratangarh after lapse of some time would not in my opinion, throw doubt on the medical evidence about the examination of Rajamma by Dr. P, P. Gupta. 16. Another submission that was urged by Shri Purohit was that according to the report Ex. Hospital, Sujangarh but was medically examined at the hospital in Ratangarh after lapse of some time would not in my opinion, throw doubt on the medical evidence about the examination of Rajamma by Dr. P, P. Gupta. 16. Another submission that was urged by Shri Purohit was that according to the report Ex. P. 7 the hymen was ruptured and that in cases where the hymen is ruptured there is bound to be bleeding and that there is nothing to show that the petticoat of Rajamma or the bed sheet were stained with blood. Rajamma has stated that at the time when Gopi had sexual intercourse with her, she had no bleeding but there were spotting's. Dr. P. P. Gupta P. W. 10 has stated that when he examined Rajamma she had bleeding of vagina due to rupture of hymen. Dr. Gupta has also stated that some stains of blood were present on the petticoat It is unfortunate that the chemical examiner was not asked to give his report about the presence of blood stains on the petticoat and there is nothing in the said report to indicate that blood stains were found on the petticoat. But merely because the report of the chemical examiner is silent on the point would not mean that the evidence of Dr. P. P. Gupta that there was bleeding from the vagina at the time when he examined Rajamma should not be accepted and, in view of the said evidence it must be held that when Rajamma was medically examined by Dr. P. P. Gupta her hymen was found ruptured. 17. Another contention with regard to the medical evidence that has been advanced by Shri Purohit was that the medical examination was conducted by two doctors, namely, Dr. P. P. Gupta and Dr. Santosh Gandhi and that both of them put their signatures on the report Ex. P, 7 but the prosecution has only .examined Dr. Gupta and has not examined Dr, Santosh Gandhi, in my opinion Dr. Santosh Gandhi cannot be regarded as a material witness and her non examination is not of any significance. Dr. P. P. Gupta was the medical jurist at SMJ Hospital, Ratangarh, and he was medical officer primarily responsible for the medical examination of Rajamma. Dr Gupta has stated that at the time he examined Rajamma he had called Dr. Santosh Gandhi cannot be regarded as a material witness and her non examination is not of any significance. Dr. P. P. Gupta was the medical jurist at SMJ Hospital, Ratangarh, and he was medical officer primarily responsible for the medical examination of Rajamma. Dr Gupta has stated that at the time he examined Rajamma he had called Dr. Santosh Gandhi, M. S. in Gynaecology and she had also examined Rajamma with him and she had agreed with the report of Dr. Gupta and had put her signatures on it The fact that Dr. Gupta had associated Dr. Santosh Gandhi with him while examining Rajamma does not mean that the report. Ex. P. 7 submitted by him cannot be regarded as his report. The mere fact that the said report was also signed by Dr. Santosh Gandhi would not mean that it was necessary for the Prosecution to examine Dr. Santosh Gandhi. The non examination of Dr. Santosh Gandhi cannot, therefore, be of much consequence. 18. Another criticism made by Shri Purohit against the medical evidence is that the swab which was taken from the secretions present at the labia and fourchette should have been sent by the doctor to the chemical examiner who was the fit person to chemically examine the same and that the doctor himself should not have examined the said swab. In this regard Shri Purohit has referred to the note contained in the report Ex. P. 14 of the chemical examiner where in it has been stated that the vagina swab and smear should have been sent for examination to their department. It is true that the better course could have been that the swab which was taken by Dr. Gupta should have been sent for examination to the chemical examiner. In the present case Dr. Gupta himself examined the said swab and found the presence of dead sperms. It has not been suggested to Dr. Gupta during the cross examination that he was not qualified to make such an examination of the swab. In my opinion therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence of Dr. Gupta that the swab which was taken by him from the secretions present at the labia and fourchette showed occasional dead sperms. 19. Gupta during the cross examination that he was not qualified to make such an examination of the swab. In my opinion therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence of Dr. Gupta that the swab which was taken by him from the secretions present at the labia and fourchette showed occasional dead sperms. 19. Shri Purohit also urged that the presence of dead sperms in the swab indicates that the sexual intercourse had taken place long time back and not on 21st : March 1975 at 10 30 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Purohit has invited my attention to a passage in Modis Medical Jurisprudence. 20th Edn., page 337-38 wherein it has been stated that the presence of motile spermatozoa is not necessarily indicative of intercourse few hours before the : time of examination and that the presence of spermatozoa in the vagina after inter course has been reported by Pollak from 30 minutes to 17 days and by Morrison upto 9 days and 12 days in the cervix. The submission of Shri Purohit was that the fact that dead sperms were found indicate that the sexual intercourse had taken place much earlier. In my view this contention is without substance, The fact that live spermatozoa may be found in the vagina or the cervix many days after sexual intercourse does not imply that if dead sperms are found in the secretions of labia an fourchette the intercourse had taken place long back. It is quite possible that due to certain chemical reactions with urine and the secretions from the vagina the spermatozoa zoa may die soon after the sexual intercourse and only dead sperms may be found in the swab of the secretions from labia and fourchette. Moreover, no suggestion was made to Dr. Gupta during the cross examination that the presence to dead sperms in the swab indicated that sexual intercourse could not have taken place on 21st March 1975 at 10.30 p.m. 20. After having considered the various submissions made by Shri Purohit with regard to the medical evidence and having rejected the same, it must be concluded that from the medical evidence it is established that Rajamma was subjected to sexual intercourse within 6-18 hours of medical examination by Dr. After having considered the various submissions made by Shri Purohit with regard to the medical evidence and having rejected the same, it must be concluded that from the medical evidence it is established that Rajamma was subjected to sexual intercourse within 6-18 hours of medical examination by Dr. Gupta on 22nd March 1975 at 1 p.m. and further that in view of the injuries which was found on her person as well as on her private parts and the hymen having been found freshly ruptured, it must be held that the said sexual intercourse was committed without the consent of Rajamma. The injuries found on the arm of Rajamma lend support to the statement of Rajamma that her hands were caught by appellant Dhanraj. Shri Purohit has emphasised that no injuries were found on the legs of Rajammn and that if the sexual intercourse was committed without her consent Rajamma would have resisted with her legs and she must have received some injuries on her leg. It is true that no injuries have been found on the legs of Rajamma but in view of the fact that her hands had been caught by Dhanraj and her throat was being pressed she could not have made much effort with her legs to resist the sexual intercourse by Gopi. . In this context it has to be noticed that a bruise was found on the private part (posterior fourchette) of Rajamma. In my view, therefore, the absence of injuries on the legs does not lend to the inference that the sexual intercourse was not committed without the consent of Rajamma. 21. Apart from tire medical evidence referred to above, there is also the evidence of Smt. E.L. Chand P.W. 3 and her daughter Smt. Vijaykumari Chand P.W. 6, who live in quarter No. 4, Rajamma was living in quarter No. 2 arid in 1 between quarters No. 2 and 4 is the quarter of Deep Chand compounder. Smt. Chand J P.W. 3 has stated that at about 10 11 p.m. on 21st March 1975 she had gone to then quarter of Vijayamma for the purpose of heating milk for the child of her daughter and when she went there she found that Rajamma was crying and she was saying that she had been ruined and that she had been raped. According to this witness Rajamma also gave the names of the three accused persons including the appellants as the persons who were responsible for the same. Smt. Vijaykumari P.W. 6 has given the same version as given by Smi. Chand. Apart from the evidence of these two witnesses there is the evidence of Dr. Miss. Shanti Jain P. W. 7, Dr. Raghuvirsingh Shekhawat P.W 8 and Dr. Girish Prasad Mathur P. W. 9. All of them are medical officers attached to the Government Hospital Sujangarh. They hare said that they .bad gone for a walk and when they returned to the hospital at about 11.30 to 12 in the night they were told by nurse Satyabhama that some incident involving Rajamma had taken place and thereupon all three of them had gone to the quarter of Rajamma and they found that Rajamma was crying loudly and when asked she had said that the had been raped and had given the names of Dhanraj and Gopi. Dr. Miss Shanti Jain, P. W. 7 and Dr. Raghuvirsingh Shekhawat P. W. 8 have stated that Rajamma had given the names of both the appellants and had also given the names of the persons out of these two persons, who had committed rape on her but have said that they do not remember his name. Dr. Girish Prasad Mathur, P. W. 9 has, however, stated that although Rajamma had given the names of the persons responsible for committing rape on her, he does not remember their names. 22. Shri Purohit has submitted that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of Rajamma under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. I am unable to agree. Under illustration (j) to Section 8 of the evidence Act it is provided that when the question is whether A was ravished, the fact that shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint relating to the crime the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant. In Section 157 of the Evidence Act it is laid down that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness, relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved. In Section 157 of the Evidence Act it is laid down that in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness, relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in the Evidence Act. statements made by the complainant shortly after the alleged rape are admissible and can be used for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the complainant. Shri Purohit does not dispute the admissibility of the statements of the witnesses viz, P. W. 3, P. W. 6, P. W. 7, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 referred to above but has submitted that since there was a time gap of few hours between the incident and the statements that were made to these witnesses, the evidence of the witnesses cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of Rajamma. The provisions of Section 157 of the Evidence Act have been considered by the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Kalyansingh v. State of Rajasthan (Supra) and while dealing with the expression at or about the time" contained in Section 157, the Supreme Court have observed that there can be no hard and fast rule and the main test is whether the statement was made as early as can reasonable be accepted in the circumstance of the case and Wore there was opportunity for tutoring or concoction. In that case there was a lapse of about four hours between the incident and the statement and the court held that the delay was not long and that the statement could be used to corroborate 'he testimony of the witness under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. In the present case in so far as the evidence of Smt. Chand P. W. 3 and Smt. Vijay Kumari P.W. 6 is concerned, they had reached the quarter of Rajamma between 10 and 11 p.m. .i.e. very soon after the incident and it is clearly covered by Section 157 of the Evidence Act. As far as the medical officers viz., Dr. Miss Shanti Jain P. W. 7, Dr. Shakhawat P. W. 8 and Dr. Mathur P. W. 9 are concerned they reached at about 12 o' clock in the night, i.e. within two hours of the incident. As far as the medical officers viz., Dr. Miss Shanti Jain P. W. 7, Dr. Shakhawat P. W. 8 and Dr. Mathur P. W. 9 are concerned they reached at about 12 o' clock in the night, i.e. within two hours of the incident. There is no reason to assume that during this period of 2 hours there was any possibility for tutoring or concoction of Rajamma. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the evidence of the three medical officers can also be taken into consideration under Section 157 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of Rajamma and if the evidence of these witnesses is taken into consideration it will show that very soon after the incident Rajamma had stated that she had been raped and that the appellants were the persons responsible for the same. 23. Shri Purohit has laid emphasis on the fact that Vijayamma and Girija, had arrived at the scene immediately after the incident, were the most material witnesses and that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have examined them and that the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine them is fatal to the prosecution case. There is no doubt that Vijayamma and Girija were the persons who had arrived in the quarter of Rajamma immediately after the occurrence and therefore, they were witnesses who could lend corroboration to the testimony of Rajamma. From the record it appears that both Vijayamma and Girija had left Sujangarh and gone back to their home in Kerala. Efforts were made to secure their presence for the purpose of recording their statements and it does appear that they came to Churu for that purpose and were present in court on 16th July, 1976 but on that date their statements could not be recorded as the presiding officer was not present in court and there after they did not come again because they had incurred heavy expenses in travelling from their house in Kerala to Churu and the said expenses were not paid to them. It was in these circumstances that the evidence of these witnesses could not be recorded. It was in these circumstances that the evidence of these witnesses could not be recorded. As observed earlier the evidence of Vijayamma and Girija would have lend corroboration to the testimony of Rajamma, but it cannot be said that they were material witnesses and their non examination is fatal to the prosecution case and merely because the said witnesses have not been examined, the evidence of Rajamma and the other witnesses examined by the prosecution should not be believed. 24. From the perusal of the evidence on record I am satisfied that from the evidence of Rajamma P. W. 1 which is corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. P. P. Gupta P. W. 10 and the reports Ex. P. 7, P. 8 and P. 10 as well as the evidence of Smt. Chand P. W. 3. Smt. Vijay Kumari P. W. 6, Dr. Miss Shanti Jain P. W. 7, Dr. Raghuvir Singii Shekhawat P. W. 8 and Dr. Girish Prasad Mathur P. W. 9, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that rape was committed on Rajamma by appellant Gopi. 25. Shri Purohit has pointed out that as regards the appellant Dhanraj, his name has not been mentioned by Smt. Vijay Kumari P. W. 6 which shows that the name of Dhanraj was not mentioned by Rajamma soon after the incident. It is true that Smt. Vijay Kumari P. W. 6 does not say that the name of Dhanraj was mentioned by Rajamma to her. But Smt. Chand P. W. 3 has stated that the name of Dhanraj had been mentioned by Rijamma to her. Dr. Miss Shanti Jain P: W.7 and Dr. Shekhawat P. W. 8 have also stated that the name of Dhanraj had been mentioned by Rajamma. Merely because Smt. Vijay Kumari does not say that the name of Dhanraj was mentioned by Rajamma, the testimony of the other witnesses namely Rajamma, Smt. Chand, Dr. Miss Shanti Jain and Dr. Raghuvir Singh Shekhawat cannot be rejected and in view of other evidence it must be held that appellant Dhanraj was present with appellant Gopi when Gopi committed rape on Rajamma and that appellant Dhanraj had assisted appellant Gopi in commission of the offence of rape by holding the hands of Rajamma. 26. Miss Shanti Jain and Dr. Raghuvir Singh Shekhawat cannot be rejected and in view of other evidence it must be held that appellant Dhanraj was present with appellant Gopi when Gopi committed rape on Rajamma and that appellant Dhanraj had assisted appellant Gopi in commission of the offence of rape by holding the hands of Rajamma. 26. In the circumstances it must be held that appellant Go piram and appellant Dhanraj have been rightly convicted of the offences under sections 376 and section. 376/114 IPC respectively. 27. As regards the conviction of the appellants of the offence under section 448 IPC it may be observed that the said offence stands proved once it is held that the appellants entered into the quarter of Rajamma and the offence under section 376 and 376/114 IPC were committed by the appellants Gopiram and Dhanraj. 28. Shri Purohit has also made submissions on the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case I am of opinion that this is not a case where a lenient view can be taken in the matter of sentence. In my view the sentence awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge needs no interference. I would, therefore, uphold the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge, Churu convicting the appellant Gopi of the offences under sections 376 and 448 IPC and appellant Dhanraj of the offences under section 376/114 and 448 IPC and the sentences imposed on them for the said offences. 29. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellants are on bail. The trial court may take Proceedings for the arrest of the appellants.Appeal dismissed. *******