S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal the five appellants who are respectively accused Nos. 1 3 to 6 of Sessions Case No. 105 of 1983 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge have challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned trial Judge. We shall refer to the present five appellants as original accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 respectively for the sake of convenience in the later part of this judgment. Accused No. 1 has been convicted under sec. 363 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 and in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted for an offence under sec. 326 read with sec. 114 I. P. C. and was been awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00; in default rigorous imprisonment for three months on that count. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. So far as original accused Nos. 3 4 and 6 are concerned they have been convicted under sec. 326 read with sec. 114 I. P. C. and each of them is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 in default rigorous imprisonment for three months while so far as accused No. 5 is concerned she has been convicted under sec. 326 I. P. C. and is ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. By the very same order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has however been pleased to acquit accused Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 of the offence under sec. 363 A and sec. 506 I. P. C. and has also been pleased to acquit accused No. 2 who is not before us of the charges levelled against him. As we are not concerned any more with accused No. 2 we do not dilate on the prosecution case against accused No. 2 any further. II. PROSECUTION CASE: ( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the concerned accused is highlighted by Hanif Musa Adam Patel. As we are not concerned any more with accused No. 2 we do not dilate on the prosecution case against accused No. 2 any further. II. PROSECUTION CASE: ( 2 ) THE prosecution case against the concerned accused is highlighted by Hanif Musa Adam Patel. The complaint which he filed against the concerned accused in Chhota-Udepur Police Station on 21-7-1982 contained the following allegations against the concerned accused: 4the complainant gave his address in the complaint as residing in Station area of Chhota-Udepur but by that time residing in Akhada of eunuch i. e. den-residential place of eunuchs in Baranpura locality of Baroda city. The gravamen of the charge against the concerned accused as found from the complaint read as follows: the complainant was staying about a year back in the Station area (presumably in Chhota-Udepur town) with his father Musabhai Adambhai Patel; that he had four brothers and three sisters; that due to certain circumstances the complainant went to Baroda in search of service; that in Baroda he was doing labour work in the canteen situated in the premises of Aradhna Talkies; that the complainant laboured there for about one and half months; that during the time he was labouring at that place one eunuch approached the complainant His name was Anopkunvar (present accused No. 1 ). He told the complainant that he would provide good service for him Under that pretext he took the complainant with him. He kept the complainant at his Akola house for about three days during which time the complainant used to put on a pants and a bush shirt. In the meantime. one another eunuch viz. Kantakunvar Sundarkunvar (accused No. 3) came to the complainant at Akota. Both Anopkunvar (accused No. 1 ) and Kantakunvar (accused No. 3) told the complainant that he would be given service in a hotel on that very day and having said so they took the complainant to Baranpura Akhada and at that place he was made to put on skirt and Saree. The complainant had opposed but because there were many eunuchs at that place the complainant could not do anything and he was forcibly made to put ell ladys dress and from the next day onwards they took him to surrounding villages. These people made the complainant to beg in these villages for about a month and thereafter they brought the complainant back to Baranpura. These people made the complainant to beg in these villages for about a month and thereafter they brought the complainant back to Baranpura. The complainant tried to run away from that place many times but he could not run away. After staying for a day more at Baranpura Kantakunvar (accused No. 3) took the complainant to Kalol. These eunuchs had threatened him that if anybody was informed the complainant would be killed. He was also given a threat of beating and hence he accepted what they said. He was taken to Kalol in the area called water-tank in the vicinity of Marvakuva depot. The complainant was moving in ladys dress with these people at that time. The complainant was taken to the house of one Lilade Sitade Pavaiya (accused No. 4) situate at Kalol. He was made to stay for three days in ladys dress in that house. On the night of the fourth day Lilade (accused No. 4) summoned one lady from Mansa. Her name was Hiraben (accused No. 5 ). She was introduced to the complainant. On that very night at about 3 Oclock Lilade (accused No. 4) awakened the complainant took him to the third room and was made to sit there. The adjoining doors were closed radio was switched on at full tone and when the complainant started shouting a person named Shankar (accused No. 6) who was residing there gagged the complainants mouth and felled him down. Hiraben (accused No. 5) took off the clothes of the complainant and with an instrument like a small sword the private part of the complainant was cut off. The complainant lost consciousness during the process and regained it after six days. He thereafter stayed at Kalol for one month and then he was brought back to Baranpura. For performing this act Shankar (accused No. 6) and Hiraben (accused No. 5) had taken Rs. 2 500 from Kantakunvar (accused No. 3 ). That fact came to the knowledge of the complainant; that the complainant was now staying at Baroda that by that time he had collected about Rs. 5 0 by begging and had paid the amount to Kantakunvar (accused No. 3 ). 2 500 from Kantakunvar (accused No. 3 ). That fact came to the knowledge of the complainant; that the complainant was now staying at Baroda that by that time he had collected about Rs. 5 0 by begging and had paid the amount to Kantakunvar (accused No. 3 ). The entire incident took place on account of the fact that the accused had taken advantage of the innocence of the complainant and his minor age; that the complainant is made to live in this world in the shape of an eunuch; that the said act was performed on him against his wish; that for that proper inquiry should be made; that these people had named the complainant as Jyotikunvar Anopkunvar. The aforesaid complaint was filed by the complainant minor boy Mohamed Hanif Musabhai Patel at Chhota-Udepur but as the offence had taken place within the local jurisdiction of the Baroda Police Station the complainant as well as his father were taken to Kareli Bag Police Station where the complaint was duly registered and thereafter usual investigation proceeded. Statements of the concerned witnesses were recorded and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted against all the concerned accused in the Criminal Court at Baroda. The case thereafter came of be committed to the Court of Sessions and this is how it reached the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Baroda. After framing of the charge against the concerned accused the learned Judge proceeded to trial as all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Ultimately the learned Additional Sessions Judge. after recording evidence offered by the prosecution and after hearing the learned Counsel for the prosecution as well as the defence came to his findings about Conviction and sentence as narrated earlier. The concerned accused who are aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence are before us by way of the present appeal. IV. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE : ( 3 ) IT is now time to have a bird-eye view of the prosecution evidence led at the trial in support of the aforesaid charges against the concerned accused. At. Ex 15 is produced the School Leaving Certificate of the complainant Patel Mohamed Hanif Musabhai Adambhai. It shows that the complainant had left the school at Chhota-Udepur which was Taluka Shala No. 1 run by the District Panchayat Education Committee. Baroda. At. Ex 15 is produced the School Leaving Certificate of the complainant Patel Mohamed Hanif Musabhai Adambhai. It shows that the complainant had left the school at Chhota-Udepur which was Taluka Shala No. 1 run by the District Panchayat Education Committee. Baroda. The certificate mentions the full name of the student as Patel Mohmed Hanif Musabhai Adambhai and is shown to be Musalman Patel. His place of birth is Chhota-Udepur in Chhota-Udepur Taluka of Baroda District and his birth date along with the year of birth is mentioned to be 1-6-1967 both in figures as well as in words. He is said to have entered the School on 21-6-1979 and to have left it on 31-12-1980 when he was in 5th Standard. This School Leaving Certificate Ex. 15 was admitted on the record of the case by consent of both the sides and Mr. Barot rightly did not challenge the same. As per the Certificate the age of the complainant stands well-ascertained on the date of the incident. As the charge which is based on the relevant averments in the complaint shows about ten months prior to The complaint which was dated 21-7-1982 the first offence of kidnapping and Thereafter the offence of emasculation came to be committed against the complainant. By that lime admittedly the complainant had completed only 15 years and few month of his existence on this planet. Thus he was admittedly a minor boy below 16 years of age. This aspect of the prosecution case stands well established on admitted position between the parties as to the birth date of the complainant. It is in this background that we have to find out as to how this minor boy below 16 years of age was criminally :dealt with by the concerned accused as alleged by the prosecution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) THE prosecution then examined the star witness complainant Mohmed Hanif Musa Adam Patel at Ex. 19. The complainant is the only injured eye-witness. The entire prosecution case fulcrums round his evidence. At this stage we may briefly indicate what he stated in support of his case in examination-in-chief. Later on we will discuss in detail the infirmities which. 19. The complainant is the only injured eye-witness. The entire prosecution case fulcrums round his evidence. At this stage we may briefly indicate what he stated in support of his case in examination-in-chief. Later on we will discuss in detail the infirmities which. according to the defence have been brought out in cross-examination and will try to see as to whether these discrepancies brought out in his cross-examination. impinge upon the core of the prosecution case against these accused. The complainant Mohmed Hanif stated before the trial Court that he was staying in the year - 1981-82 at Chhota-Udepur with his brothers and sisters and father Musabhai Adam and mother Fatmabibi. They were four brothels and he was the youngest. He had three sisters two were elder to him and one was younger to him. He was studying in the Taluka School at Chhota-Udepur in the Standard. During that time he had quarrel with his elder sister Mehrunnisa. He therefore decided to leave the house and go to Baroda. At that time he told his another that he would do some service at Baroda and thereafter out of the money earned by him he would remit some amount to Chhota-Udepur. He accordingly came to Baroda and started service in the water-trolley belonging to one Manubhai Sindhi. This water-trolley was being kept near Aradhana Talkies. The owner of the water-trolley Manubhai was paying the complainant Rs. 4. 00 per day by way of salary. He accordingly served there for one and half months. During the time the complainant was working at this water-trolley Anopkunvar (accused No. 1) and Raghunath (accused No. 2) came to that water-trolley. Both these accused were present in the Court and were identified by the complainant. Both accused Nos. 1 and 2 told the complainant that if he accompanied them they would provide him with a job and therefore the complainant agreed to go with them. In this manner both the accused came in the interval of the last show of the picture and the complainant became ready to go with them. Both these accused took the complainant to the house of accused NO. 1 at Akota. He was kept there for 3 to 4 days. During that time he was putting on pants and shirt. In this manner both the accused came in the interval of the last show of the picture and the complainant became ready to go with them. Both these accused took the complainant to the house of accused NO. 1 at Akota. He was kept there for 3 to 4 days. During that time he was putting on pants and shirt. During that time accused No. 3 of the present case Kantakunvar came in a taxi to the house of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 took the witness in the taxi to Baranpura at the place of accused No. 3. It was night time. Nargis and Gita were also present out of whom Nargis was present in the Court while Gita was not present. These four persons gave ladys dress to the witness for being put on. The witness refused to do so. At that time all these four persons beat him. Accused No. 3 had a stick. He gave stick blows to the witness on the whole body and also on his back portion. The others were giving him slaps on his cheeks as well as on the rest of his body. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened the witness that if he told about this incident to anyone he would be killed. He was severely beaten. Hence ultimately the witness put on ladys dress. He put on petti-coat blouse ornaments bangles ear-rings and nose-ring etc. Accused No. 1 at that time had pierced the nose and ears of the witness. I:rom the next day the aforesaid accused and others took the witness for begging in the surrounding villages and for that purpose they made him to put on ladys dress. Accordingly the witness was made to beg in different villages like Chhani Dabka Padamla and other villages. He was made to move for four or five days accordingly and thereafter he was taken to Kalol by accused Nos. 1 and 3. they took him to the house of accused No. 4. He was made to stay there for six days. On the seventh day accused No. 4 Lilade called to her house accused No. 5 Hiraben. The witness was sleeping in the Angana ( i. e. front portion of the house. He was awakened from his sleep. Accused No. 6 Shankar was also at the house of accused No. 4 Lilade on that night. On the seventh day accused No. 4 Lilade called to her house accused No. 5 Hiraben. The witness was sleeping in the Angana ( i. e. front portion of the house. He was awakened from his sleep. Accused No. 6 Shankar was also at the house of accused No. 4 Lilade on that night. Accused No. 4 Lilade and accused No. 6 Shankar awakened the witness from sleep and took him in the inner room of the house Hiraben (accused No. 5) stripped off the clothes of the witness whereupon the witness started shouting. Therefore Shankar (accused No. 6) gagged his mouth and caught hold of his two hands. They put the radio at high pitch. Accused No. 5 Hiraben cut off the private part of the witness by an instrument like a dagger. The same was muddamal article No. 1. It was used to chop off the private part of the witness. He further stated in his deposition before the trial Court that as the genitals were put of. he became unconscious and regained consciousness after six days. At that time he was in the house of accused No. 4 Lilade at Kalol. After about a month Or one and quarter months he was taken back to Baroda. Till that time he was kept at the house of accused No. 4 Lilade. When he was brought back to Baroda he was kept in the house of accused No. 3 at Baranpura. He was being confined in the house. He was not permitted to go out. He was kept in that position for about one and half to two months. He told accused No. 3 to allow him to go to purchase vegetables but he was refused permission and he was had that he might possibly run away. On the morning of one day at about 8 to 9 in the morning when Kantakunvar (accused No. 3) had gone to latrine. the witness came out of the house and reached Pratapnagar Railway Station and sat in a train proceeding towards Chhota-Udepur. The witness was hiding in the latrine. When Dabhoi Railway Station arrived he came out of the latrine and sat with other passengers. He further deposed that from Chhota-Udepur Station when he was trying to go to his fathers house the children started shouting at him mentioning him as a eunuch and that they started teasing him. The witness was hiding in the latrine. When Dabhoi Railway Station arrived he came out of the latrine and sat with other passengers. He further deposed that from Chhota-Udepur Station when he was trying to go to his fathers house the children started shouting at him mentioning him as a eunuch and that they started teasing him. Hence the witness went to the garden which was situated by the side of the Police Station. Many people collected round him. Hence he ran to the Police Station. He had put on at that time ladys dress. The police inquired of him and he informed them of the incident. Thereupon his complaint was recorded. What was stated therein was true and it was exhibited at Ex. 20 Police had kept him in the Police Station. When his parents and brothers and sisters and other family members were informed they came to the Police Station at about 6 to 7 in the evening. He further deposed that on that day in the morning the train started from the Pratapnagar Railway Station at about 8 to 9 and reached Chhota-Udepur in the afternoon between 2 to -2-30 P. M. Usually the train reaches Chhota-Udepur at 12 noon but on the day on which he travelled the train was running late and hence he reached Chhota-Udepur in the afternoon between 2 to 2-30 P. M. During the night he was kept in the Police Station. Next day the policeman took him to Baroda by bus. He was accompanied by his father and his maternal uncle Husseinbhai. Police had further interrogated him at Baroda and taken his further statement and he had given that further statement on 22-7-1982. He was taken to the S. S. G. Hospital for examination and he was medically examined by the doctor. This is the gist of the evidence of the injured witness complainant Mohmed Hanif in his examination-in-chief. It immediately strikes that it runs absolutely parallel to what he stated at the first opportunity before the Chhota-Udepur Police Station by way of complaint Ex. 20 the averments whereof have been reproduced in extenso earlier by us when we referred to the highlights of the prosecution case. It must be kept in view that there are two offences alleged against the concerned accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (who is already acquitted) are substantively charged under sec. 20 the averments whereof have been reproduced in extenso earlier by us when we referred to the highlights of the prosecution case. It must be kept in view that there are two offences alleged against the concerned accused. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (who is already acquitted) are substantively charged under sec. 363 I. P. C. We do not refer to the further charge under sec. 363 A or sec. 506 as these accused are acquitted of the said charge and there is no acquittal appeal. The main charges which remained for scrutiny at this stage are the charges under sec. 363 T. . C. on one hand so far as accused No. 1 is concerned while so far as the charge under sec. 326 read with sec. 114 is concerned accused Nos. 1 3 4 and 6 are charged with the same and accused No. 5 is substantively charged under sec. 326 I. P. C. Thus there are two incidents alleged against the concerned accused one of kidnapping the minor complainant and the second of emasculating him at Kalol. In the complaint Ex. 20 itself the complainant gave a graphic picture of the role played by the concerned accused with reference to both these incidents. The same picture has been adhered to before the Court and the roles of the concerned accused have been indicated in examination-in-chief and the same had run parallel to what the complainant said in the first instance at the first opportunity by way of complaint Ex. 20. V. LEGAL POSITION REGARDING THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF INJURED EYE-WITNESS: ( 5 ) BEFORE we come to the grip of the main contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellants for challenging the orders of conviction and sentence we may at the outset examine the legal position regarding the appreciation of evidence of injured eye-witness. As we have seen earlier the entire prosecution case hinges round the evidence of injured minor complainant Mohmed Hanif. To what extent and how far his evidence should be relied upon becomes a crucial question. Before we actually grapple with this factual question. we may profitably glance through the well-settled legal position as emanating from the various decisions of the highest Court of the land viz. the Supreme Court of India. To what extent and how far his evidence should be relied upon becomes a crucial question. Before we actually grapple with this factual question. we may profitably glance through the well-settled legal position as emanating from the various decisions of the highest Court of the land viz. the Supreme Court of India. ( 6 ) IN the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 753. the Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of A. P. Sen and M. P. Thakkar. J. J. speaking through M. P. Thakkar J. had an occasion to consider the question regarding the appreciation of evidence of the sole witness prosecutrix in a rape case and the further question as to how far corroboration is required in case of deposition of such a witness and how far importance can be attached to minor discrepancies found in the evidence of such witness. In para. 5 of the report it has been observed that overmuch importance be given to minor discrepancies in the deposition of a witness. Seven reasons have been assigned by M. P. Thakkar J. speaking for the Supreme Court in support of the aforesaid legal position. They read as under:-" (1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details (3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one persons mind whereas it might go unforced on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) in regard to exact time of an incident or the time duration of an occurrence usually people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (5) in regard to exact time of an incident or the time duration of an occurrence usually people make their estimates by guess-work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness though wholly truthful is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel ar d out of nervousness mix up facts get confused regarding sequence of events. or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment". The sub-conscious and of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the tear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment. Thereafter it has been laid down that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important probabilities-factor echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. These observations have been made in connection with depositions of witnesses generally in all criminal matters. But thereafter special emphasis is placed with regard to witnesses who are victims of sex offences. In para. 7 of the report it has been laid down as under:-"it is now time to tackle the pivotal issue as regards the need for insisting on corroboration to the testimony of the presecutrix in sex-offences. This Court in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952) 3 S. C. R. 377 at p. 386; (A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 54 at p. 57) has declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. This Court in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952) 3 S. C. R. 377 at p. 386; (A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 54 at p. 57) has declared that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The utterance of the Court in Rameshwar may be replayed across the time-gap of three decades which have whistled past In the inimitable voice or Vivian Bose J. who spoke for the Courtthe rule which according to the cases 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 sate to dispense with it. must be present to the mind of the Judge. . . . . . . . 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 be 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 para. 9 of the report M. P. Thakkar J. has held 3s follows:"in the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt disbelief or suspicion ? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyse the argument in support or the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross-examination. And we must do so with a logical and not an opinionated eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu its own social mores its own permissive values and its own code of life". Thereafter in para. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu its own social mores its own permissive values and its own code of life". Thereafter in para. 11 of the report the following pertinent observations have been made in view of several factors pertaining to rape offence:"in view of these factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. on principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown; or believed to be self-inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight absence of corroboration notwithstading. And while corroboration in the form of eye witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases such evidence cannot be excepted inn sex offences having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the Courts in the western world (obeisance to which has perhaps become a habit presumably on account of the colonial handover ). We are therefore of the opinion that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities-factor does not render it unworthy of credence. as a general rule there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence where having regard to the circumstances of the case medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming subject to the following qualification: Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self-preservation. Or when the probabilities-factor is found to be out of tune. Or when the probabilities-factor is found to be out of tune. (emphasis supplied) ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled legal position it is obvious that the evidence or an injured eye-witness who is himself a victim of sex-offence would itself contain a built-in guarantee of firmness of its fabric and the truthfulness of the case reflected therein. It is true that in the aforesaid decision. the Supreme Court was concerned with the cases of a prosecutrix in a rape offence committed by the accused but all the same it was considered a sex offence. In the present case in our view. the offence with which the accused are charged and the sufferings which are inflicted on the minor complainant represent a more grave situation. It is a sex-offence of the worst character. In a rape case the prosecutrix may suffer from social inhibition social disgrace but given the setting of a and co-operative relatives and especially a well understanding life partner of that victim the suffering and the disgrace suffered by the victim may get wiped out by passage of time and time would be the greatest healer and the rape-victim after the jolt suffered by her at a given point of time may get fully reinstated in life and in society. But to a victim of physical assault which results in emasculation there is no chance of any restoration. He gets de-sexed for all times to come till his last breath. He is uprooted from the society for ever. Neither males nor females call accommodate him in their company. He loses his sex for all times. An irretrievable damage is done to him beyond repairs. However sympathetic his earlier relations may be the clock; cannot be put back. What is done cannot be undone till he escapes from the human bondage on death. In our view this type of forcible emasculation especially of a minor boy represents the most heinous nature of sex offence. Such a victim is not only an eye-witness to a grave injury but is an eye-witness to such a gruesome crime which leaves a permanent and indelible imprint on his mind till his last breath. In our view this type of forcible emasculation especially of a minor boy represents the most heinous nature of sex offence. Such a victim is not only an eye-witness to a grave injury but is an eye-witness to such a gruesome crime which leaves a permanent and indelible imprint on his mind till his last breath. Under these circumstances the observations of the Supreme Court regarding the absence of need of corroboration to the evidence of a prosecutrix in a rape case apply with greater vigour and force in a case of emasculation whereby a victim gets de-sexed for the rest of his life. In such a gross sex offence against him his deposition regarding the incident and the manner in which he was emasculated contains an in-built safeguard and stamp of truth. There is no reason for such a minor victim of emasculation to rope in any innocent person. Consequently the decision in Bharwada Bhoginbhais case (supra) applies with greater vigour to the facts of the present case. ( 8 ) THE next decision of the Supreme Court is in the same volume at page 168. It is rendered in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise Calicut v. V. P. Sayed Mohammed A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 168. Another Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of E. S. Venkataramiah and R. B. Misra JJ. of course speaking in the context of economic offences had an occasion to consider the scope and ambit of the doctrine of reasonable doubt the benefit of which can legitimately be given to the accused charged of such grave an offence. In the aforesaid decision Venkataramiah J. speaking for the Supreme Court held in para. 3 of the report that. "if a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the court after taking into consideration the entire material before it regarding the complicity of the accused the benefit of such doubt should be given to the accused but the reasonable doubt should be a real and substantial one and a well founded actual doubt arising out of the evidence existing after consideration of all the evidence. Hence a mere whim or a surmise or suspicion furnishes an insufficient foundation upon which to raise a reasonable doubt and so a vague conjecture whimsical or vague doubt a capricio and speculative doubt an arbitrary imaginary fanciful uncertain chimerical trivial indefinite or a mere possible doubt is not a reasonable doubt. Neither is a desire for more evidence of guilt a capricious doubt or misgiving suggested by an ingenious counsel or arising from a merciful disposition or kindly feeling towards a prisoner or from sympathy for him or his family". The aforesaid observations have been based by the Supreme Court on excerpts from Woodroffe and Ameer Alis Law of Evidence 13 edition vol. 5 pages 203. ( 9 ) IN the case of Abdul Razaq v. Nanhey A. I. R. 1984 S. C. 452 the Supreme Court speaking through Fazal Ali J. laid down that-"where the witnesses are not interested and where there is no motive for false implication there must be strong grounds to disbelieve them. The approach of the High Court in disbelieving them on the basis of some minor discrepancies was clearly wrong and perverse. The trial court had considered the evidence of all the witnesses and the circumstances of the case and had given good reasons for accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses as such the judgment of the High Court accepting the accused of the charges under sec. 362/34 and 201 of I. P. C. was liable to be set aside". 27a. Mr. Mehta learned P. P. for the respondent State invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhimrao v. State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1322 Koshal J. speaking for the Supreme Court held in that case as under:-" It is not unoften that improvements in an earlier version are made at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case albeit foolishly. But that does not mean that falsity of testimony in one material particular would ruin it from beginning to end. On the other hand the circumstance will be a good reason merely for the court to be put on guard and sift the evidence with extraordinary caution and to accept those portions of it which appear fully trustworthy either intrinsically or by reason of corroboration from other trustworthy sources". On the other hand the circumstance will be a good reason merely for the court to be put on guard and sift the evidence with extraordinary caution and to accept those portions of it which appear fully trustworthy either intrinsically or by reason of corroboration from other trustworthy sources". ( 10 ) IN the case of Radhey Shyam Narendra v. State of Orissa 1980 (1) S. C. C. 585 Sarkaria J. speaking for the Supreme Court has considered in paras. 9 and 10 of the; report the argument on behalf of the defence in a criminal case that there were certain omissions in the F. I. R. which were clearly tried to be filled up at the stage of trial and there were also certain variations. In para. 10 of the report argument of the learned counsel for the defence Mr. Garg is noted to the effect that the F. I. R. did not say that on receiving the information about the assault the victim first went to his house and from there along with his younger brother Bijoy ran to the spot. It was held that such minor variations did not detract from the substratum. That the F. I. R. clearly mentioned that their servant Kaviraj came running and informed him that the three appellants were assaulting his father with sticks at the back side field of their house. It was held that mere minor omissions or variations in the F. I. R. which do not distort the substratum of the prosecution story would not make the prosecution case unreliable ( 11 ) MR. Mehta also invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji v. State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 2622. Krishna Iyer J. in that case held in connection with appreciation of evidence of rustic witnesses as under:-"where the witnesses to a criminal case are rules their behavioural pattern and perceptive habits have to be judged as such. The too sophisticated approaches familiar in courts based on unreal assumptions about human conduct cannot obviously be applied to those given to the lethargic ways of our villages. When scanning the evidence of the various witnesses the court has to inform itself that scanning on the fringes discrepancies in details. The too sophisticated approaches familiar in courts based on unreal assumptions about human conduct cannot obviously be applied to those given to the lethargic ways of our villages. When scanning the evidence of the various witnesses the court has to inform itself that scanning on the fringes discrepancies in details. contradictions in narrations and embellishments in essential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony provided there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability In the substantial fabric of testimony delivered". ( 12 ) MR. Barot for the appellants in his turn invited our attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Thevar v. State of Madras A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 614. Sinha J. speaking for the Supreme Court has in a off-quoted passage laid down as under:" If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available In proof of the crime would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable there is legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness. the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution". It has further been observed in the said decision:-"generally speaking oral. testimony in this context may be classified into there categories namely (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof the court should nave no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the the testimony of a single witness. If it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness. incompetence or subordination In the second category the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. If it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness. incompetence or subordination In the second category the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration In material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial"mr. Barots submission was that on the facts of the present case and in the Sight of the discrepancies found in the cross-examination of eye-witness-injured complainant the testimony of the complainant can be deemed to be falling in the third category viz. neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. Mr. Barot fairly stated that if the evidence is would to be falling in the category of wholly reliable then no corroboration would be required. He was at pains to point out that it is not so in the present case. We will examine this aspect presently. . Before parting with this discussion on legal position we may refer to one decision of the Supreme Court to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Barot. In the case of B. Bhikha v. State of Gujarat A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1064 Ray J. speaking for the Supreme Court held that even if there is no infirmities in the evidence of a young boy it is desirable to seek corroboration of his evidence in view of his tender age. It may be noted that the witness who was of a tender age was not himself an injured eye witness. The witness is said to have witnessed the incident wherein the deceased got the fatal injury. In these circumstances the aforesaid observations were made by Ray J. speaking for the Supreme Court. So far as the present case is concerned the complainant-minor is not a mere third party witness to the incident but he is himself the victim of the assault. He is not only an injured eye witness but he is an eye witness who has suffered the grossest type of physical injury. In these circumstances the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhoginbhais case (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and not the ratio of the decision of B. Bhikhas case (supra) on which reliance was placed by Mr. Barot for the appellants. In these circumstances the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhoginbhais case (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and not the ratio of the decision of B. Bhikhas case (supra) on which reliance was placed by Mr. Barot for the appellants. ( 13 ) IN the case of Badri v. State of Rajasthan A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 560 on which reliance was placed by Mr. Barot Goswami J. speaking for the Supreme Court examined the question as to how far the testimony of the sole witness to the incident can be relied upon. In para. 12 of the report it has been laid down:"since under the Evidence Act no particular number of witnesses are required for the proof of any fact it is a sound and well established rule of law that quality and not quantity of evidence matters. In each case the court has to consider whether it can be reasonably satisfied to act even upon the testimony of a single witness for the purpose of convicting a person". Thereafter in para. 18 of the report. it has been held:-"if a witness who is the only witness against the accused to prove a serious charge of murder can modulate his evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of securing a conviction such a witness cannot be considered as a reliable person and on conviction such a witness on his sole testimony". It is obvious that so far as the core question or pivot question on which the prosecution case hinges is tried to be modulated by a witness may be the sole witness credibility of his version becomes suspect and of doubtful nature. Now it may be mentioned that in the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court was concerned with consideration of the evidence of a sole eye witness to the incident one Patram. While deposing as to the actual happening of the incident of firing the witness was found to have falsely introduced a second gun fire and was found to have wrongly given the range of fire. It has to be kept in view that in that case the prosecution case was that the victim Govindram had died of gun shot injury. While deposing as to the actual happening of the incident of firing the witness was found to have falsely introduced a second gun fire and was found to have wrongly given the range of fire. It has to be kept in view that in that case the prosecution case was that the victim Govindram had died of gun shot injury. The evidence of single eye witness Patram touched upon the question as to whether victim Govindram was fired at in the manner suggested by the prosecution. The moot question was whether there was any truth about Patram seeing the accused shooting at Govindram. The question posed for consideration of the Supreme Court was as to whether Patrams aforesaid deposition directly touching upon the core question could be relied upon without corroboration. The Supreme Court scanned through the evidence of Patram and held that it would not be proper to hold that he was an absolutely reliable witness. On the nature of injuries detected on the deceased there was conflict of evidence between the two medical officers. Under these circumstances the trial court noted that the witness Patram was compelled to change his version as little because of doctors opinion after the postmortem examination was held on the spot the following morning. It was found that the sole eye witness was modulating his version in the light of the medical evidence with a view to buttressing his case that he had witnessed shooting of the deceased by the accused. It is in this connection that the Supreme Court observed in para 18 of the report as under:"if a witness who is the only witness against the accused to prove a serious charge of murder can modulate his evidence to suit a particular prosecution theory for the deliberate purpose of securing a conviction such a witness cannot be considered as a reliable person and no conviction can be based on his sole testimony". It is obvious that the aforesaid observations have been made on the peculiar facts of the case where the eye witness to the actual act of shooting tried to modulate his version in the light of the medical evidence which directly touched upon the core question as to whether the accused had fired a shot at the deceased. It is obvious that the aforesaid observations have been made on the peculiar facts of the case where the eye witness to the actual act of shooting tried to modulate his version in the light of the medical evidence which directly touched upon the core question as to whether the accused had fired a shot at the deceased. the aforesaid decision is an authority for proposition that if all eye witness modulates his evidence upon the core question with a view to anyhow securing conviction of the accused the version of such a witness cannot be treated to be wholly reliable and no conviction can be based on his sole evidence. As we will demonstrate hereafter the present is not one of such cases. On the contrary as we will snow later on the evidence of the injured complainant on the core question of emasculation has stood wholly reliable and whatever embellishments inaccuracy or improvements have been found in the course of his cross-examination have remained absolutely peripheral and have not affected his evidence touching upon the heart of the prosecution case. VI. ( 14 ) IT is now time) for us to consider the complainant s evidence. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position we may now turn to the moot question as to whether injured witness-complainant can be implicitly believed in regard to the pivot prosecution charges against the concerned accused. Before we proceed to consider various contradictions and omissions which according to Mr. Barot have been detected in the evidence of the complainant during the course of his cross-examination we may keep in view certain broad features of the prosecution case which have stood well established on record and on which there cannot be and there is no dispute. It is well established fact that there was no enmity between the minor complainant on the one hand and the concerned accused on the other. He never knew them in the past. He was a total stranger to them till the fateful night when he was according to him enticed and prevailed upon to leave his job and to follow the foot steps of accused No. 1. We do not refer to accused No. 2 any further as she is acquitted. He never knew them in the past. He was a total stranger to them till the fateful night when he was according to him enticed and prevailed upon to leave his job and to follow the foot steps of accused No. 1. We do not refer to accused No. 2 any further as she is acquitted. It is also well established on the record of the case that there is no enmity whatsoever between any of the relatives of the complainant and the concerned accused. Minor injured complainant has undergone emasculation which is a very serious injury which has left him desexed. It is also well established on the record that at the very first opportunity which he got when he could run away from the clutches of the concerned accused from Baranpura Akhada den of eunuchs he ran to his father s place at Chhota-Udepur and reported the incident to the police at Chhota-Udepur. His complaint ex. 20 was recorded on 21 In this complaint he gave description of his plight and suffering inflicted on him by the concerned accused. Not only that but he gave the names and addresses of the concerned accused both at Baroda and at Kalol. It cannot be suggested and it is not rightly suggested by the defence that either the police at Chhota Udepur or the parents of the minor complainant at Chhota Udepur ever knew in the past how the accused had dealt with the complainant. The entire incident was within the personal knowledge of the complainant alone and it is he who at the first opportunity narrated the whole incident to the police at Chhota Udepur which was got recorded as per complaint ex. 20. As we have already observed earlier his deposition before the trial court on oath has wholly run parallel to his version in the complaint on both the core questions regarding culpability of the concerned accused under secs. 363 and 326 read with secs. 114 and 326 simpliciter. His version in court is cent per cent corroborated by what he had stated at the first opportunity in his complaint ex. 20. It is in this background that we have to proceed to consider the infirmities or contradictions detected from the cross-examination of this witness vis-a-vis his earlier police statement or complaint as the case may be. His version in court is cent per cent corroborated by what he had stated at the first opportunity in his complaint ex. 20. It is in this background that we have to proceed to consider the infirmities or contradictions detected from the cross-examination of this witness vis-a-vis his earlier police statement or complaint as the case may be. ( 15 ) IN the first instance we may mention the contradictions and/or omissions between the version of the injured witness before the court and as his earlier version before the investigation agency reflected either in his complaint ex. 20 or his further statement. Ma Barot. for the appellants pointed out to us 11 such omissions and/or contradictions and when he pointed out 8 more embellishments put forward by the complainant and as revealed in his croos-examination. We shall first deal with these contradictions and missing. In para 12 of his cross-examination the witness stated that he had not mentioned in his complaint ex. 20 or in his additional statement dated 22-7-1982 before the police that the witness had a quarrel with his sister; that he had told his his mother that he would go to Baroda and serve there and send moneys to her complaint it was mentioned that due to certain circumstances he had to go to Baroda for service. In our view this omission in no way touches upon the core question as to whether he was kidnapped at Baroda by the concerned accused or he was emasculated at Kalol by the concerned accused. It it already mentioned in the complaint that due to circumstances he had to go to Baroda for service. he had a quarrel with his sister or not remains totally irrelevant. It must therefore be treated to be a rivial omission. It has no impact whatsoever and it has not caused even a ripple on the surface of the smooth How of the prosecution case. ( 16 ) THE second contradiction which has been noticed is in para 15 of his cross-examination wherein the complaint had stated that it was true that he had not mentioned the name of accused No. 2 in the complaint regarding the role played by accused No. 2 by coming near the water trolley and that he had also not stated that accused No. 2 had given him inducement to give him service. Now it is obvious that this aspect directly touches upon the core question as to whether accused No. 2 had noticed the complainant and had taken him out of the lawful keeping of hi guardian. The omission to mention the name of accused No. 2 in the complaint and regarding the role played by accused No. 2 therefore directly touched upon the core question and whittled down the prosecution case against Accused No. 2. It is precisely for that reason that accused No. 2 has been acquitted by the learned this Judge. That acquittal is not challenged by the State. The matter must end there: So far as accused No. 2 is concerned she remains acquitted. We are not concerned with her acquittal any more. But merely because accused No. 2 gets complainant in stating in details his case before the police in his complaint it cannot be kid that his otherwise reliable case against the other accused which has been distinctly stated in all details alongwith addresses in the complaint gets in any way whittled down or modulated. It is also pertinent to note that looking to the part which has been alleged to have been played by accused No. 2 which was almost negligible and when accused No. 1 who according to the prosecution case and the complainant was out to have a disciple in his fold the omission to mention the name of accused No. 2 might have been inadvertent omission on the part of the victim. It is therefore obvious that the benefit obtained by accused No. 2 on the basis of the omission to mention her name in the complaint cannot get telescoped in any manner into the cast iron prosecution case established by the prosecution against the rest of the accused. ( 17 ) THE third contradiction has been tried to be culled out from the further statement of the complainant as recorded by the police at Baroda on 20 as mentioned in para 16 of the deposition of the complainant in cross-examination. ( 17 ) THE third contradiction has been tried to be culled out from the further statement of the complainant as recorded by the police at Baroda on 20 as mentioned in para 16 of the deposition of the complainant in cross-examination. It appears that the complainant in his further statement had not stated before the police that when he was kept in the house of accused No. 1 at Akota near hanging bridge at Baroda his pants and bush-shirt were compulsorily removed and he was made to put on sari skirt and blouse and that the pants and shirt were hidden somewhere by accused No. 1. It must be kept in view that in the complaint ex. 20 itself which was the narration of the incident at the first available opportunity by the complainant and which was recorded at Chhota Udepur on 21-7-1982 the complainant has stated the sequence of events under which he was made to change his dress from that of male to one of female and he has clearly stated that during the time he was kept in the house of accused No. 1 at Akota Baroda he was putting on male dress and that his shirt and pants were removed forcibly only when he was taken by accused Nos. 1 and 3 at Baranpura Baroda. It therefore appears that whatever he might have stated in his subsequent statement does not whittle down in the least. what the complainant stated at the first available opportunity before the police at Chhota Udepur. If is easy to visualise that in the further statement emphasis was on the tracing out of the pants and bush-shirt. But even otherwise even assuming that this was so and the complainant changed his version about change of dress in the second statement we fail to appreciate how this change has anything to do with the core questions which are twin in number as to whether the concerned accused kidnapped the complainant and whether they got him emasculated so that he can be compelled to join their fold. On these core questions the circumstance whether sari and blouse were forcibly required to be put on by the complainant at Akota or at Baranpura totally pales into insignificance. This discrepancy is absolutely peripheral and miles away from the heart of the prosecution case. On these core questions the circumstance whether sari and blouse were forcibly required to be put on by the complainant at Akota or at Baranpura totally pales into insignificance. This discrepancy is absolutely peripheral and miles away from the heart of the prosecution case. ( 18 ) THE 4th discrepancy pointed out is in para 18 of the deposition of the complainant during his cross-examination. He stated that it was not true that he was not confined in any hut at Akota Baroda and that he had not stated in his complaint or further statement that he was confined in any hut. Now it must be realised that the accused are not facing. any charge of illegally detaining the complainant. They are facing the charge of having kidnapped the complainant from lawful guardianship and the offence of kidnapping as is well settled gets completed moment the minor is drawn out of the lawful keeping of his guardian by inducement threat etc. Therefore what is stated in para 18 may at the highest amount to adding of spices by the complainant when he deposed that at Akota he was confined in a hut. Whether he was confined in the hut at Akota or not is totally irrelevant for deciding whether he was kidnapped by accused No. 1 at Baroda and whether he was emasculated at Kalol thereafter. This omission is therefore totally besides the point and does not shake in the least the prosecution case against the concerned accused. ( 19 ) THE next omission-cum-contradiction is said to be found in para 19 of his deposition when the complainant stated that neither in his complaint nor in his additional statement he had mentioned that he was taken in a taxi from Akota to Baranpura. Now we fail to understand how this omission-cum-contradiction can be considered to be at all material. It is absolutely trivial. It is not as if that the charge of kidnapping would in the slightest degree get affected if kidnapped minor complainant is not carried in taxi or is carried in a taxi. Whether the is taken in taxi or in a bus or he is taken by the kidnappers with them by using any other mode of transport is absolutely besides the point. It does not touch upon the core question centering round the charge of kidnapping which the concerned accused have to face. Whether the is taken in taxi or in a bus or he is taken by the kidnappers with them by using any other mode of transport is absolutely besides the point. It does not touch upon the core question centering round the charge of kidnapping which the concerned accused have to face. ( 20 ) WE next turn to the contradiction-cum-omission found in para 20 of his deposition in cross-examination. The complainant stated that it was true that neither in his complaint nor in his additional statement he had stated that when he was asked to put on ladys dress and when he refused he was given beating by four persons and that Kantakunver accused No. 3 had a stick and she had given stick blow on whole of the body of the complainant by stick and he was given blows also on his back; while the other three persons had give him slaps on his cheeks as well as on the whole body and that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had threatened him that if he told any one he would be killed and that as he was beaten severely he had put on ladys dress and that accused No. 1 had pierced his nose and ears and forcibly made him to put on ear-ring. nose-ring and bangles. Now it must be stated that the aforesaid contradiction covers various aspects of the matter out of which only one touches the core of the prosecution case viz. charge under sec. 506 about accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatening the complainant with dire consequences. The learned trial Judge has already acquitted the concerned accused under sec. 506 I. P. Code. The matter ends there. So far as other aspects are concerned the accused are not at all charged with the offence under sec. 325 I. P. Code. However one thing must be noted. In the complaint itself there is a germ of force employed upon him by the accused at the relevant time. It is in terms stated in the complaint that he was forcibly asked to put on ladys dress and as there were number of eunuchs in the Akhada in Baranpura the complainant was helpless and could do nothing. Now it goes without saying that in the Akhada of eunuchs i. e. their den which is the residential bastion of enuuchs the complainant was naturally surrounded by eunuchs. Now it goes without saying that in the Akhada of eunuchs i. e. their den which is the residential bastion of enuuchs the complainant was naturally surrounded by eunuchs. It is easy to visualise the physical profile of these eunuchs who are all burly highlanders as fairly stated by Mr. Barot for the appellants when a minor boy aged 15 years gets surrounded in the heart of the residential locality of eunuchs by such towering figures and when he states in his complaint that he was in a helpless condition and he was forcibly made to put on ladys dress it cannot be said that proper germ of the prosecuion case regarding force employed on the complainant while he was made to put on ladys dress after giving up his male dress was not found in the complaint. It is now well settled that in the complaint only relevant materials pointing to the main charges for which the accused are indicated have to be mentioned. All the material details about how the offences took place may not be there in the complaint. Only on that ground it cannot be said that this is such a lacuna which whittles down the veracity of the prosecution case as unfurled at the stage of trial. It cannot be said that forcible change of males dress to ladys dress can never haves included some thrashing to the complainant. the incident had occurred couple of months back. It is obvious that when the complainant was physically examined no injuries could have been detected which he might have suffered at the hands of the accused who might have given him beating. It is not as if that what is stated on oath in the trial court about beating given to him was absolutely a cook and bull story or was an improvement from any point of view. It was just probable and possible and if these details were not mentioned in the complaint and only words forced to put on ladys dress were employed in the complaint it cannot be said that there was no foundation laid in the complaint on the basis of which details could be submitted of the stage of trial and that details submitted at the trial were totally dehors complaint or were absolutely an addition or improvement. Even otherwise story deposed to about thrashing given to the complainant at Baranpura even though stated for the first time in court does not in any way touch upon the twin core questions about kidnapping and emasculation which stand apart band which are supported by reliable evidence which does not get in any way whittled down by the aforesaid so-called improvement. We find it to be no improvement at all and in any case absolutely trivial. ( 21 ) OUR attention was then invited to what the complainant stated in 21 of his cross-examination. He stated that it was not true that the locality in which accused No. 4s house is situated at Kalol was surrounded by many houses. There was a house of one Muslim and it was in the vicinity of Lilades house but the witness of his own stated that he did not know the name of that Muslim and that the accused were not permitting him to meet that Muslim. It is rue that the witness stated so voluntarily. But the question is whether that by itself in any way affects the veracity of what he deposed about the locality surrounding the house of accused No. 4. Whether the accused permitted the complainant to meet the neighbour or not would be totally besides the point. To re-capitulate the evidence of emasculation of this minor boy stands on his own. Once there is forcible emasculation the offence is complete even though consent of the minor is obtained. At the highest the suggestion of the defence as found in para 21 is that there was opportunity for the complainant to report difficulties suffered by him to the neighbour Muslim and that fact at the highest suggests that the complainant may be willing to get himself emasculated. In the first instance such a suggestion is absolutely untenable. It does not stand the test of probability. The complainant was a minor boy who was under the control of eunuchs for a couple of months before he was brought to the house of accused No. 4 at Kalol for the purpose of final ceremony which resulted in emasculation. In the first instance such a suggestion is absolutely untenable. It does not stand the test of probability. The complainant was a minor boy who was under the control of eunuchs for a couple of months before he was brought to the house of accused No. 4 at Kalol for the purpose of final ceremony which resulted in emasculation. Under these circumstances when he was surrounded all round by eunuchs it would be too much to suggest that he would be in a position at such a tender about anything to the neighbours residing of these eunuchs to complain about anything to the neighbours residing in the neighbourhood. Even otherwise such possibility in the way adversely affects to the slightest extent the prosecution case of emasculation of the minor boy by the concerned accused. Consent or no consent crime is complete once it is held on the basis of the evidence of the complainant that on that fateful night at Kalol he was emasculated by the concerned accused. ( 22 ) IT was then submitted that the complainant stated in para 22 of his cross-examination that in the house of accused No. 4 at Kalol he was made to sleep in the kitchen and he was not made to sleep in the Angna of the house. It may be noted that in the examination-in-chief he stated that he was sleeping in the Angna of the house. It has to be kept in view that the circumstance whether he was sleeping in the kitchen or in the Angna of the house pales into insignificance when it emerges on the record that he was all throughout under the surveillance of accused No. 4 in her house at Kalol. Accused No. 4 was a eunuch. Once under her control whether the complainant slept in the kitchen or in the Angna of the house would make no difference. He had remained under the control and supervision of accused No. 4 who was jealously guarding him with a view to getting him emasculated so that he could he included in the fold of eunuchs as disciple of accused No. 1 and there could be one more addition to their fold which was their ultimate goal. He had remained under the control and supervision of accused No. 4 who was jealously guarding him with a view to getting him emasculated so that he could he included in the fold of eunuchs as disciple of accused No. 1 and there could be one more addition to their fold which was their ultimate goal. Consequently what was stated by the complainant in para 22 regarding the place where he was permitted to sleep in the house of accused No. 4 at Kalol is found not to be of any slightest importance or effect so far as the prosecution case against the concerned accused regarding emasculation of the complainant at Kalol is concerned. Thereafter our attention was invited by the learned counsel for the appellants to what the complainant stated in para. 25 of this cross-examination to the effect that it was not true that in his complaint before the police he has stated that his private part was cut off by a sword. He clarified that by mistake the police must have mentioned in the complaint about the sword and that he had given explanation about it in his further statement. Now a look at the complaint shows that the complainant has stated that his private part was cut off by a weapon like a small sword. It is therefore a contradiction when he stated before the Court that it was a dagger. It cannot be urged with any emphasis that a dagger would not resemble a small sword. It is too much to expect of a minor child like the complainant who was forcibly emasculated on that fateful night to have observed the fine distinction between a dagger and a weapon resembling a small sword. There is sufficient description given in the complaint about the weapon used against him for desexing him and emasculating him. No contradiction is detected between the version of the complainant on this aspect before the Court and his earlier version in the complaint. ( 23 ) WE were then invited to read para. 28 of the cross-examination of wherein he had stated that he had not mentioned in his complaint that accused No. 6 had caught hold of both of his hands. ( 23 ) WE were then invited to read para. 28 of the cross-examination of wherein he had stated that he had not mentioned in his complaint that accused No. 6 had caught hold of both of his hands. Now it is true that in the complaint the role which he ascribed to accused No. 6 was that he gagged his mouth at the time of his castration and that he felled him on the ground and it is thereafter that accused No. 5 took out his clothes and cut off his private part with a weapon resembling a small sword. The role ascribed to accused No. 6 in the complaint is the role of a person who pounced upon the complainant gagged his mouth and threw him down. Same role of accused No. 6 is deposed to before the Court. Merely because catching hold of two hands is mentioned before the Court and not in the complaint it does not in the slight exonerate accused No. 6 of the main charge with which he is faced. It is a matter of details how he was forcibly thrown down. The basis of the prosecution case regarding the role of accused No. 6 is sufficiently mentioned in the complaint. Further details are given at the stage of trial which in no way cut across or travel beyond the contours of culpability drawn in the complaint against accused No. 6. ( 24 ) OUR attention was next invited to the reply given by the complainant in para. 29 of his cross-examination. He denied that in the complaint he had not mentioned that during the time he was kept at Baranpura for about 2 months he was not allowed to go out and that he had put forward an excuse to purchase vegetables but accused No. 3 refused him that permission and told him that perhaps he might run away and that one day in the morning while accused No. 3 had gone to latrine he came out of his house went to Pratapnagar railway station sat in a train going to Chhota-Udepur secreted himself in the latrine of the train and came out when the train arrived at Dabhoi sat with the passengers and while he was going to his fathers place at Chhota Udepur children started shouting at him eunuch eunuch and he was being teased. So went to the garden where so many persons collected and he ultimately went to the police station and took shelter there. It is seen that these details about how the complainant escaped from the den of eunuchs at Baroda and leached Chhota Udepur are not mentioned in the complaint. It must be kept in view that the details which the complainant deposed to regarding the mode of his escape and how he reached Chhota Udepur are incidental matters which have nothing to do with the commission of offence of kidnapping or emasculation by the concerned accused. It is now well settled that the complainant need not mention all the incidental matters. What are required to be mentioned are the details regarding commission of the concerned offence. We may refer to sec. 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and certain Supreme Court judgments on this aspect. Sec. 154 reads as under:-"154 (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. If given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant and every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such-form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf". A mere look at the said section shows that it enjoins upon the police officer to take down in writing the information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. That was sufficiently done as seen from ex. 20. All necessary details regarding commission of the offences of kidnapping and emasculation were taken down. How the complainant ran out of the clutches of the concerned eunuch in this case and how he reached his place of destination-Chhota Udepur are all incidental matters which the police officer is not expected to take down under sec. 154 of the Cr. P. Code. If they were taken down well and good. If they were not taken down it must be stated that because they were not relevant they were not taken down. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision strictly speaking no authorities are required to support the aforesaid conclusion. 154 of the Cr. P. Code. If they were taken down well and good. If they were not taken down it must be stated that because they were not relevant they were not taken down. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision strictly speaking no authorities are required to support the aforesaid conclusion. Still however the Supreme Court had to consider even this question in a number of decisions. We may refer to a few of them. In the case of Gurnam Kaur v. Bakshish Singh A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 631 Chinnappa Reddy J. speaking for the Supreme Court on this pertinent question held as under:-" The fact that F. I. R. did not mention about clothes becoming stained with blood cannot be a circumstances of any significance as the first information report given by a rustic lay woman is not to be treated as or equated to the summary of the entire prosecution case and a mere omission to mention an incidental fact cannot have the effect of nullifying an otherwise prompt and impeccable report". It cannot be lost sight of that the present minor complainant is also a rustic labourer belonging to the family of labourers and who had suffered such grave injury at the hands of the accused. He was not supposed to give the entire prosecution case in his complaint. But he gave heart of the prosecution case in his complaint. We have already referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Radhey Shaym (supra) which has also taken the same view that minor omissions or variations in the F. I. R. which do not distort the substratum of the prosecution story would not make the prosecution case unreliable. In the case of Bhopatsingh v. State of Maharashtra A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 446 Grover J. speaking for the Supreme Court noted in that case that all details given in the statement were not there in the F. I. R. the High Court in that vase took the view that it was not necessary that elaboration account of everything should have been given in F. I. R. and that the High Court was impressed by the fact that complainant was a person of some status and that it was not suggested or proved that he had any motive or animus to falsely implicate the accused. The aforesaid conclusion reached by the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in the said decision. It was ruled that all details of the prosecution case are not required to be given in the F. I. R. and can be still deposed to by the complainant before the Court and if his evidence is found to be reliable no infirmity can be found only on the ground that all these details were not mentioned in the complaint. In the case of Poddar Narayana v. State of A. P. A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1252 Fazal Ali J. speaking for the Supreme Court has reiterated the same view. In para. 9 it has been held:-"where the F. I. R. lodged very soon after the sudden murderous assault on the deceased revealed the names of the accused the deceased and why the occurrence had taken place the F. I. R. gives all the essential details and the fact that the F. I. R. did not contain the overt acts attributed to each of the accused which had to be narrated and proved at the trial could not be a ground for rejecting the prosecution case based upon the F. I. R. as wholly untenable in law. It is neither customary nor necessary to mention every minute detail in the F. I. R". It is therefore obvious that details about how the complainant ran away at the first opportunity from the Akhada of eunuchs where he was confined after emasculation and how he reached the police station at his native place at Chhota Udepur were incidental in nature and not required to be noted in the first information report and no infirmity can be found therefrom in what was deposed to by the complainant on this aspect. ( 25 ) THESE were the only contradictions and omissions which were sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants to shake the veracity of the testimony of the complainant. Each and every infirmity as discussed in details by us shows that it has failed to touch upon the core question. The heart of the prosecution case against the concerned accused and about their involvement in the offences under secs. 363 and 326 read with sec. 114 I. P. Code is not to the slightest extent whittled down or modulated or in no way affected be the aforesaid discrepancies. The heart of the prosecution case against the concerned accused and about their involvement in the offences under secs. 363 and 326 read with sec. 114 I. P. Code is not to the slightest extent whittled down or modulated or in no way affected be the aforesaid discrepancies. They are all insignificant discrepancies which have not to any slightest extent shaken the prosecution case. What was deposed to by the complainant in the examination-in-chief on the vital aspect touching the culpability of the concerned accused qua the offence with which they were charged is not at all shaken in the cross-examination and the cross-examination only tried to touch upon the periphery of the case and tried to show that there were some minor discrepancies as revealed from the cross-examination of the complainant. In our view therefore kernel of the evidence of the eye-witness injured complainant so far as offences of kidnapping and emasculation are concerned as deposed to on oath which is absolutely parallel to his complaint ex. 20 with minutes details regarding the roles played by the concerned accused alongwith their addressee as recorded in the complaint has stood absolutely untouched and has remained wholly reliable the minor discrepancies about the incidental matters as detailed above nothwithstanding. . . . . . . . . . VI. (A ). EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO OFFENCE OF KIDNAPPING Sec. 366 I. P. C. ( 26 ) WE have already noted earlier that injured complainant had no enmity with any of the accused nor is any enmity alleged to have been harboured by any of his relatives. He had left Chhota Udepur at his raw age of 15 years to eke out his livelihood. His father was doing labour work. Even his brothers wife. ex. 26- Madinabibi was also doing labour work. Minor complainant also was doing labour work at Chhota Udepur. Thus he belonged to a family of labourers. Even at Baroda he was doing the job of selling water from water trolley near Aradhana talkies presumably to the spectators who would visit the theatre for attending picture shows and was being paid Rs. 4. 00 per day by the owner of the canteen. We are not concerned with the actual income which he used to receive. Even at Baroda he was doing the job of selling water from water trolley near Aradhana talkies presumably to the spectators who would visit the theatre for attending picture shows and was being paid Rs. 4. 00 per day by the owner of the canteen. We are not concerned with the actual income which he used to receive. The fact remains that he was doing the job of selling water on per day basis Such a minor boy who had come to Baroda to improve his prospects and to remit some amount to his parents is lured and enticed by accused No. 1 and other accused to go with them. The witness is a minor boy aged about 15 years. He is a raw minor boy. Accused No. 1 who is the only person in the field to answer the charge under sec. 363 as accused No. 2 is already acquitted is said to have enticed him by offering the temptation of providing him a good job in a hotel. It is this inducement which drew him out of the lawful keeping of his guardian. The moot question before us is whether the complainant went of his own accord to the accused who are eunuchs and whose main place of residence is eunuchss Akhada at Baranpura Baroda or he was enticed by them to go with them. This is not a case in which the complainant had any previous connection with these eunuchs. This is not a case in which due to some previous rapport the complainant had developed fascinations for these eunuchs. This is a case in which a minor boy who had come in search of bread to Baroda with a view to helping himself and his poor parents is enticed to go with these eunuchs by temptation offered to him. Such a boy would easily fall prey to the rosy picture painted for him that he will get better job if he went with accused No. 1. The story deposed to by him on this aspect on oath runs absolutely parallel to what he stated at the first instance in his complaint ex. 20 at the Chhota Udepur police station. Such a boy would easily fall prey to the rosy picture painted for him that he will get better job if he went with accused No. 1. The story deposed to by him on this aspect on oath runs absolutely parallel to what he stated at the first instance in his complaint ex. 20 at the Chhota Udepur police station. Nothing could be brought out in his cross-examination to even give a slightest jolt to this part of the prosecution case as deposed to by the complainant It also can be well visualised that such a minor boy who was already having service and was getting about Rs. 4 per day since a couple of months at Baroda would not have voluntarily walked out of his own in the company of accused No. 1 but for the fact that he was offered inducement as deposed to by him. It is not as if the complainant had come from Chhota Udepur all the way to Baroda of his own accord to join the company of eunuchs. If that would have been so the would have gone straightaway to their Akhada or den. He has not done so. He had on the contrary sought out employment on the water trolley on salary of Rs. 4. 00 per day and he carried on that job for more than a month. It is at that time that accused No. 1 came and offered him prospects of a better job. But for that temptation accused No. 1 could not have got possession of the complainant and having offered temptation to the complainant and having taken him out of the lawful keeping of first guardian accused No. 1 took him to his own residence and thereafter continuously the complainant remained under the control of accused No. 1 and his associates. It must therefore be held that on the aspect of kidnapping the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against accused No. 1 by leading cogent and reliable evidence in the shape of unshakened testimony of the complainant. Minor discrepancies which have been discussed in detail by us earlier in his evidence as brought out In his cross-examination have not at all touched his evidence on this core question so far as the involvement of accused No. 1 in the offence of kidnapping minor complainant is concerned. Minor discrepancies which have been discussed in detail by us earlier in his evidence as brought out In his cross-examination have not at all touched his evidence on this core question so far as the involvement of accused No. 1 in the offence of kidnapping minor complainant is concerned. It is now well settled that offence of kidnapping is complete moment a minor is taken out of the lawful keeping of the guardian. In the case of State of Haryana v. Raja Ram A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 819 the Supreme Court speaking through Dua J. has held:-"sec. 361 is designed to protect the secred right of the guardians with respect to their minor wards. Therefore the consent of the guardian would alone take the case out of the purview of the section. It is also not necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud. FURTHER there is no doubt a distinction between taking and allowing a minor to accompany a person. Thus if the minor herself leaves her fathers house without any inducement by the accused who merely allows her to accompany him. he cannot be said to have taken her out of the keeping of her father. PERSUATION by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the section and the consent of such minor is immaterial". In the case of T. D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 2313 the same learned Judge again interpreted the relevant words found in sec. 361. viz whoever takes or entices any minor. The relevant observations in this connection read as under:-"the word takes no doubt means physical taking but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word entice seems to involve the idea of inducement or argument by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time in achieving its ultimate purpose of successful inducement. The word entice seems to involve the idea of inducement or argument by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time in achieving its ultimate purpose of successful inducement. THE two words read together suggest that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the offence of kidnapping. But if the guilty party has laid foundation by inducement argument or threat etc. and if this can be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardians custody or keeping and going to the guilty party then prima facie it would be difficult for him to plead innocence on the ground that the minor had voluntarily come to him". If he had at an earlier stage solicited or induced her in any manner to leave her fathers protection by conveying or indicating on encouraging suggestion that he would give her shelter then the mere circumstance that his act was not the immediate cause of her leaving her parental home or guardians custody would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him. In fairness to Mr. Barot it must be stated that he did not dispute the proposition of law that even though a minor may be physically staying away from the parents and his guardian he would in law be still treated to be in the lawful keeping of his guardian. If that were not so minor children studying outside and staying in hostels or at other places in different towns would be considered to be already out of lawful keeping of their guardians residing in their native places and can be kidnapped with impunity by nefarious elements without any inhibition of sec. 361 I. P. C. Mr. Barots only contention was that on the fateful night when the minor complainant went in the company of accused No. 1 who is a eunuch he seems to have walked out of his own volition and not due to any temptation offered by accused No. 1. On the broad probabilities in this case such a contention stands absolutely unacceptable. It is impossible to contemplate any such eventuality especially when the minor complainant was already earning Rs. 4. On the broad probabilities in this case such a contention stands absolutely unacceptable. It is impossible to contemplate any such eventuality especially when the minor complainant was already earning Rs. 4. 00 per day on his the then existing job. There was no occasion for him to go and join the group of eunuchs and to be turned into a beggar as his evidence shows. The case of the prosecution is that the accused took him in different villages. May be that the concerned accused are acquitted by the learned trial Judge so far as the offence under sec. 363 (A) is concerned. However the fact remains that accused No. 1 has taken the complainant out of the lawful keeping of his guardian under the circumstances under which he was reduced from the position of a young boy earning Rs. 4. 00 per day into a position of a helpless beggar and also in the bargain he was made to lose his sex and to suffer emasculation at their behest. It has to be realised that clan of eunuchs cannot get any additions by biological process of reproduction. They have to fall back upon compulsory or voluntary emasculation of the concerned persons to increase their number. If it would have been a case of a grown up mature person who voluntarily desired to get himself emasculated and become a eunuch the matter would have been different. But here is a case of a minor Muslim boy below 16 years of age belonging to a poor labourers family and who was earning Rs. 4. 00 per day by selling water on water trolley who is said to have been taken in their fold by the concerned eunuchs led by accused No. 1. Under these circumstances it is reasonable and safe to conclude that accused No. 1 would have definitely enticed the complainant to go with him and the complainant would not have walked out of his own to join the company of accused No. 1 and his associates but for the inducement and temptation offered to him by accused No. 1. In the light of the settled legal position as indicate earlier it cannot be said that on the facts of the present case the offence of kidnapping is not brought home to accused No. 1. In the light of the settled legal position as indicate earlier it cannot be said that on the facts of the present case the offence of kidnapping is not brought home to accused No. 1. He did entice the complainant and prevailed upon him to give up his earlier job which was fetching him Rs. 41. 00 per day and enticed him to go with him by offering argument of providing better job in a hotel. But for this argument and inducement which drew the complainant out of the lawful keeping of his guardian the complainant would not have been reduced to the present miserable plight. It is also to be kept in view that accused No. 1 on false pretext or argument kidnapped the complainant with the ulterior object of emasculating him. It can be well visualised that accused No. 1 was interested in having one more person in his fold and unless he was turned a eunuch he would be useless to him. They wanted one more professional beggar in their fold. This is the reason why initial act of kidnapping was undertaken and such a minor boy came handy to them. It must be realised that those who deal with minors play with fire and if the minor boy by any inducement or argument is taken out of the lawful keeping of the guardian and is made to accompany strangers or outsiders. those strangers or outsiders have to face the music and cannot rely upon the improbable defence that the minor boy voluntarily walked with them when prior to their dealing with the minor they were total strangers to him. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 27 ) (B) That takes us to the consideration of the prosecution case about emasculation of the complainant. Mr. Barot fairly stated that whether emasculation took place at Kalol by consent of the complainant or without his consent would be immaterial as admittedly the complainant was a minor boy below 16 years of age at the relevant time. So far as the offence of emasculation is concerned the complainant has given a graphic picture just from the very beginning when FIR ex. 20 was lodged. Roles of the concerned accused have been clearly indicated alongwith the names and addresses of the concerned accused. So far as the offence of emasculation is concerned the complainant has given a graphic picture just from the very beginning when FIR ex. 20 was lodged. Roles of the concerned accused have been clearly indicated alongwith the names and addresses of the concerned accused. This part of his case has also been faithfully deposed to in evidence before the court and that part of the evidence is in no way whittled down by any of the discrepancies said to have been taken out in his cross-examination to which we have made a detailed reference earlier. Even on this aspect the evidence of the complainant has remained fully acceptable and believable. We have to keep in view a salient fact that the principal accused viz. accused Nos. 1 3 and 4 are all eunuchs. Accused No. 1 kidnapped the complainant only with a view to ultimately making him a eunuch and join their fold. All the concerned eunuchs i. e. accused Nos. 1. 3 and 4 were deeply interested in achieving this common design and in fructifying their design. accused Nos. 5 and 6 gave all necessary help and contributed their mite. The complainants case about his emasculation at Kalol on that fateful night in the house of accused No. 4 apart from being found to be believable and acceptable on its own is also corroborated by various circumstances emerging on record of the case. The first such corroborative piece of evidence is found in the evidence of Dr. Subramaniam ex. 16 who on medical examination found that the complainant had undergone emasculation of his private part and that was of no remote origin but the scar was only a few months old viz. 3 to 4 months or thereabout. It is true that the doctor in his cross-examination stated that it might have taken place even earlier than four months. But it does not mean that it could be too remote. Thus the emasculation suffered by the complainant before a few months prior to his medical examination as detected by Dr. Subramaniam offers sufficient corroboration to what the complainant stated on oath on this aspect. ( 28 ) THE second piece of corroboration is found in the evidence of Ashokkumar ex. 91 the investigating officer who stated about the physical condition of the complainant. Subramaniam offers sufficient corroboration to what the complainant stated on oath on this aspect. ( 28 ) THE second piece of corroboration is found in the evidence of Ashokkumar ex. 91 the investigating officer who stated about the physical condition of the complainant. In cross-examination in para 3 he stated that there were no marks of physical beating of injury on the complainant but the complainant had to take out a nail inserted in the hole in urethra if he wanted to go for urination and thereafter he had to put the nail back. This shows that usual channel of urination was gone due to emasculation. The next piece of corroboration is supplied by the complaint ex. 90 itself and the version mentioned therein at the first opportunity and lastly we have the evidence of Jashwantsingh ex. 30 who was the investigating officer who took over the investigation on 22 He deposed that the complainant had shown the place of the offence at Kalol in the house of accused No. 4 in the presence of panch and his part of his evidence has gone unchallenged. Thus. the case of the complainant that he was emasculated in the house of accused No. 4 at Kalol gets independent corroboration from the evidence of this witness also. ( 29 ) THE injured complainant clearly deposed before the court that after he was kept for some time at Baroda in the house of accused No. 3 subsequent to his being lured to go with then accused No. 1 and 3 took him to Kalol at the place of accused No. 4. This part of his testimony is not at all challenged in cross-examination. It is not district that accused Nos. 1 3 and 4 are all eunuchs. It is further deposed that at the house of accused No. 4. the complainant was kept for a few days and thereafter on one night accused No. 5 was called from Mansa and at dead of night. He was awakened by accused No. 4 and accused No. 6. He was then taken inside the house. At that time accused No. 5 removed his clothes. When he started shouting accused No. 6 caught held of both his hands. Radio was put on loud pitch and accused No. 5 cut off his private part with a dagger and as a consequence he became unconscious. He was then taken inside the house. At that time accused No. 5 removed his clothes. When he started shouting accused No. 6 caught held of both his hands. Radio was put on loud pitch and accused No. 5 cut off his private part with a dagger and as a consequence he became unconscious. This in nut-shell is the deposition of the injured complainant before the court. Now. let us see whether this evidence gets fully corroborated by his version of the incident as per ex. 20. A mere look at the complaint ex. 20 shows that all these details have been meticulously given. If had given address of accused No. 4 at Kalol. He has given the name of accused No. 4 in whose house he was kept by accused Nos. 1 and 3. On the fateful night. accused No. 4 called one lady from Mansa whose name was Hiraben accused No. 5. and by about 3 Oclock at night he was taken inside the room and radio was put on high pitch. Accused No. 5 gagged his mouth and felled him down. Accused No. 5 removed his clothes and cut off his private part with a weapon like a small sword and he then became unconscious. Thus the complainant at the first available opportunity mentioned all the details with meticulous care and the same have been deposed to and adhered to by him on oath before the court. Nothing substantial could be brought out from his cross-examination to whittle down the actual roles ascribed to the accused in this heinous crime. There is no reason for this minor complainant who was a total stranger to all these accused to falsely involve them. He had no enmity with any of time. The grievous hurt which he has received has left him sexless. He had observed the concerned accused from close quarters. It is therefore impossible to even contemplate a possibility that he might have left aside the real culprits and falsely involved the concerned accused. It must be kept in view that accused No. 1 who initially kidnapped the complainant wanted him to be a member of their fold. Thus kidnapping was the first step emasculation was the last and the cycle became complete when after emasculation the complainant was brought back to Baranpura Akhada of eunuchs which according to the complainant was to be his final resting place. Thus kidnapping was the first step emasculation was the last and the cycle became complete when after emasculation the complainant was brought back to Baranpura Akhada of eunuchs which according to the complainant was to be his final resting place. But for the presence of mind and courage shown by the injured complainant in escaping from their clutches and in taking shelter in the Chhota Udepur police station. this heinous crime would not have been brought to light. We therefore find that the deposition of the injured witness regarding actual happening at Kalol on that fateful night when he was emasculated pursuant to the aid and abetment of the concerned accused for achieving their common goal suffers from no infirmity and remains fully acceptable. Hence we accept the same. ( 30 ) BEFORE parting with this discussion we may mention two submissions canvassed by Mr. Barot. He stated that so far as the offence of emasculation is concerned the evidence about identification is very weak. He submitted that before the trial court accused Nos. 1 and 2 were identified by the complainant. but so far as other accused are concerned they were not identified. It is not possible to agree with the said contention of Mr. Barot. If we closely see the deposition of the complainant we find that even though in terms it is stated that the complainant had identified accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the court at the fag end of para 2 in examination-in-chief and in para 3 of the deposition. he has in terms referred to the concerned accused by names and by their serial Nos. as accused. He has referred to accused No. 3 as accused in the case. In para 4 he has also referred to accused No. 4 by name and also accused No. 5 with her name and accused No. 6 is equally mentioned by name and also with reference to his serial number as accused. It is obvious that all the accused were present in the dock before the court when the complainant was in the box. It is also obvious that this is a peculiar case in which there was an unusual assortment of the accused. Accused Nos. 1 2 3 and 4 were eunuchs. Accused No. 5 was a lady accused No. 6 was a male. It is also obvious that this is a peculiar case in which there was an unusual assortment of the accused. Accused Nos. 1 2 3 and 4 were eunuchs. Accused No. 5 was a lady accused No. 6 was a male. Hence it is easy to visualise that when the complainant referred to them by their names and serial numbers as accused he had decidedly pointed out to them as the persons in the dock. It is also interesting to note that even in the cross-examination of the complainant the only suggestion put to him about identification was to the effect that he had not seen accused Nos. 5 and 6 before the incident or after the incident. There was no challenge about his identifying the remaining accused before the court. We have already discussed in details the effect of what the complainant stated regarding his not seeing accused Nos. 5 and 6 before or after the incident. We therefore do not repeat our reasoning in that connection at this stage. The learned trial Judge has also noted the fact in para 41 of his judgment that identity of the respective culprits and the part played by each of them in the commission of the heinous crime and their identification in court was in no way affected by the absence of holding of identification parade. Thus the learned Judge before whom the trial was conducted has accepted the fact that the complainant had identified all the concerned accused in court. It is therefore not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Barot that the complainant had only identified accused Nos. 1 and 2 in court and did not identify other accused. Even apart from that it is now well settled that once names of the concerned accused are mentioned in the FIR and once the complainant had sufficient opportunity to observe the concerned accused at close quarters no question of holding any identification parade would remain apart from the aspect of prudence thereof and that identification of the concerned accused before the court would be sufficient. In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court. In this connection we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court. In the case of Dharmavir v. State of M. P. A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1156 Khanna J. speaking for the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question whether identification parade was necessary in a case in which names of the assailants were mentioned in the F. I. R. In para 6 of the report contention of Mr. Nuruddin for the defence was noted. It was then observed -"mr. Nuruddin has urged that Karar Ahmed (who was the eye witness in that case) could not have been in a position to fix the identify of the two appellants:in this connection the following pertinent observations were made by Khanna J". "the names of the appellants were mentioned by Karar Ahmed in the first information report as those who had been responsible for assaulting him. The 1 act that Karar Ahmed stated at one place in the course of his deposition that he did not know the appellants and stated at another place that he knew them for about two or three years would not go to show that Karar Ahmeds evidence about the actual assault on him by the two appellants is not worthy of credence. The question which has also been adverted to during arguments of holding an identification parade in which Karar Ahmed might have been called upon to identify the appellants would have arisen only if the names of the appellants had not been mentioned in the first Information report. We also see no particular reason as to why Karar Ahmed should falsely involve the two appellants for the assault which was made on him at Nagda railway station". The decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Names and event sufficient particulars about their addresses and place of residence were given at the first available opportunity in the complaint ex. 20. Even apart from that accused No. 1 kept the complainant after kidnaping. for couple of days in his house at Akota. Thereafter the complainant was kept at the house of accused No. 3 at Baranpura Akhada Baroda and accused Nos. 1 and 3 used to take him in the surrounding villages for begging. Thus the complainant remained for a sufficiently long time in their company. for couple of days in his house at Akota. Thereafter the complainant was kept at the house of accused No. 3 at Baranpura Akhada Baroda and accused Nos. 1 and 3 used to take him in the surrounding villages for begging. Thus the complainant remained for a sufficiently long time in their company. Thereafter he was taken to Kalol at the house of accused No. 4 where he stayed before emasculation for couple of days and even after emasculation for a month at the house of accused No. 4 at Kalol. Thus the complainant had enough opportunity to observe accused Nos. 1 3 and 4 from close quarters. No question of identification parade would survive for them. It is true that so far as accused No. 5 is concerned she was from Mansa but her services were requisitioned for the purpose of emasculating the complainant and that is stated at the first opportunity in the complaint. She appears to be an expert midwife-cum-chopper who could cut off private parts both penis and scrotum in only one stroke. Services of such person with such expertise would naturally be requisitioned by the needy eunuchs when occasions arise. And that is exactly what seems to have happened in this case. So far as she is concerned it is the complainants case that before the incident or after the incident he had no occasion to see her. However the fact remains that on the night of the incident accused No. 5 was called by accused No. 4 from Mansa. It is obvious that accused No. 5 would have naturally stayed at the house of accused No. 4 on that night. Therefore there was sufficient opportunity available to the complainant to observe accused No. 5 from close quarters atleast on that night. Thereafter he was awakened from sleep by accused Nos. 4 and 6 and was taken in the third room where accused No. 5 forcibly removed the clothes of the complainant and cut off his private parts. It is therefore obvious that the complainant had enough opportunity to observe accused No. 5 from close proximity. Thereafter he was awakened from sleep by accused Nos. 4 and 6 and was taken in the third room where accused No. 5 forcibly removed the clothes of the complainant and cut off his private parts. It is therefore obvious that the complainant had enough opportunity to observe accused No. 5 from close proximity. Even otherwise when accused No. 5 forcibly removed his clothes he would have certainly seen her from close quarters face to face and when she cut off his private parts and committed such a heinous crime may be at the bidding of other accused and for meeting their requirement the impression which would be formed in the mind of this minor complainant who suffered such battering at her end would remain indelible till his last breath. He would naturally not forget the face of such a person who had ruined his life and made him a sexless person. Might be that he had no occasion to see her later on. But he could never forget her face in future. It is also interesting for note that he had given the place of residence of accused No. 5 as Mansa in his complaint and had given her name as Hiraben. It is not suggested that he had enmity with her or that he was falsely involving accused No. 5 in place of the real culprit who had cut off his private parts. It is pertinent to note that after the incident when the investigating officer went to Mansa. the complainant accompanied him alongwith other accused and accused No. 5 was apprehended from Mansa. When the complainant at the first available opportunity in this complainant had given the place of residence of accused No. 5 at Mansa and when he identified her in cow and when he accompanied the investigating officer and went to Mansa where she was apprehended no doubt is left that accused No. 5 was fully identified by the complainant and he had no occasion to falsely involve her in this heinous offence when he had no grudge against her otherwise. So far as accused No. 6 is concerned the complaint itself shows that he was staying in the house of accused No. 4. We have also the evidence not witness Kantibhai ex. So far as accused No. 6 is concerned the complaint itself shows that he was staying in the house of accused No. 4. We have also the evidence not witness Kantibhai ex. 28 which shows that accused No. 6 was doing the work for accused No. 4 and used to go to his daily for delivering milk and used to stay at the place of accused No. A and was looking after her buffaloes. This witness was not cross-examined at all. It is therefore clearly established that accused No. 6 was staying with accused No. 4 and was looking after her work. When the complainant stayed with accused No. 4 for couple of days it is obvious that he had sufficient opportunity to see accused No. 6. When the stated that he had no occasion to see accused No. 6 before the incident and after the incident it only means that before he was emasculated at Kalol and after he was emasculated at Kalol he had no occasion to see accused No. 6 independently of the incident which was spread over quite some days at Kalol. But that does not mean that during the time he was kept at Kalol for this purpose he had not seen him. Even apart from that when accused No. 6 was helping accused No. 4 in all her work; had awakened the complainant at dead of night and took him inside in the company of accused No. 4 and thereafter he gagged his mouth and felled him down it is clear that the complainant had enough opportunity to observe accused No. 6 on that fateful night from close quarters and hence there is no question of any mistaken identity especially when there is no allegation that he had special interest in falsely involving accused No. 6. He had mentioned the name of accused No. 6 and also the fact that accused No. 6 was staying in the house of accused No. 4 in the complaint ex. 20 and this fact stands proved by the evidence of Kantibhai ex. 28. He had mentioned the name of accused No. 6 and also the fact that accused No. 6 was staying in the house of accused No. 4 in the complaint ex. 20 and this fact stands proved by the evidence of Kantibhai ex. 28. It must therefore be held that even so far as accused No. 6 is concerned he was sufficiently identified by the injured witness-complainant in court and he referred to him and no one else when he deposed in court and there was no occasion for him to falsely involve accused No. 6 if he was not involved with ether accused in this heinous crime. Under these circumstances it is not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Barot for the appellants that in the absence of identification parade it must be held that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the concerned accused were involved in the crime in question and that it was a case of mistaken identity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 31 ) BEFORE parting with case we must note the fact that inspite of the perpetration of such a heinous crime by the concerned accused against minor boy which has left him sexless and totally uprooted from society and in the state of a mere breathing machine the learned trial Judge imposed a very lenient sentence of R. I. for five years for offence under secs. 376 and 363 read with sec. 114 I. P. C. In our view on such gross facts the accused deserved deterrent punishment of atleast 10 years R. I. But we cannot enhance the sentence as there is no appeal for enhancement by the State nor is there any notice for enhancement of sentence against the concerned accused. The matter must rest accordingly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 32 ) THE learned trial Judge has framed charge at Exh. 6. The learned counsel Mr. M. R. Barot for the appellants very rightly submitted that the charge was very defective as it was. The facts of the case reveal that accused Nos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 32 ) THE learned trial Judge has framed charge at Exh. 6. The learned counsel Mr. M. R. Barot for the appellants very rightly submitted that the charge was very defective as it was. The facts of the case reveal that accused Nos. 1 3 and 4 entered into a conspiracy and in pursuance of that conspiracy the victim was taken from Baroda to Kalol and thereafter emasculated by accused No. 5 with the assistance of accused Nos. 4 and 6. In view of this the learned trial Judge ought to have indicated in the charge that accused Nos. 1 3 and 4 have abetted the commission of offence by accused No. 5 by engaging themselves into a conspiracy. There was no material to show that accused Nos. 1 and 3 were present at the time of emasculation on the day at Kalol or that they slid any other act except taking the victim to Kalol. In view of this it can be said that the allegation was that accused entered into a conspiracy as a result of which the victim was taken to Kalol. It can also be said that accused No. 1 and 3 facilitated the commission of the offence by accused No. 5 by taking the victim to Kalol. No such facts are indicated in the charge. It is only vaguely stated that all the accused abetted each other and committees the offence in question. The complaint given by the victim in July 1982 shows that he was residing at Chhota Udepur about a year before he gave the complaint. That would show that he had left Chhota Udepur in the month of August 1981 even the learned trial Judge has observed in his judgment at para 24 that the victim left Chhota Udepur for Baroda in or about the month of July 1981 and about 1 1/2 months thereafter he was kidnapped and that way it will come to September 1981 That will show that the kidnapping took place some times in the month of September 1981 In spite of this it is stated in the charge exh. 6 framed on 11/06/1984 that the kidnapping took place about 10 months hack. That will mean that the kidnapping took place in or about April 1983 in his would be completely misleading. 6 framed on 11/06/1984 that the kidnapping took place about 10 months hack. That will mean that the kidnapping took place in or about April 1983 in his would be completely misleading. It also appears that according to the victim he was kept at Baroda for about a month and thereafter taken to Kalol and emasculated about six days thereafter. The emasculation thus took place about five to six weeks after the kidnapping. That is not indicated in the charge anywhere. It appears that the learned trial Judge with due respect to him without properly perusing and studying the papers of investigation framed the charge simply on reading the last column of the charge-sheet. Even the last column of the charge-sheet shows that the allegation was that the accused conspired with each other. The words in the last column of the charge-sheet are which means `conspiracy. Looking to the papers of investigation the charge should have been that the kidnapping took place some time in the month of September 1981 and not ten months before June 1984 The charge should have indicated that accused Nos. 1 2 3 and 4 engaged themselves in a conspiracy to emasculate the victim and as a result of that conspiracy the victim was taken to Kalol and that way they abetted commission of the offence of emasculation at the hands of accused No. 5. In the last paragraph of the charge a complete mess has been made by the learned trial Judge with respect to him. A specific charge for an offence punishable under sec. 363 of I. P. C. was framed at para 1 of the charge then under sec. 363 (A) in para 2 under sec. 306 in the third paragraph and under sec. 307 and 326 against accused No. 5 in the next paragraph and under sec. 307 and 326 read with sec. 114 against accused No. 6 and then against all the accused in the last paragraph under sec. 363 363 (A) 307 327 and sec. 306 read with sec. 114 of I. P. C. It is not indicated as to how accused Nos. 1 2 3 and 4 had abetted the commission of offence of emasculation. The last paragraph of the charge with respect to the learned trial Judge is a complete mess. 363 363 (A) 307 327 and sec. 306 read with sec. 114 of I. P. C. It is not indicated as to how accused Nos. 1 2 3 and 4 had abetted the commission of offence of emasculation. The last paragraph of the charge with respect to the learned trial Judge is a complete mess. It is rather regrettable that a learned senior Additional Sessions Judge has framed such a charge in the present case. ( 33 ) THE victim appeared at Chhota Udepur Police station and his complaint was recorded by the police officer and it was transmitted to Karelibag Police Station at Baroda. On the basis of the said complaint an offence was registered at Karelibag Police Station and thereafter the statement of the victim was recorded by the Police Sub-Inspector. It was a statement recorded during the course of investigation. It is not admissible in evidence at all. In spite of this the learned trial Judge exhibited the same at Exh. 25. ( 34 ) DURING the recording of the evidence of the victim Mohmed Hanif Musa Adam Exh. 19 he was asked specifically to identify accused Nos. 1 and 9 after he stated that Anopkunvar and Raghunath approached him at his hand-harrow. Thereafter he referred to the other accused only by name and by the respective numbers as accused before the Court. Mohamed Hanif was not asked to identify them in the Court. It was the duty of the learned public Prosecutor who conducted the case to have asked Mohmed Hanif to identify the other accused also in the Court just as he was made to identify accused No. 1 and 2. Hanif to specifically identify accused Nos. 1 and 2 departed from that course It is not understood why the learned Public Prosecutor after asking Mohmed and proceeded further by reference to name and number of the other accused. It is pertinent to note that Nargis and Gita the two eunuchs who were neither accused before the Court nor witnesses in the case were referred to by Mohmed Hanif. Nargis was present in the Court and the witness refereed to Nargis and stated that she was in the Court. That way the witness identified Nargis who was in the Court. It is therefore rather surprising that Mohmed Hanif was not asked to identify the other accused. Nargis was present in the Court and the witness refereed to Nargis and stated that she was in the Court. That way the witness identified Nargis who was in the Court. It is therefore rather surprising that Mohmed Hanif was not asked to identify the other accused. The learned Public Prosecutor failed in his duty in not asking Mohmed Hanif to identify the other accused specifically in the Court just as he did in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 2. The learned trial Judge should have inquired of the Public Prosecutor as to why he was departing from the earlier course. The learned trial Judge should have asked the learned Public Prosecutor to ask the witness to identify the other accused also in the Court. ( 35 ) IT also appears that Exh. 20 complaint of Mohmed Hanif was shown to Mohmed Hanif when he was in the box. He then stated that it bore his signature and the contents of the same were correct and thereafter it was exhibited. It does not appear that the complaint Exh. 20 was read over to Mohmed Hanif before he was asked about the correctness of the contents of the same. A complaint is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be used only to corroborate or contradict the complainant. When it is to bel used corroborate it has to be read over to the complainant and the complainant has to say whether it is recorded as per his or her say and only thereafter it. s to be exhibited. We find in many cases that the complaint is not read over to the complainant before exhibiting it. We find in many cases that panchnamas are also exhibited without being read over to the panchas which is neither legal nor proper because a panchnama is also not a substantive piece of evidence. We want to impress upon the Judges and Magistrates of the subordinate Courts to bear in mind that a complaint has to be read over to the complainant and he or she has to be asked whether it is as per his or her say and it has to be recorded as to what he or she has to say and only thereafter it is to be exhibited. If the complainant states that particular portion or portions of the complaint are not as per his or her say then that fact has to be recorded in the deposition. Same procedure is also required to be followed while recording deposition of a panch. It appears from paragraph 16 of the deposition of Mohmed Hanif that suggestion was made to him that he was made to change the clothes at the place of accused No. 1 but he denied that fact. His attention was drawn to his statement before the police in this regard and he denied that suggestion. A complex question has been put to the complainant in this regard. Such a complex question is also recorded at para 29 of the deposition of this witness. It was not proper. First the suggestion of the defence should have been recorded and then the contradiction. ( 36 ) MOHMED Hanif admitted at paragraph 37 of the deposition that he had not seen accused No. 5 or accused No. 6 before or after the incident. Now so far as the incident at Kalol is concerned it lasted for about six days. Mohmed Hanif was first taken to Kalol kept there for six days and then he was emasculated. It appears that even from the complainant of this Mohmed Hanif that accused No. 6 was residing at the place of accused No. 4. It is therefore quite possible that the witness must have seen atleast accused No. 6 even prior to the actual incident of emasculation and must have seen him even for many days thereafter because he was kept at Kalol for about a month after emasculation. So far as accused No. 5 is concerned it can be said that she was at Kalol only on one occasion and that was the occasion at which Mohmed Hanif was emasculated. But so far as accused No. 6 is concerned it is clearly mentioned in the complaint that he was residing at the place of accused No. 4. In spite of this no effort was made by the learned Public Prosecutor either in examination-in-chief or even by re-examining Mohmed Hanif to get clarification from this witness as to show he stated that he had not seen this accused before or after the incident when accused No. 6 was residing with accused No. 4 as stated in his complaint Exh. 20. 20. In fact the learned Public Prosecutor should have in the beginning asked Mohmed Hanif as to whether he knew all the accused before the court and about the extent of his association with them. No such effort was made by the learned public Prosecutor. we may also mention here that during the recording of the evidence of Mohmed Hanif no effort was made to enquire from him as to when he left Chhota Udepur and how long he stayed at Baroda before he was kidnapped by the accused. The evidence shows that he was kidnapped after about 2 1/2 months stay at Baroda and then he stayed at Kalol for about one month and then he returned to Baroda and after about a month he escaped and went to Chhota Udepur. This will show that he Soft Chhota Udepur some time in the month of February 1982 and not in September 1981 Neither the learned Public Prosecutor nor the learned trial Judge tried to inquire from the complainant as to when he left Chhota Udepur and how it was that he went to Chhota Udepur as late as in July 1982 if he had stayed at Baroda for a period of about one and half to two months. If Mohmed Hanif had left Chhota Udepur some time in the month of July 1981 and was kidnapped some time in the month of September 1981 then it would show that he was emasculated some time in the month of October or November 1981 That will be about eight to nine months before he gave the complaint. This time leg is not sought to be explained during the recording of the evidence of Mohmed Hanif nor during the recording of the evidence of Musabhai Adambhai Exh. 23 father of the victim. No questions were put to him as to in which year and in which month his son had left Chhota Udepur. It also appears that the complaint of Mohmed Hanif was recorded on 21/07/1982 and on the same night he was taken to Baroda and panchnama of his person was taken on the very night at 8. 00 P. M. The evidence of Mohmed Hanif his father and his brothers wife. Madinabibi Abdul Razak is that Mohmed Hanif was kept for one night at Chhota Udepur Police Station. 00 P. M. The evidence of Mohmed Hanif his father and his brothers wife. Madinabibi Abdul Razak is that Mohmed Hanif was kept for one night at Chhota Udepur Police Station. That will show that he must have reached Chhota Udepur on 20th July and not on 21/07/1982 but none bothered to seek clarification in this regard during the recording of the evidence of this witness. ( 37 ) SO far as the accused No. 2 is concerned she has been acquitted by The learned trial Judge and hence we are not concerned with that accused in this appeal. The learned trial Judge after discussing the evidence in the light of the complaint given by Mohmed Hanif observed in para 32 of the judgment that it was not safe to hold that accused No. 2 took part in kidnapping Mohmed Hanif. Thereafter without discussing the evidence as against accused No. 1 the learned trial Judge jumped to the conclusion that the case against accused No. 1 was established by observing as follows:"the same now leads us to conclude that it is established by the prosecution satisfactorily that accused No. 1 Anopkunvar induced Mohmed Hanif to come with her and about Mohmed Hanif having accompanied her from near Aradhana talkies compound to her house at Akota". The learned trial Judge has not discussed as to how he reached the above conclusion against accused No. 1. It is difficult to understand how one can conclude that the case against accused No. 1 was established simply because a conclusion was reached that the case against accused No. 2 was not established. ( 38 ) THE learned trial Judge has observed in paragraph 43 of the judgment that no specific suggestion was made to Mohmed Hanif that accused No. 1 and 3 were not present at the time of emasculation at Kalol. Now Mohmed Hanif did not state that accused No. 1 and 3 were present even at Kalol at the time of emasculation and hence the defence was not expected to make any such suggestion The question of making such a suggestion did not arise and still the learned trial Judge has ma de such observation at paragraph 43 of his judgment. ( 39 ) THERE is positive evidence of one witness Kantibhai Dahyabhai P. W. 8 Exh. ( 39 ) THERE is positive evidence of one witness Kantibhai Dahyabhai P. W. 8 Exh. 28 to the effect that accused No. 6 was residing with accused No. 4 and was doing the work of accused No. 4 and used to accompany accused No. 4 to his dairy. In spite of this no question was put either to accused No. 4 or to accused No. 6 in this regard. It is true that Kantibhai Dahyabhai was not at all cross-examined by the learned advocate for the accused. but that does not absolve the Court from drawing the attention of the accused to this important piece of evidence which appeared against these two accused. ( 40 ) SO far as the victim Mohmed Hanif is conclude. his attention was drawn to several contradictions/omissions with regard to his complaint and the statement recorded by the police during the investigation. The learned trial Judge simply observed that Mohmed Hanif had fairly admitted those contradictions and omissions. Of course Mohmed Hanif did not admit all the contradictions and/or omissions but admitted most of them. But the learned trial Judge did not consider the effect of the said contradictions and/or omissions in the evidence of this sole witness Mohmed Hanif. . ( 41 ) THE learned trial Judge acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under sec. 363-A of I. P. C. and observed at paragraph 34 that Mohmed Hanif had not stated in his evidence before the Court that about Rs. 5 0 were collected by the accused through begging through him and therefore the accused cannot be held guilty of offence punishable under sec. 363-A of the I. P. C. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused of this offence and the State has not come in appeal against the said acquittal. We are therefore not concerned with the question whether this acquittal is right or not. But his reasoning cannot be said to be proper as Mohmed Hanif has specifically stated that he was taken from place to place for begging though he has not specifically stated that Rs. 5 0 were collected. In view of this this part of the reasonings of the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under sec. 363-A of the I. P. C. cannot be said to be proper. 5 0 were collected. In view of this this part of the reasonings of the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under sec. 363-A of the I. P. C. cannot be said to be proper. ( 42 ) NOW a suggestion was made to Mohmed Hanif when he was in the box that when he was staying at Chhota Udepur before he came to Baroda he was having long hair and used to make such gestures as are made by eunuchs which suggestion he of course denied. But the learned trial Judge observed in para 49 of the judgment that no such suggestion was made to Mohmed Hanif It is of course true that no such suggestion was made to the father of Mohmed Hanif. The suggestion was however definitely made to Mohmed Hanif which suggestion he denied. It appears from para 49 of the judgment of the learned trial Judge that it was contended before him that certain witnesses were dropped because they had stated before the police that Mohmed Hanif was behaving like a eunuch at Chhota Udepur even before this incident. Now that those witnesses stated before the police cannot he looked into and it is not understood how such an argument was advanced by the learned advocate for the accused and taken note of by the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge of course has not expressed any opinion on this question. ( 43 ) THE discussion made above will go to show that the learned Public Prosecutor did not properly conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution He did not even try to elicit necessary important and material facts during thee course of recording of the evidence of Mohmed Hanif and other witness. He even did not take proper care to see that the victim was made to identify accused Nos. 3 to 6 when they were in the court. The examination-in-chief can be to some extent said to be perfunctory. Several lacunas were allowed to be left in the prosecution case though of course fortunately for the prosecution they did not touch the core of the prosecution case and that way the conviction could be upheld. But that does not justify want of proper care on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor in conducting thee case before the trial Court. But that does not justify want of proper care on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor in conducting thee case before the trial Court. ( 44 ) THE learned trial Judge has sentenced the accused to undergo R. I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 0 in default to suffer R. I. for three months more. This is not one of those cases usually coming up before the courts wherein it is found that fracture is caused or some limb such as nose leg hand etc. are found to have been cut. This is a rare case in which the victim has been emasculated and he is left nowhere so far as the remainder of his life in concerned. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge in such a case can be said to be grossly inadequate. But the State having not come for enhancement of the sentence we have no option but to leave the matter as it is. The learned trial Judge should not have passed such a lenient sentence against these accused who have emasculated this young boy of about 15 years and rendered his life useless. The sentence should not of course be excessive but at the same time it should also not be grossly inadequate as in the present case. It is Surprising that the State also did not come in appeal for enhancement of this inadequate sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned trial Judge. Appeal dismissed. .