JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1987, Abdul Dilshad v. State of M. P. ( 2. ) IN both these appeals, the appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by their conviction in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, Shri D. C. Jain, by his judgment dated 20th February, 1987, in the Sessions Trial No. 48 of 1986. The appellants have been convicted for having committed an offence punishable Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment each. ( 3. ) THE incident is of Mohalla Mohannagar, Durg. At about 6 or 7 in the evening1 of 12-3-1986, the prosecutrix Chitralekha had gone to Railway Station to see off her friend. After sending her off in a train, she was returning back to her home. When she reached road-crossing of railway station, the electric supply failed in the market area and complete darkness descended. She saw a rickshaw at some distance and intended to take a rickshaw, but that rickshaw was called away by some other passengers, hence she started proceeding further but at that very time, few persons caught hold of her and gagged her mouth with a handkerchief. Thereupon, these miscreants took her away forcibly in an isolated place where an unfinished building was standing. These miscreants after taking away her clothes made her to lay on sand heap nearby and all the four alleged miscreants committed rape upon her. This fiendish sexual act went on throughout the night by the four miscreants up to 3 or 4 A. M. in the morning. After she was left alone, by those miscreants after satisfying their lust, the prosecutrix Chitralekha dressed herself and fled away from the isolated spot. While she was returning towards the police station, two of the rapers followed her. It is then that she saw some persons warming themselves before a fire. She went to them and prayed them to save her from these sex-friends. At that very time, some Homeguard personnel were passing by the way and they took her along with them to the Police Station. One of the miscreants, who was following the prosecutrix Chitralekha was caught hold by these Homeguard personnel and taken to Police Station. In Police Station, prosecutrix Chitralekha lodged first information report (Ex. At that very time, some Homeguard personnel were passing by the way and they took her along with them to the Police Station. One of the miscreants, who was following the prosecutrix Chitralekha was caught hold by these Homeguard personnel and taken to Police Station. In Police Station, prosecutrix Chitralekha lodged first information report (Ex. P-9) and she was sent away for medical examination, after her clothes were seized. The investigation proceeded and during the course of the investigation, the Police also seized her broken bangles from the place of the incident. After the arrest of the miscreants, they were put up for test identification parade on 18-3-1986. In this parade, she identified three appellants except Sunil. This identification parade was Conducted by Abhey Mishra, Naib Tahsildar and the memorandum of identification parade is Ex. P-10. The accused were also, after their arrest, medically examined and according to the medical report, they were found physically fit to perform sexual intercourse. After the completion of examination, the appellants in both the appeals were put up for trial in the Court of Session for having committed an offence punishable Under Sections 376, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. These appellants who took the trial, are Sunil, Surjit Singh, Gyanprakash and Abdul Dilshad. They were charged with and the trial proceeded, ultimately. They were found guilty and were convicted Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. It is the legality and propriety of this conviction and sentence that the appellants are challenging in these appeals. ( 4. ) FIRST information report (Ex. P-9) was recorded at 5. 05 A. M. , of 13-3-1986, while the prosecutrix Chitralekha was subjected to gang rape throughout the whole night of 12-3-1986. The prosecution during the trial examined Dr. M. L. Meshram (P. W. 1), prosecutrix Chitralekha (P. W. 2), Suresh Kumar (P. W. 3), Dr. (Smt.) K. P. Krishchan (P. W. 4), Bishnu Singh (P. W. 5), J. N. Tripathi (P. W. 6), Abhey Mishra (P. W. 7), Deep Singh Dhane (P. W. 8) and Bansant Kumar (P. W. 9 ). Dr. M. L. Meshram (P. W. I ). has proved the seizure of the underwear from the appellants and their capability of performing the act of sexual intercourse. Dr. M. L. Meshram (P. W. I ). has proved the seizure of the underwear from the appellants and their capability of performing the act of sexual intercourse. Prosecutrix Chitralekha (P. W. 2) has narrated the incident in a vivid manner and contended that throughout the whole night she was subjected by these four miscreants to brutal rape. She has further proved the fact that three of the accused had caught hold of her hand and gagged her mouth while she was being raped repeatedly one after another. The appellants also, threatened her to kill, if she raised any voice. She further contends in her deposition that at the time of long period of rape, she had seen the faces of all the miscreants. She also gave out the names of three accused Sunil, Gyanpakash and Surjeet Singh in the F. I. R. but not of appellant Abdul Dilshad because Abdul Dilshad was caught by the Homeguard personnel, when they were taking the prosecutrix to Police Station. She had a positive identification of all the appellants during the trial in the Court. She further proves the identification memo Ex. P-10, seizure memos Exs. P-11, P-12 and P-13. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing material could be brought out in her cross-examination which may indicate the non-complicity and innocence of the appellants in the crime. Suresh (P. W. 3) was examined by the prosecution but he turned hostile and was contradicted by his police case diary statement. Dr. (Smt.) K. P. Krishchan (P. W. 4-) proves the fact that she had physically examined the prosecutrix after she was brought to the hospital by the Police, Mohan Nagar, Durg. She has stated that prosecutrix was pregnant and had already given birth to one child. But, on physical examination, she found no injury either in the vaginal or any other parts of the body. Other witnesses were immaterial. Abhey Mishra (P. W. 7) Naib-Tahsildar, conducted the identification parade in which the prosecutrix identified all the appellants except Sunil. The reason given by the prosecutrix is that at the time of identification parade though the faces on the line were uncovered but the rest of the body was covered by blanket, hence she has made a mistake at the time of identification parade. The Investigation Officer has proved the facts of different stages of the investigation and seizures. ( 5. The Investigation Officer has proved the facts of different stages of the investigation and seizures. ( 5. ) THE main contention of Shri Mohan Tamasker the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Usmani, are that absence of the injuries on any part of the body of the prosecutrix indicates that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the act of rape. They further contended that as name of the appellant Abdul Dilshad is not mentioned in the first information report, the appellant Dilshad is not guilty. They also contended that the prosecution failed to produce those Homeguard personnel during the trial; It was also contended that as the appellant Sunil was not identified in the identification parade he should be acquitted. It was also contended that if the incident of rape is true, why the mother of the prosecutrix did not lodge any report in the Police Station that her daughter had not returned home that night. ( 6. ) THE learned trial Judge evaluating the evidence on record has placed complete reliance upon the testimony of the proscutrix. The trial Court has reasoned that the first information report was lodged promptly and names of the accused were given in the first information report, while the other accused Abdul Dilshad was arrested when the prosecutrix was proceeding towards the Police Station. The trial Court was also of the opinion that the prompt report, her natural statements, circumstantial evidence and other facts disclosed that the prosecutrix is a truthful witness. I have gone through the entire evidence on record and also the impugned judgment of conviction. Several discrepancies were pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, but it is settled that overmuch importance should not be given to minor discrepancies. 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 prosecution. It has been held in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 , as under ; "corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. More so when the all important probabilities factor echoes, in favour of the version narrated by the prosecution. It has been held in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753 , as under ; "corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. 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. " It has also been observed that the evidence of the victim of sexual assault stands on par with the evidence of injured person. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of the victim of a sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Keeping in view these principles, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that the version of the prosecutrix has not been corroborated by any other evidence should be rejected. The next contention of the appellants is that 10 hours of rape by four persons must have caused some injuries and absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is an indication that the appellants are not guilty. This argument need not detain me much because it has been answered in Balwant Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1081, it would be relevant to quote from the judgment as under : "it cannot be said that whenever resistance is offered there must be some injury on the body of the victim. The accused were four in number and the prosecutrix was a girl of 19/20 years of age. She was not expected to offer such resistance as would cause injuries to her body. It was not the case that there was no injury at all. In fact the prosecutrix, as per the medical report, had red abrasions on her right breast. The accused were four in number and the prosecutrix was a girl of 19/20 years of age. She was not expected to offer such resistance as would cause injuries to her body. It was not the case that there was no injury at all. In fact the prosecutrix, as per the medical report, had red abrasions on her right breast. The absence of any injury on the back of the prosecutrix or any part of her body does not falsify the case of rape by the appellants on her. " ( 7. ) WE may now examine the other circumstances which according to the learned counsel for the appellants indicate consent of the prosecutrix viz. absence of injury on her person and her immediate conduct in reporting the incident in the Police Station. If a girl has to be overpowered in the manner described by the prosecutrix then it would completely negative her being a consenting party. No woman consenting to be a party to sexual intercourse would like her hands to be held by any person during intercourse. In this context, absence of injury or the conflict between her evidence and the medical evidence become immaterial, when the prosecutrix was overpowered by the appellants by holding her hands during the sexual intercourse. It would neither indicate the consent off the prosecutrix nor it would negative completely her being a consenting party. It would not be out of place to observe that if prosecutrix was a consenting party then she would like to take the appellants one by one willingly but in the absence of others. The absence of injuries either on the persons of prosecutrix or on the accused is not by itself sufficient to hold that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The fact that there were no injuries on the person of the appellants did not necessarily mean that either the story of the prosecutrix regarding the incident was unreliable or that she was a consenting party. It has to be remembered that the prosecutrix was a married woman and she had already given birth to a child and was pregnant at the time of alleged rape. It has to be remembered that the prosecutrix was a married woman and she had already given birth to a child and was pregnant at the time of alleged rape. When the accused takes the plea of consent of the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse and states that it was with her consent then the burden shall shift upon the accused and he is required to prove by preponderance of probability that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her voluntary consent. Submissions to forced-terror, by the prosecutrix, in gang rape can never amount to consent. The situation has to be visualised. The prosecutrix was gagged, strongly held, was given threat of dire consequences, while she was constantly being gang raped for 10 hours. In such a situation whatever resistance she had offered shall disappear at the face of threat to her personal safety. Self preservance is the first instinct that shall surmount attack on modesty, supposed submission can never become a consent in a gang rape. ( 8. ) THOUGH in subdued voice, but strongly, it has been contended that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix in the case should not be accepted and it deserves outright rejection. The appellants had no enmity with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was not known to the appellants. She was a stranger. She immediately in the morning pointed out the appellant Abdul Dilshad. She immediately lodged the first information report and mentioned the names of rest of the appellants. She made a positive identification during the trial. It is the identification during the trial which is substantive evidence. The test identification parade is only a corroborative evidence. If the prosecutrix Chitralekha gives the name of Sunil in the F. I. R. , identified him during the trial, but fails to identify in the test identification, this fact alone shall not impair the truthful testimony as mentioned hereinabove. She was not known to the appellants and she had known the names only during the 10 hours gang rape. It is not unnatural that she failed to identify Sunil during identification parade after horrible experience of 10 hours of gang rape. Suffice it to say, that I express my general agreement with the view of the trial Judge who has convicted the appellants. ( 9. ) IN the end, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the sentences imposed are very harsh. Suffice it to say, that I express my general agreement with the view of the trial Judge who has convicted the appellants. ( 9. ) IN the end, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the sentences imposed are very harsh. Very few percentage of rape comes to light and very few of them comes for the trial and very few of them result in conviction, the reason being the traditional non-permissive society of India, its culture, where women are extremely reluctant to admit it which may reflect upon their chastity. It is well known that the womans chastity once plundered makes the woman a rudderlesship in the society, she shall be ostracized by the society, she will be looked down upon amongst the family, relatives, friends and neighbours. Now after being gang-raped, the prosecutrix stands no chance of being reimpressed by her wayward husband. The appellants are not only lusty brutes but had no consideration for the chastity of the prosecutrix by their lustful acts. The appellants spoiled the future life of this young woman. To show any leniency in such rape cases would amount to compromising injustice which I refuse to do. The prayer for reduction of sentence is also rejected. But, this Court cannot forget the fact that the appellants are teenaged boys who were led away by the lure of lust. It is also their first offence and if they are gaoled for 10 years then their role of future life is likely to be affected. Consequently, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment each is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. With this modification in sentence, the appeals are dismissed. ( 10. ) CONSEQUENTLY, both the appeals of the appellants partly succeed. The convitions imposed by the Sessions Judge by impugned Judgment are maintained but the sentence of 10 years R. I. is reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment each.