Judgment :- Petitioner, accused 1 to 5 in S.C. No. 57 of 1983 on the file of the Assistant Session Court, Ottappalam stood trial for offences punishable under sections 342 and 376 read with S. 34, I.P.C. Crl.R.P. No. 360 of 1984 is by A-1, Crl.R.P. No. 358 of 1984 by A2, Crl.R.P. No. 362 of 1984 by A3 and A4, and Crl.R.P. 367 of 1984 by A5. First accused a taxi driver - is alleged to have forcibly taken PW 2 in his taxi at or about 2 a.m. on the night of 2-9-1982, to the Deluxe lodge, Pattambi where he and the others committed rape on her against her will, and without her consent. PW 2 a seventeen year old girl is a victim of Epilepsy and Somnambulism. On the fateful night she went out of her house in her sleep; and reached the Kodumunda railway gate around 2 a.m. The railway gate was closed and a train passed by, whisling, waking her up, bringing her to her senses. She says, she was mortally frightened and perturbed. Then A1 came, in his taxi that way and asked her if she would go with him. She told him that she was not that sort, and walked away. Upon this, he caught her by her hand and pulled her into the taxi, and drove to the Deluxe Lodge. Apparently A2, son of the proprietor of Deluxe Lodge (see PW 3), A5 nephew of the proprietor (see PW 15) and the other accused are his close friends. On reaching Deluxe Lodge A1 called A2. When A2 and other accused came down, first accused switched on the roof light of the car, and showed PW 2. A2 suggested that they would take her into the hotel. Evidence shows, that there is a narrow passage between Deluxe Lodge and the adjoining building, leading to a terraced roof, from which Deluxe Lodge could be reached, by crossing over. PW 2 was taken to the terrace, and carried across to the Deluxe Lodge to Room No. 3. All the accused made overtures to her, but A1 suggested that he will 'have her' first, and that the others could then take turns. PW 2 was undressed by the first accused, and thereafter he effected forcible penetration. After the act, he called the second accused in, and likewise all the five accused had sexual intercourse with her. All the accused made overtures to her, but A1 suggested that he will 'have her' first, and that the others could then take turns. PW 2 was undressed by the first accused, and thereafter he effected forcible penetration. After the act, he called the second accused in, and likewise all the five accused had sexual intercourse with her. She swooned in the meanwhile. In the morning, one of the accused sprinkled cold water on her face, and she came back to her senses. Then, A1 and A2 took her to the bathroom, bathed her and brought her back to the room. 2. By then, PW 1 paternal uncle of PW 2, learnt from PWs. 4 and 5 that she had been taken to the Deluxe Lodge. He with one Unniyankutty, reached the room and found her lying on a cot in state of fatigue. A1 who was in the room, made good his escape on seeing PW 1. They took PW 2 to the Government Hospital, where PW 6 the doctor examined PW 6 found that she was crying not responsive, and was disoriented. Ext.P8 intimation, was sent to the police and a case was registered. PW 6 the doctor noticed nervous symptoms, scratches and bruises on buttocks and lateral sides of the thighs, and a tear in the vaginal mucous membrane on the posterior wall. He also found epithelial and red blood cells in the vagina. She was treated in the hospital for a week, and discharged on 9-9-1982. PW 6 noticed that she was mentally abnormal, and showed wandering tendencies. 3. The case turns largely on the evidence of PW 2, to some extent corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 1, 4, 5 and 6. PW 1 saw PW 2, crying and fatigued - PWs. 4 and 5 saw her being carried to the Deluxe hotel, while they were returning after the second show cinema and were in search of some vehicle, going to their place. Injuries noted on PW 2, and her disoriented state noticed by PW 6 lend assurance to her version of sexual assault. 4. I have gone through the evidence of PW 2, warp and woof. Counsel submitted that the case falls or stands on the evidence of PW 2 and only that. Injuries noted on PW 2, and her disoriented state noticed by PW 6 lend assurance to her version of sexual assault. 4. I have gone through the evidence of PW 2, warp and woof. Counsel submitted that the case falls or stands on the evidence of PW 2 and only that. A faithful summary of the relevant portions of her evidence would be as under : "She was suffering from Epilepsy and Somnambulism. She woke up near the railway gate hearing the whistle of a train. Being Onam, she had worn her best clothes. The driver (A1) asked her to accompany him, but she walked away. He caught her hand and put her in the car. She did not like this, and asked him not to hold her hand. He said he would kill her, and she started weeping. When they reached the hotel, A1 called A2, switched on the roof light and showed her. She knew the driver. The accused looked at her, stating she was 'good stuff' and could be taken upstairs. She was taken to the terrace building and carried across to the hotel building which is to the east of the terrace building. All the accused started fondling her face and breast. A1 said he will do it first and asked others to go out. Lights were on. She was undressed and A1 also undressed, lay on her body and effected forcible penetration. She felt great pain. Afterwards A1 went to the bathroom and asked A2 to come in. Likewise all the accused took turns. By time the 3rd accused had intercourse with her, she swooned and gradually lost consciousness. The next thing she remembered was A1 sprinkling water on her face. A1 and A2 came with a 'Lux Soap' and bathed her, ............ Then PW 1 came and on seeing him her sorrow welled up and she wept and fainted. Then she gained consciousness in the hospital. She knows A2 who used to sit at the counter of the hotel. She had seen A3 - tailor - sitting on the varandha of a building and stitching. A4 is a local electrician whom she had seen wiring a house and rice mill. She knows A5 also. The happenings of that night were like happenings in sleep. That was the first time she had sexual experience. She had seen A3 - tailor - sitting on the varandha of a building and stitching. A4 is a local electrician whom she had seen wiring a house and rice mill. She knows A5 also. The happenings of that night were like happenings in sleep. That was the first time she had sexual experience. She saw two people standing near the board with letters "IN" near the bus stand. They did not come to save her. The front shutters of the hotel were down. She did not know what the accused wanted to do. When they made her sit on the bed, she knew and cried desperately, calling her mother. She did not know what exactly would be done, but knew that something unusual would be done. She did not resist. She cried saying "don't do anything to me". When A1 attempted penetration she realised what it was and wriggled. She felt like Epilepsy coming .......... felt a searing pain ......... something taut giving in inside her body and cried more loudly. When A2 to A5 did what they wanted, she did not wriggle or resist and lay passively ..... She felt nothing." PW 2 was subjected to an agonising cross-examination. The examination lasted two days and the deposition runs into 80 pages. Court below saw her, watched her demeanour, saw her as a simple human being, recounting her so did experience faithfully. The Court which saw her and heard her, believed her. So did the appellate Court. This Court in revision will not reappreciate evidence. But, I have no hesitation to warmly endorse the findings of the Courts below. 5. The cross-examination has brought out the picture of a young unsophisticated village girl artlessly and honestly answering questions, with an unmistakable ring of truth. There are no frills or embroidery in her answers, and she was answering questions which were unexpected and for which she was not prepared. Her answers to questions of her school girl days, her little sorrows and the experience of that night suggest the truth of her case. The long, cross-examination by counsel for the second accused has been morbid. I regret, I have had to comment on the cross-examination. Counsel is entitled to cross-examine, with a view to test the evidence that may be used against his client. It is the fire of cross-examination that tests the quality of evidence. The long, cross-examination by counsel for the second accused has been morbid. I regret, I have had to comment on the cross-examination. Counsel is entitled to cross-examine, with a view to test the evidence that may be used against his client. It is the fire of cross-examination that tests the quality of evidence. But a witness is entitled to dignity and the mark of civilisation of our system is reflected in the way the witness is treated. I can see no reason why PW-2 was asked as to which organ is used to copulate, how she felt when A1 inserted his organ into her parts, whether she felt the warmth of seminal discharge of all the five accused and such like. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve her evidence, which the two Courts below had acted upon. Due weight should also be given to the assessment made by trial Court (State of U.P. v. Dharam Chand Jain), (1987) 2 SCC 641. On her uncorroborated testimony a Court would be justified in finding petitioners guilty. There is corroboration, from witnesses and intrinsic circumstances. One such circumstance is the recovery of a cake of lux soap from the bathroom containing a long strand of female hair. She says, accused 1 and 2 came with a Lux soap and bathed her. The medical evidence also lends corroboration. The tear in the posterior wall of the vagina, presence of red blood cells in the vagina, and scratches and bruises on buttocks and lateral sides of the thighs, corroborate her case of sexual assault. Again, PWs. 4 and 5, the hostile witnesses had spoken to her being taken out of the car. Evidence of PW 1 about the condition in which she was seen and the evidence of the doctor regarding nervous symptoms, fatigue and disoriented state of mind lend corroboration to the evidence of PW 2. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners suggested possibility of consent. I do not think it reasonable to assume that a 17 year old village girl of her background would have consented to group sex with five men. The state of shock in which she was found also negatives the possibility of consent. Then it was argued that local Marxists set up PW 2 to foist a case. I do not think it reasonable to assume that a 17 year old village girl of her background would have consented to group sex with five men. The state of shock in which she was found also negatives the possibility of consent. Then it was argued that local Marxists set up PW 2 to foist a case. This cannot be believed because, it is hazardous in the extreme to think that a girl and her parents of a conventional background, would go to the extent of foisting such a charge, unmindful of and indifferent to the consequences. Besides, a complete version of the case was available very soon after the occurrence, leaving little time for embellishment. It is then contended that identity of the accused are not established. PW 2, says that she knew A2 - son of hotel proprietor, A1 the taxi driver, A3 the local tailor, A4 the electrician and A5 a relative of the Delux Hotel proprietor. She used to visit Pattambi town and these are persons who were very much there. It was then contended that taking a girl so brazenly is improbable and somebody or other would have intervened. At 2 a.m. in a small town many people are not likely to be present and a stray spectator or two, may not offer resistance to a group of five young and able bodied men who in will probability enjoyed prominence in the area. The non-examination of the girl's parents was commented upon, and it was said that Somnambulism could not be proved, except through them. PW 2 has spoken about the Somnambulism and Epilepsy. The evidence of PW 6 shows that PW 2 was mentally abnormal, even apart from the disorientation which may be result of her macabre experience. Then it is argued that if five persons had committed rape there would be far more serious injuries on her private parts. There was no hard and fast rules in this regard. PW 6 himself says that different considerations would determine this. The girl who was shocked did not offer much resistance and there were some injuries. Then counsel would say that the Courts below viewed the case with extreme sympathy for the girl and that this was responsible for the conviction. I am not persuaded to think, that the conviction was an epilogue to ravished innocence or, an ode to girlhood defiled. Then counsel would say that the Courts below viewed the case with extreme sympathy for the girl and that this was responsible for the conviction. I am not persuaded to think, that the conviction was an epilogue to ravished innocence or, an ode to girlhood defiled. Fanciful contentions cannot take place of plausible plea. Nor does a criminal trial justify a fairy tale approach. The Courts below were justified in finding the petitioners guilty. Conviction is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 7. Then remains the question of sentence. Notice was issued to petitioners to show cause why the sentence imposed on them should not be enhanced. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners took notice and I have heard them. Counsel submitted, fairly I think, that if the offence is proved - then the sentence imposed is not excessive. But, counsel would say, that enhancement is not called for, as the Court below has exercised its discretion in this regard. 8. The offences proved, is a heinous one and petitioners have displayed moral depravity of uncommon dimensions. P.W. 2 was hounded and brought to the lodge. It may not be wrong to hazard a guess, that this was not a coincidence (except for P.W. 2.), and the meeting of the proprietor's son and his close friends in the lodge, at late night was also not a chance meeting. However, I shall not be influenced by guesses in a criminal case. Fact remains, that P.W. 2 was treated like cold meat, or worse - as a sub-human object. An offence of this nature must receive a deterrent sentence. Any rational system of sentencing involves 'a correspondence between the nature of the offence committed, and the nature of sentence imposed'. The Supreme Court in recent past, has time and time again stressed the need for adequate sentences, lest it may invite contempt for law (see Mahesh v. State of M.P., AIR 1987 SC 1346 : (1987 Cri LJ 1073) and Asharfilal v. State, AIR 1987 SC 1721 : (1987 Cri LJ 1885). Rape is an offence involving extreme moral turpitude, at once displaying callous disregard for dignity of the human being. "Rape involves a severe degree of emotional and psychological trauma. It is an offence which in effect obliterates the personality of the victim and particularly unpleasant .... Rape is an offence involving extreme moral turpitude, at once displaying callous disregard for dignity of the human being. "Rape involves a severe degree of emotional and psychological trauma. It is an offence which in effect obliterates the personality of the victim and particularly unpleasant .... as it involves such intimate proximity between offender and the victim" (1986 (1) All ER 985 Lane Lord Chief Justice). I do not propose to enhance the prison sentence, for I think enhancement should be by way of fine. The concept of rehabilitation is recognised in the sentencing area. This is not confined to accused, but to victims of crimes too, as it should be. Section 357 of the Code, is recognition of this principle. Criminal justice system is not designed solely to protect the interest of the criminal defendant. The victim in this case has to be compensated. There can be no compensation for what she has suffered or lost. The intangibles are incommensurable and cannot be translated into monetary terms. 'All that Judges can do is to award reasonable sums which must be regarded as reasonable compensation' - Every v. Miles, (1964) AC 261 Diplock L.J. P.W. 2 was subjected to a gruesome experience and rehabilitation will be a hard process. It will not be very easy to erase the traumatic experience. Her prospect of marriage and settling down to a serene family life, to which a young girl of her social background would have looked to, is remote. Court must compensate her for her deprivation, as nearly as possible. This is the philosophy of the justicing system and Courts should enforce the conscience of law, as seen in S. 357, Cr.P.C. A fine, which the accused would be capable of paying must be imposed. In addition to the sentenced imposed by the Courts below, A1, A3, A4 and A5 are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, and A2 is sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000/-. In default, such accused shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 1/2 years. Conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below, are confirmed and the revision petitions are dismissed. Revision dismissed.