RAM PAL SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants aggrieved by their conviction in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 1985 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad vide judgment dated 1-5-1986, have preferred this appeal. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 10 years R. I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine, both have been directed to undergo R. I. for six months. ( 2 ) RADHABAI is a resident of Pandri Naka, Raipur. She was married to one Motiram. On 156-1985, she had come to Itarsi from Nagpur. She arrived at Itarsi Railway Station at 4 P. M. and there she was met by these appellants who had taken her in a rickshaw. After wandering in the city with the prosecutrix, these appellants are alleged to have taken her to a lonely place where they committed gang-rape upon her. Radhabai (P. W. 4) in the police station, Itarsi lodged a report Ex. P.-8. According to this document Ex. P.-8, she was taken in ricksha and at 12 P. M. in the night both the appellants, whose names have been given in the first information report as Vinod and Shankar, are alleged to have shown a knife and under the threat thereof, both are alleged to have committed gang rape. In Kabristan, which was a lonely spot, these appellants asked her to disrobe and when she became naked, both the appellants then committed rape with the prosecutrix. Shankar is alleged to have raped her again. After abandoning her alone, the appellants escaped and the prosecutrix Radhabai disclosed the incident to one Kallu Musalman. But by that time, two police constable happened to pass by that way and she was taken to police station where she lodged a report at 12. 30 A. M. on 16-61985. This report was lodged promptly only after 2. 5 hours after the commission of crime. During the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Mrs. Vimla Tikariya (P. W. 1) who opined that the prosecutrix is habituated of sexual intercourse. Dr. M. L. Batra (P. W. 2) examined the appellants and found that they were capable of performing sexual intercourse. Rajesh Kumar (P. W. 3) was declared to be hostile. 5 hours after the commission of crime. During the trial, the prosecution examined Dr. Mrs. Vimla Tikariya (P. W. 1) who opined that the prosecutrix is habituated of sexual intercourse. Dr. M. L. Batra (P. W. 2) examined the appellants and found that they were capable of performing sexual intercourse. Rajesh Kumar (P. W. 3) was declared to be hostile. Prosecutrix Radha Bai (P. W. 4) described the incident before the trial Judge and named these two appellants to be the rapers who had committed gang-rape in the night of 15/6/1985. Both the appellants have been identified by the prosecutrix during the trial. Previous to this, an identification parade was conducted by Tahsildar on 18-6-1985 in which Radha Bai had positively identified the appellants, but this identification parade was not proved during the trial as the Tahsildar conducting the identification parade was not examined by the prosecution. Mela Singh (P. W. 7), a hotel owner at Itarsi, who had identified the appellant Vinod as the person taking the girl in the rickshaw around the city. Mahavir (P. W. 8) another rickshaw puller, was declared hostile. J. N. Singh Chouhan (P. W. 9) Investigating Officer has proved different stages of the investigation. Appellants while questioning under Section 313, Cr. Pro. Code have disclosed that they had no knowledge with regard to the incident. The learned trial Judge has placed explicit reliance upon the testimony of Radhabai, Prosecutrix and has this convicted the appellants as indicated above. ( 3 ) SHRI D. C. Jam, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended at the bar that the material witness Kallu Musalman and the Tahsildar have not been examined by the prosecution during the trial, that there is no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix present in the record; that Dr. Vimla Tikariya (P. W. 1) has not found any element in physical examination of the prosecutrix which may indicate that she was subjected to sexual intercourse and that no injuries were found upon the person of the prosecutrix etc. Shri B. P. Singh, Govt. Advocate, for the State, controverted these arguments and contended that all these evidence were not necessary and that no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix was necessary under any law. Keeping in view the contentions of Shri Jam, I shall deal with all the arguments addressed at the bar at seriatim. Shri B. P. Singh, Govt. Advocate, for the State, controverted these arguments and contended that all these evidence were not necessary and that no corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix was necessary under any law. Keeping in view the contentions of Shri Jam, I shall deal with all the arguments addressed at the bar at seriatim. If the testimony of the prosecutrix in a case of gang-rape is required to be corroborated; on principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with the evidence of an injured witness. 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 a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight. In a rape case, the eye-witness account can only be rendered by the prosecutrix and non else. It is a settled law that corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. Apex Court of the country in the case of Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat1, has settled the law in the following words; 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. ( 4 ) THE contention of Shri Jam that corroboration of the material particulars of the testimony of the prosecutrix was required under the law deserves out right rejection. Undoubtedly, the prosecutrix had stated in the F. I. R. as well as in the testimony that the disclosed. the incident to one Kallu Musalman whom she met after commission of the crime and according to her, she disclosed the facts of the crime to the said Kallu Musalman. Non-examination of Kallu Musalman does not go to the root of the matter as alleged earlier. the incident to one Kallu Musalman whom she met after commission of the crime and according to her, she disclosed the facts of the crime to the said Kallu Musalman. Non-examination of Kallu Musalman does not go to the root of the matter as alleged earlier. As in law corroboration of a victim to the sexual assault is not necessary, similarly, the non-examination of Kallu Musalman does not materially of fact the testimony of the prosecutrix. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that she has been raped and thus, she is required to take risk of permanent danger of her chastity throughout her life. Every woman is conscious of this danger and that is why women in this country are reluctant even to report the matter to the police. In such a situation, the testimony of the woman, who has been gang-raped, is required to be corroborated is an insult to the woman-hood of this country. Shri Jam could not point out as to why the prosecutrix would falsely implicate the appellants when they were unknown to her. These appellants finding the lonely and un-escorted woman decided at the spur of moment to enjoy her physically fearing no reappraisal from the Side of prosecution. It is a settled law that if the testimony of the prosecutrix has not suffered from any infirmity in the facts and circumstances of the case of even her evidence is not corroborated in material particulars, the rule of corroboration need not be insisted upon. The trial Judge has placed explicit reliance upon the testimony of the prosecutrix. Shri Jam took this Court through the entire evidence on record and I found no discrepancy in the material particulars which may go to the root of the matter. In the first information report, the prosecutrix has named both the appellants. Next day, she was taken to test identification parade and there shemade a positive identification of the appellants before Tahsildar-Magistrate. No doubt, Tahsildar Magistrate has not been examined during the trial, but this fact has been proved by the prosecutrix herself and this part of her statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. Further more, when the trial took place, she pointed out that under the threat of dire consequence, the appellants had committed the crime and plundered her chastity. No doubt, Tahsildar Magistrate has not been examined during the trial, but this fact has been proved by the prosecutrix herself and this part of her statement has not been challenged in cross-examination. Further more, when the trial took place, she pointed out that under the threat of dire consequence, the appellants had committed the crime and plundered her chastity. Shri Jam also vehemently argued that non-discovery of any injury upon private part or body of the prosecutrix is an indication that she was not raped. The fact of every rape differs from one another and no common standard of proof can safely be laid down. There may be a case where a woman who is subjected to rape may fight or resist. But there are also cases like this where a woman surrounded by more than one rapers finds no way to escape, but to reluctantly surrender herself. It is also to be remembered that one of the appellants was armed with a knife and the prosecutrix was threatened with dire consequences if she did not act according to their wishes. In such a situation the prosecutrix except to surrender, is not expected to fight with the assailants. Then in the end, Shri Jam contended that the appellants were shown to the prosecutrix after they were arrested and taken to the police station. He contended that no question was put to the Investigating Officer during the cross-examination about this fact who had arrested the appellants and who was present in the police station. Shri Jam drew my attention to para 20 of the cross examination of Radha Bai (P. W. 4 ). In this para, she stated that the accused were not present in the Police Station when she was present, there. She also admitted that when the appellants were brought to the Police Station, then she saw them. By this, Shri Jam infers that the appellants were shown to the prosecutrix before the identification parade was conducted. But her answer in para 20 does not indicate so. When the appellants were brought in the police station, the prosecutrix was sitting in the police station and she saw them coming towards that place. But it does not mean that the police made a trap for the appellants to be falsely identified by the prosecutrix. But her answer in para 20 does not indicate so. When the appellants were brought in the police station, the prosecutrix was sitting in the police station and she saw them coming towards that place. But it does not mean that the police made a trap for the appellants to be falsely identified by the prosecutrix. Shri Jam could not give any reply as to why only these two appellants were implicated and not others in such a crime. A victim of such crime would only describe the real culprits and would not falsely implicate the wrong persons if the crime is having committed. The learned Trial Judge has gone to the core of the testimony of the prosecutrix and after coming to the conclusion that she is the truthful witness has based the conviction of the appellants on that evidence. There appears to be no reason in disagreeing with the reasoning for conviction given out in the impugned judgment by the Trial Judge. Shri Jam lastly contended that the sentence awarded to the appellants is very severe. This crime was committed on 15-6-1985 after the amendments in Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code were incorporated. This provision deals with the gang-rape and its punishment for, which a sentence of imprisonment cannot be less than 10 years. The Legislature in its wisdom keeping in view has incorporated this amendment in law where unescorted women of this country are constantly subjected to sexual harassment. Hence the last contention of Shri Jam has to be rejected. ( 5 ) TO conclude, this appeal has no merits and it is dismissed. Both the appellants are said to be in jail. They shall complete their sentence as awarded. Appeal dismissed. .