S. K. CHAWLA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Criminal Appeals Nos. 409 of 1987 and 1034 of 1987. Five accused, who were Sikhs, were tried for offences of abducting an aboriginal woman by name Kuntibai (PW-2) and committing gang rape on her u/ Ss. 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon convicted two of them and acquitted the remaining three. Cri. Appeal No. 1034 of 87 is a State appeal against the acquittal of those three accused persons. Accused Banti alias Balvinder Singh was convicted of the offence of gang rape u/ S. 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 10 years. The present appeal challenges the said conviction and sentence. Another accused named Jagtar Singh was convicted u/ss. 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R. I. for 3 years and 10 years respectively, both the sentences directed to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 87 is an appeal by Jagtar Singh. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story briefly stated was that on 20-8-1984 a married Gond woman by name Kuntibai (P. W. 2), aged 25 years, was bringing rice from Chhui Khadan and returning on foot to her village Nathela at about 4 p. m. When she was near a culvert of village Shyampur, a jeep overtook her. The jeep was being driven by accused Jagtar Singh. Three more Sikhs were seated in the jeep. Accused Jagtar Singh was a contractor in the village in which Kuntibai lived i. e. in village Nathela. He offered to give lift to Kuntibai. Kuntibai declined the offer. It was further the prosecution case that two of the Sardars seated in the jeep then forcibly dragged Kuntibai into the jeep. Kuntibai whisked away to Chhindari camp, being the work site of accused Jagtar Singh. She was forcibly made to consume liquor at the camp. A fifth Sikh by name Banti (appellant in the present appeal) joined the other Sikhs in the camp. All the five Sikhs then forcibly ravished Kuntibai one by one on that night. On the following morning Kuntibai managed to slip away and came to her own house in the same village. She made a report (Ex. A fifth Sikh by name Banti (appellant in the present appeal) joined the other Sikhs in the camp. All the five Sikhs then forcibly ravished Kuntibai one by one on that night. On the following morning Kuntibai managed to slip away and came to her own house in the same village. She made a report (Ex. P-2) of the incident after 5 days i. e. on 25-8-1985 at 12. 30 p. m. The said report expressly named Jagtar Singh and Banti as two of the five ravishers. With respect to the remaining three persons, it was stated in the report that Kuntibai would be able to identify them. Accused Jarmej Singh, Jasbir Singh and Inderjit Singh were arrested on 19-9-1985, 24-9-85 and 19-11- 1985 respectively. All the three were identified by Kuntibai in three different test parades held in Rajnandgaon jail or Rajnandgaon tahsil office. ( 3 ) THE defence of the accused persons was that they had been framed in a false case cooked up by Kuntibai (PW-2 ). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon after trial, convicted two of those five accused persons who were named in the FIR but acquitted the remaining three, in the manner already indicated. ( 4 ) THE main question for decision in these appeals is whether the testimony of prosecutrix Kuntibai (PW-2) a married woman aged about 25 years, on which the prosecution story almost rested, and which testimony was accepted by the trial Court, was worthy of credence in her evidence before the Court, Kuntibai (PW-2) described the entire prosecution story and particularly also how she was forcibly abducted in a jeep and taken to Chhindari camp, which was the work site of accused Jagtar Singh, who is a contractor. She also deposed that at the work site she was forcibly made to consume liquor and after stripping her naked, each one of the five accused persons had carnal knowledge of her on the night in question without her consent. She had managed to slip away from the camp on the following morning when all the five persons were lying asleep on the floor of a room in the camp. ( 5 ) IT was argued by Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for one of the accused, that Kuntibai was, what he called, a much married woman. She had managed to slip away from the camp on the following morning when all the five persons were lying asleep on the floor of a room in the camp. ( 5 ) IT was argued by Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for one of the accused, that Kuntibai was, what he called, a much married woman. It was pointed out from her evidence that her first husband was one Gond, whom she had married seven years prior to her evidence. She had deserted that husband a year or two before her evidence. She had then taken up one Dabasu as her second husband. Dubasu was Sahu by caste i. e. different from Gond caste to which the prosecutrix belonged. Kuntibai went back on her own report, Ex. P-2, in which she had described Dubasu as her husband. She denied in Court that Dubasu was her husband. She tried to explain that she had merely lived with him in the same room and had worked as his cook and maid servant. It was emphasised that here was a woman who had no scruples in denying even her husband as her husband. There was further admission in the evidence of Kuntibai that she had taken a third husband by name Bharat. It was argued that all this showed that Kuntibai was a woman of easy virtue. ( 6 ) IT may be stated here that this is a case of gang rape. A woman, howsoever dissolute she may be, would not ordinarily consent to insulting, humiliating and repulsive act of sexual intercourse on her by a number of persons, as if she were a chattel for public use. The law recognises that a woman even of easy virtue, or even a whore for that matter, has personal dignity and honour. She cannot be violated, if only because of her lowly profession. A presumption has been enacted in S. 114-A of the Evidence Act which says that in a case inter alia of gang rape, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent. Hence the legal position is that if the fact of sexual intercourse by the accused is proved, the evidence of the woman in a case of gang rape that she did not consent to sexual intercourse would have to be believed and it will not help the defence merely to show that the woman was of easy virtue. It is true that the presumption about want of consent is not conclusive. Evidence may still be given to disprove it. But in the absence of any evidence of disproof, there is no option with the Court but to raise a presumption about non-consent if circumstances for raising the presumption u/ S. 114-A exist. It must however be conceded that immoral character would still not be an absolutely irrelevant circumstance. It may render the story itself as incredible. It may take away probative force of the story, told as it is by a woman with no scruples or morals. It may be difficult to believe a woman of immoral character if she says that some persons had sexual intercourse with her unless there existed satisfactory proof in support of the story of sexual intercourse. ( 7 ) THE prosecutrix was medically examined by lady doctor Mrs. Kelkar (PW-1) on 25-8-1985. The doctor found no injuries on any parts of her body including to her private parts; vide report Ex. P-1a. Even this may be understandable if the woman had helplessly resigned herself to acts of sexual intercourse not accompanied by brute force on the part by different persons. ( 8 ) THE weakest part in the version given out by the prosecutrix was her subsequent conduct and also the circumstance that she made the report of alleged incident five days afterwards, perhaps only when she felt compelled to do so. Left to herself, she might not have even made the report (Ex. P. 2 ). It was admitted by Kuntibal (PW- that when she reached back her house on the following morning after the alleged incident, she was asked by her neighbours Basant (PW-13), Yeshwant, Raghu, Krishna, Bhagwati and Thakur as to where she had been during the previous night. She had on her own admission first concealed the alleged incident from them. It was admitted by Kuntibal (PW- that when she reached back her house on the following morning after the alleged incident, she was asked by her neighbours Basant (PW-13), Yeshwant, Raghu, Krishna, Bhagwati and Thakur as to where she had been during the previous night. She had on her own admission first concealed the alleged incident from them. When she was assured that they would do no harm to her that she gave out to them that Jagtar Singh had taken her to his camp and five Sardars had committed sinful act ( Hindi Matter) with her. But it is doubtful if Kuntibai had at all even made that complaint. Only Basant (PW- 13) was examined but he did not support the version of the prosecutrix. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. It is understandable if witness turns hostile and does not support the prosecution. But there was also other evidence in the case contra-indicating the version of the prosecutrix that she had made any kind of complaint. Thus, the report (Ex. D-5) made by Basant (PW-13) at the police-station on 24-8-1985 i. e. one day prior to the report made by the prosecutrix, was proved on behalf of the defence. That report by Basant (PW-13) was that eight named Sardars whose full addresses were also given had celebrated a party at Chhindari camp to celebrate the assassination of Sant Longowal in which a woman labourer by name Kuntibai was also brought to the camp. The report further was that there was remour among the people of the village that some immoral act was committed with Kunti. This report contained intrinsic indication to show that prosecutrix Kuntibai had not made any kind of complaint to Basant. If Kuntibai had made any complaint to Basant, the latter would not have disclosed in his report that he had learnt about the incident from rumour among the people of the village. Again, whereas the evidence of Kuntibai (PW-2) was that she had allegedly informed only the fact that five Sardars had committed sinful act with her, without disclosing their names, much less their addresses, the information contained in Ex. D-5 was that as many as eight Sardars were involved and further their full names and addresses were disclosed. The source of information could not therefore be Kuntibai. D-5 was that as many as eight Sardars were involved and further their full names and addresses were disclosed. The source of information could not therefore be Kuntibai. By the way, it is also not known why the police did not prosecute three more Sardars. It is further evident that after the report, Ex. D-5, the police took action by calling Basant and accused Banti alias Balvinder Singh at the police station. Both were questioned and since the atmosphere in the village had got inflamed, the police arrested accused Banti. It would thus appear that it was only when the matter, true or false, surfaced that on the following day the prosecutrix made the report in question i. e. Ex. P-2. It is not unlikely that she was compelled to make the report. Perhaps the report might have not been made at all if the matter had not surfaced. ( 9 ) THERE is reason to think that Kuntibai (PW-2) gave a false explanation when she stated in her evidence that she fell ill continuously for six days, soon after the alleged incident and hence she could not make the report immediately. This explanation is not to be found in the report itself (Ex. P-2 ). On the other hand, what is stated in the report is that she was making the report because people of the village had assured her that there was nothing to fear from the Sardars and hence she was making the report in the presence of Basant (PW-13) and Yashwant. Kuntibai admitted that she worked at the material time with a contractor belonging to village Lanji. An employee of that contractor names Bisadu (DW-2) was examined with an Attendence Register. He deposed with reference to the Attendence Register that Kuntibai had worked with the contractor on 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd of August 1985 i. e. on the day of the alleged occurrence and also for 3 days continuously thereafter. Therefore, it is extremely doubtful if the story of the alleged illness put up by Kuntibai was at all true. He deposed with reference to the Attendence Register that Kuntibai had worked with the contractor on 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd of August 1985 i. e. on the day of the alleged occurrence and also for 3 days continuously thereafter. Therefore, it is extremely doubtful if the story of the alleged illness put up by Kuntibai was at all true. ( 10 ) IN conclusion, having regard to the conduct of the prosecutrix in not making any kind of complaint about the alleged incident to any body for five days coupled with late recording of report by her after five days with false explanation for the delay, in the context also of the lax morals of the prosecutrix, it is very unsafe to pin faith on her mere word that sexual intercourse was committed with her by five accused persons or any of them. It is also difficult to believe her version regarding her alleged abduction in the jeep. In the circumstances, it must be held that the prosecution story was not satisfactorily established. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the present appeal and the connected appeal No. 409 of 1987 are allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant Banti alias Balvinder Singh u/s. 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. So also the convictions and sentences of appellant Jagtar Singh u/ss. 366 and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. Both these appellants are acquitted of the said offences. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The State appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 1987, is dismissed. Order accordingly. .