JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. —This appeal is at the instance of accused Amar Dev, Arun Kumar and Nobhi Ram against the judgment dated 30-9-1988 whereby they were convicted of an offence under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000 each. In default of payment of fine, each one of the accused was to suffer simple imprisonment for nine months. It was also ordered that out of the total fine, if realized, an amount of Rs. 5,000 would be paid to the prosecutrix. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26-10-1986 at 7.05 p.m. Kumari Meena Devi, prosecutrix, lodged F. I. R. Ex. D-A, in Police Station, Keylong. Her allegations were that she, alongwith her brother, Bir Singh (PW 2) and co-villagers, S/Sh Dola Ram and Ram Singh (PW 3 and PW 8), was working as labourer in H. P. P. W. D. Rest House at Kriting. All of them had gone there for earning their livelihood from their native village Dhar Tehsil Bali Chauki, District Mandi. On 26-10-1986 all of them reached the Rest House at 7.00 a, m. and started working. At that time accused Arun Kumar, who was Junior Engineer and Incharge of the work of the Rest House, accused Nobhi Ram, Chaukidar of the Rest House and accused Amar Dev, another Junior Engineer of H. P. P. W. D., were present in the Rest House and were taking liquor in its kitchen. After some time, accused Nobhi Ram came to the prosecutrix, Kumari Meena Devi (PW I), and asked her to go to the kitchen of the Rest House and cook meals for them to which she refused. But when she was threatened that her half days wages would be deducted, she agreed to cook meals for them and went into the kitchen. Thereafter, the other labourers, Bir Singh (PW 2) brother of the prosecutrix, and Dole Ram and Ram Singh, were sent by the accused Arun Kumar to unload C G I. pipes from a truck at a distance of about 3 kilometres. While Kumari Meena Devi was cooking meals in the kitchen, accused Amar Dev caught hold of her and forcibly poured liquor in her throat. Thereafter, all the accused started kissing her and fondling her breats. While Kumari Meena Devi was cooking meals in the kitchen, accused Amar Dev caught hold of her and forcibly poured liquor in her throat. Thereafter, all the accused started kissing her and fondling her breats. After some time, Amar Dev forcibly carried her to one of the rooms of the Rest House and indulged in sexual intercourse with her against her will and consent. Other accused, Arun Kumar and Nobhi Ram also committed rape on her without her consent. At this she became unconscious. When after some time she regained consciousness, she found herself bleeding from her vagina due to which her wearing apparel were partly soiled with blood. The room in which she was lying, was locked from outside, therefore, she started weeping and ultimately found her way out from the window of an adjoining laterine. By this time, her brother Bir Singh, Dola Ram and Ram Singh had come back and on their asking, Kumari Meena Devi narrated the whole incident to them. They took Kumari Meena Devi prosecutrix to Police Post Jahlama wherefrom they were sent to Police Station, Keylong, to lodge the F. I. R. Next day, on 27-10-1986 at 11.00 a, in., the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Jaswant Singh (PW 6) who issued medico-legal certificate, Ex. PW 6/B. All the three accused were also put to medical examination by the same Doctor and medico-legal certificates, Ex. PW 6/C to Ex. PW 6/E, were given by him. Thereafter, investigation was completed, challan was put up and trial was held which resulted into the above stated judgment dated 30-9-1988. 3. 1 have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Sh. T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel for S/Sh. Amar Dev, Arun Kumar and Nobhi Ram, has tried to pick holes in the prosecution not to see that his clients come out of it. The first point raised by the learned Counsel is that it Is impossible to believe that the prosecutrix, Kumari Meena Devi, who was rustic village girl, more than 18 years of age and employed as labourer, could be forced to drink liquor by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, it is probable that after taking drinks voluntarily, the prosecutrix, Kumari Meena Devi became oblivious of the consequences and had voluntarily indulged in sexual intercourse but later on complained to save her face. According to him, it is probable that after taking drinks voluntarily, the prosecutrix, Kumari Meena Devi became oblivious of the consequences and had voluntarily indulged in sexual intercourse but later on complained to save her face. Without disputing the age of the girl at the time of the complained of incident, the argument of Sh. T. R. Chandel, is liable to be rejected as it is based on conjectures only. As there is no evidence on record to even suggest that she was used to taking drinks or indulging in sexual intercourse, it is not probable that on the day of occurrence she was a willing party to both the vices. On the other hand, it has come on record that though poverty had forced her at her .tender age to go to Keylong. at a distance of 200 Kilometres from her village Dhar, Tehsil Bali Chauki, District Mandi, to work as daily wage labourer, yet, she was working and living in the discipline other brother and other co-villagers. Both Bir Singh (PW 2), her brother, and Dole Ram (PW 3) have corroborated her statement that she was reluctant to go to the kitchen of the Rest house to cook meals for the accused. She was forced to do so under the threat of deducting her half days wages. 4. The next argument of Sh. T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel for S/Sh. Amar Dev and others, is that if the statement of prosecutrix Kumari Meena Devi that she became unconscious after sexual act was committed by one of the accused is correct, she could not state what happened thereafter and implicate all the three accused. Charge against each of the accused is of overt act and not of common intention. Therefore, none of the accused could be held guilty because in the F. I R Ex. DA, she had named Nobhi Ram accused whereas in her statement in the Court, she had named Amar Dev accused as the first to do the shameful act. f 6q1 no force in this argument. First of all, Sh. T. R Chaadel, learned Counsel for S/Sh. Amar Dev acid others, is wrong in saying that her statement was that she had become unconscious after sexual intercourse was committed by one of the accused. f 6q1 no force in this argument. First of all, Sh. T. R Chaadel, learned Counsel for S/Sh. Amar Dev acid others, is wrong in saying that her statement was that she had become unconscious after sexual intercourse was committed by one of the accused. In her statement made in the Court, she had categorically named Amar Dev, Nobhi Ram and Arun Kumar who committed sexual intercourse with her one after the other forcibly against her wish and consent. She has further categorically stated that she had become unconscious thereafter. It is correct that in her R I. R. Ex. D-A, she had stated that it was Nobhi Ram Chaukidar who first committed sexual intercourse with her and on this she had become unconscious and could not say how long all the three continued committing this bad act with her. When this statement was put to her in cross-examination, she corrected herself and stated that her earlier statement that Amar Singh was the first to commit sexual act with her was not correct. She further explained that due to lapse of two years, she could not remember this fact. Strangely, she was not put that when she bad become unconscious after she was subjected to sexual intercourse by one person how could she state that other two had also committed sexual intercourse with her. In view of this, the statement of the prosecutrix, Kumari Meena Devi that all the three accused committed sexual intercourse with her one after the other and thereafter she had become unconscious is proved on record. Above all, her statement cannot be read out of context forgetting the backdrop in which the incident happened and also the preceding and attendant circumstances proved on record. 5. Undoubtedly consistency is one of the principles of truth. Further, if consistent statements are not put to cross-examination at all, their truthfulness is established beyond any reasonable doubt In the present case, in respect of the following facts, the statements of Kumari Meena Devi (PW 1), Bir Singh (PW 2), Dole Ram (PW 3) and Ram Singh (PW 8) are consistent and not put to cross-examination s— (i) The first fact is that they were working as daily wage labourers at Kirting Rest House on 26-10- 986. The accused persons in their statements under section 313, Cr. P. C. have not denied it except the employment of Kumari Meena Devi. The accused persons in their statements under section 313, Cr. P. C. have not denied it except the employment of Kumari Meena Devi. (ii) Kumari Meena Devi was asked by Nobhi Ram, Chaukidar, to cook meals to which she first refused but later on agreed when Nobhi Ram extended her the threat that her half days wages will be deducted. (iii) When Kumari Meena Devi went in the kitchen of the Rest House for cooking meals, the accused persons were present there and were drinking liquor. (iv) Thereafter, Bir Singh (PW 2), Dole Ram (PW 3) and Ram Singh (PW 8) were sent for unloading CGI pipes from a truck at a distance of 2 to 3 kilometres. When they left at about 11.00 a. m., Kumari Meena Devi was in the kitchen where the accused persons were drinking liquor. (v) When Bir Singh (PW 2), Dole Ram (PW 3) and Ram Singh (PW 8) came back, they heard cries of Kumari Meena DqvI out of one of the rooms of the Rest House and after some time, she came out of the window and told them that after making her to drink liquor forcibly, all the accused persons committed rape on her. Ram Singh (PW 8) had given different version in this regard in his examination-in-chief but when he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he did state before the Police, in his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C., that on their return to the Rest House, Kumari Meena Devi told them that she was made to consume liquor and thereafter all the accused persons committed sexual intercourse with her in the kitchen. In further cross-examination by the defence Counsel, this part of his statement was not challenged. 6. Further, it is proved on record that Kumari Meena Devi, Bir Singh and Dole Ram first went to Police Post Jahlama and thereafter to Police Station, Keylong, where they lodged the F. I. R., Ex. D-A, at 7.05 p. m. on the same day. Her medical examination was conducted on the next day at 11.00 a. in. and the relevant portion of the medico-legal certificate, Ex. PW-6/B which points out that Kumari Meena Devi was subjected to sexual intercourse within the duration of 6 to 24 hours is as under— "1. There was no evidence of external injuries. 2. Her medical examination was conducted on the next day at 11.00 a. in. and the relevant portion of the medico-legal certificate, Ex. PW-6/B which points out that Kumari Meena Devi was subjected to sexual intercourse within the duration of 6 to 24 hours is as under— "1. There was no evidence of external injuries. 2. The shirt was having patch of blood stain in the lower part of the back 7" X 3”. 3. The Salwar was having dark colour blood stain 12" X 6” 4. Inner side of both thighs was having blood and seminal stains. 5. The public hair were not fully developed Small tiny hairs were present, which were not matted. 6. The hymen was ruptured showing inflamation, 7. The vagina was having fresh bleeding." 7 The doctor has not given his definite opinion as required in a rape case as he was admittedly a novice and it was for the first time that he had examined a rape victim. Still he has corroborated the prosecution story. la view of this, the observation of the doctor that no external injuries were found on the private part of Kumari Meena Devi loses its significance The doctor had also examined the accused persons at 3/4 p. m. on 27-10-1986 and perusal of the medico-legal certificates, Ex, PW 6/C to Ex. PW 6/E shows that a number of simple injuries such as bruises, scratches etc. were found on their body. These medico-legal certificates also point out towards the guilt of the accused persons. 8. Though the statement of the prosecutrix Kumari Meena Devi coupled with the medical evidence was enough to prove the prosecution case, yet, it is further corroborated by the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex, PW 10/C, wherein the clothes of prosecutrix Kumari Meena Devi, clothes of the accused persons and the bed sheet used during the course of committing the offence were found stained with human blood Therefore, the facts proved on record lead to only one conclusion that all the three accused persons had committed the barbaric act of rape on Kumari Meena Devi prosecutrix If there are minor discrepancies in her statement and the statements of other witnesses with regard to time, place etc. etc., these are not material in view of the background of the prosecutrix and other witnesses who were illiterate, rustic villagers belonging to lowliest ebb of the society. etc., these are not material in view of the background of the prosecutrix and other witnesses who were illiterate, rustic villagers belonging to lowliest ebb of the society. Being daily wage labourers, they could not dare to make such serious allegations against their benefactors, that is, the Junior Engineers, S/Sh Arun Kumar and Amar Dev and also Nobhi Ram who was an employee of Public Works Department, had the complained of incident not taken place. In their defence, which appears from the statements of the accused, they have stated that false case was foisted upon them at the instance of one Sh- Jiwan Lai Negi, an employee of Fisheries Department whose water connection was got disconnected by Arun Kumar accused through Nobhi Ram accused in the morning on 26-10-1985. According to them, Jiwan Lal Negi was giving beating to Nobhi Ram accused and Arun Kumar and Amar Dev accused had intervened and separated them. At this, Jiwan Lal Negi had threatened them that he would teach them a lesson. Assuming that this had happened, as alleged by the accused, it could not be an excuse for foisting a false case against the accused persons. 9. Apparently, though it is a gang rape case and common intention of all the accused persons is also established on the record, yet, they cannot be held guilty and punished for it as they were not charged and tried for it. Anyhow, overt act of each of the accused person subject to Kumari Meena Devi to rape is proved beyond any doubt. 10. In the result, I dismiss this appeal. The bail bonds of the accused persons are cancelled. They are directed to surrender before the trial Court and undergo the sentence imposed upon each one of them. Appeal dismissed.