JUDGMENT 1. - These four appeals are filed against the judgment of trial court date 23.3.94, whereby accused-appellants Akbar, Pappu, Sarafat and Yasin are convicted for the offence under Section 366 read with 120-B IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years' R.I. and also pay fine of Rs. 500/-. Accused Akbar has also been convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-. The sentences of Akbar are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is that one Badri Prasad Dube lodged a report in police station Dadabari on 17.10.92, wherein it was alleged that his daughter Ku. Rinesh Dube, aged 16-17 years went to Modi College, Dadabari on 16.10.92 in the morning and she did not return from the college on that day. It is further alleged that when she was studying in Govt. Girls School Rampura she used to travel in tempo No. RJ-20/411 and 313, whose driver and conductor were Akbar and Bhaiyan. Ku. Rinesh used to complain to complainant about obscene acts of these persons. But the matter was not reported to the police on account of fear of reputation. The complainant suspected Akbar and Bhaiyan about abduction of Rinesh. On that report the FIR has been chalked out and the case was registered for the offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC. 3. During the course of investigation Ku. Rinesh Dube was recovered. She was medically examined. As per medical report her age was found about 15-16 years and her hymen was also found torn. The accused-appellants were also arrested. After completing investigation the challan has been filed against six persons. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The charges were framed against the accused-appellants. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial the prosecution has produced as many as 13 witnesses and certain documents were also exhibited in support of its case. The statements of accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused-appellants produced Mr. Javed, Smt. Mithlesh Kumari & Pappu & Salamuddin. Considering the material on record the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Biri Singh has submitted that Ku. Javed, Smt. Mithlesh Kumari & Pappu & Salamuddin. Considering the material on record the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Biri Singh has submitted that Ku. Rinesh was college going girl at the time of incident. She left college along with her friends Mamta and Lata. She left the college of her own will and went at different places that is, from college to Chhavni, Chhavni to Kotdi, Kotdi to Dadabari temple and then Kota to Jaipur & Jaipur to Mathura. But she has not raised any hue & cry or protest while she was being taken by these persons at different places and she was consenting party. Her hymen was found old torn. Even, the doctor has not given any final opinion about rape whether intercourse has been taking place with her by either of these accused- appellants. Shri Biri Singh has further argued that the court has erred in presuming that it is a case of blackmailing, as no material has been brought on record in support of such finding. Shri Biri Singh has also submitted that one of the co-accused Nanhe Khan has been acquitted by this court vide order dated 10th May, 1994. 7. P.w. 1 Ku. Rinesh Dube was examined and she stated that she was studying in Maharani Girls School before joining college and at that time she used to go by tempo numbers 122, 301, 313 and 411. Akbar was one of the drivers of tempo Nos. RJ-20/411 and 313. While she used to travel Akbar and Bhaiyan used to do filthy comments. She complained about their filthy comments to her father, but because of the adverse affect on the reputation of family no action was taken against accused Akbar and Bhaiyan in police. On 16.10.92 she went to Modi college about 9.30 a.m. In college she came out from assembly hall along with Priti Sharma & Anjali. Outside the assembly hall she saw Mamta & Lata. Lata told her to come along with her as she has some urgent work. The prosecutrix along with Lata came out of the college where Bhaiyan & Yasin were waiting in tempo No. RJ-20/313. Then she was made to sit in tempo. Outside the assembly hall she saw Mamta & Lata. Lata told her to come along with her as she has some urgent work. The prosecutrix along with Lata came out of the college where Bhaiyan & Yasin were waiting in tempo No. RJ-20/313. Then she was made to sit in tempo. In tempo she was taken to Chhavni. In Chhavni accused Pappu met them on Bullet motor-cycle. Pappu told her that he will meet her in Kotdi. Then she was taken in tempo to Kotdi. There accused Sarafal met them, who was driver of tempo No. 313. Then Sarafat had driven the tempo from Kotdi and taken her to Dad Devi. Then Pappu again met them on the way to Dad Devi, there Lata told him that you bring Akbar. Bhaiyan got down from the tempo and went along with Pappu on motor-cycle. In a village after railway-crossing Sarafal asked Yasin to bring 'pan', Yasin brought four pan three in one packet and one in separate packet. The pan which was in separate packet was given to Rinesh forcibly. She resisted and also enquired where she is being taken. They said that they are going to Dad-Devi. Near Dad-devi they stopped and got down from tempo. After some time Bhaiyan, Akbar and Pappu also came to that place on Bullet motor-cycle, there they left her alone and discussed future plan regarding Rinesh. Again she resisted and told that she should be taken to her house. But instead of taking her to her house they started making filthy comments. Thereafter Pappu, Mamta, Sarafat left her alongwith Akbar and they came back after an hour and then Lata told Akbar to take her out of Kota. Mamta had also supported the proposal of Lata. Akbar had so threatened prosecutrix that if she will not go along with him he will finish her whole family and he had also shown her a Rampuri knife. Thereafter Lata and Pappu went on motor-cycle and other accused-persons along with her went in tempo. Again Lata and Pappu met them on the bank of river. Lata thereafter came in tempo and they took Rinesh on motorcycle to Nayapura, in the house of Bhaiyan. There again Akbar and Pappu came. Again they showed knife and threatened her that her photographs will be published in newspapers. Then Akbar brought a 'burka' and compelled her to wear that burka. Lata thereafter came in tempo and they took Rinesh on motorcycle to Nayapura, in the house of Bhaiyan. There again Akbar and Pappu came. Again they showed knife and threatened her that her photographs will be published in newspapers. Then Akbar brought a 'burka' and compelled her to wear that burka. Then they took her to bus-stand. Then Bhaiyan and Akbar & Pappu took her to Jaipur and kept in the house of Nanhe Khan, who is a relative of Pappu. On the next day i.e. 17.10.92 in the morning at 9.00 am they boarded in the bus for Mathura. Pappu left and came back to Kota. They reached there at about 10-11 p.m. in the night. At Mathura they stated in the house of relative of Akbar, in Parchuni mohalla. On that night Akbar and Bhaiyan took her on the roof of the house. After some time Bhaiyan came down from the roof and then Akbar committed rape with her. She was kept there for three days. Bhaiyan left that place on 21.10.92. On 22.10.92 while Akbar took her to Noratta which is near Agra. In Noratta police came and she was saved from the clutches and arrested Akbar on spot. 8. In her statements in court, she has stated that these accused-appellants are member of notorious gang which used to black-mail the girls of Kota and after taking their obscene photographs compelled them to act on their command against their wishes and they have spoiled the life of many unmarried girls. She has given some names of girls who are spoiled by the members of this gang. She has also identified Yasin, in Identification Parade in jail, who brought 'pan' and gave one pan to her in a village on the route going to Dad-devi. 9. In cross examination she has stated that some photographs of Rinesh were taken in Chambal-garden by the accused and on the basis of those photographs she was compelled to write some letters. From Dad-devi while they were reached at bank of canal (river) she was asked to sit on motor-cycle of Pappu and on motor-cycle Pappu and Bhaiyan took her to the house of Bhaiyan in Nayapura. There Akbar came and he again shown Rampuri knife and threatened that she should act on their direction otherwise he will finish her whole family and she was compelled to wear 'burka'. There Akbar came and he again shown Rampuri knife and threatened that she should act on their direction otherwise he will finish her whole family and she was compelled to wear 'burka'. From there Bhaiyan, Pappu and Akbar took her to bus-stand, Kota and from Kota boarded in a bus going to Jaipur. She stayed at Jaipur in the house of Nanhe Khan, who happens to be in relation of Pappu. On the next day Pappu went back and Akbar & Bhaiyan took her to Mathura. There they stayed in relation of Akbar and in Mathura in the house of relative of Akbar, Akbar raped her on the roof of the house. She has also named some girls who are spoiled by the gang of these persons. 10. P.W. 4 Priti Sharma, friend of prosecutrix has supported the case of prosecution and the statement of prosecutrix to the extent that on 16.10.92 at 9.50 am the prosecutrix was with her. At that point of time Lata came and went out of assembly hall. Rinesh Dube did not come back in the college on that day. In the evening parents of prosecutrix came to her house and enquired about Rinesh Dube, then she told that Lata came to call Rinesh and she went with her. She knows Lata since her school days. 11. P.W. 5 Dr. G.S. Visnar has deposed that on 24.10.92 he had examined Rinesh Dube. No blood was found on per private parts. Her hymen was torn. In cross examination has admitted that it is wrong to say that she was habitual of sexual intercourse. It is also stated that hymen was torned, but it is difficult to say that how old it was torned. It can be torned even 5-7 days before her examination. 12. P.W. 7 Mangat Ram is owner of the tempo No. RJ-20/313. He deposed that on his tempo Sarafat was driver. 13. P.W. 9 Badri Prasad Dube, father of the prosecutrix, has stated that her daughter Rinesh Dube was studying in part-I, B.A. in Modi College and on 16.10.92 she left the house and when she did not return till evening he enquired from the friends of Rinesh. Priti told that at about 10.00 am Lata came and took her. He has also stated that Rinesh also used to complain against Akbar and Bhaiyan that they used to make filthy comments on her. Priti told that at about 10.00 am Lata came and took her. He has also stated that Rinesh also used to complain against Akbar and Bhaiyan that they used to make filthy comments on her. The age of his daughter was 17 years at the time of offence. He made written report (Ex.P-14) regarding this incident. In cross examination he has admitted that he has not made any complaint against these persons even after knowing the fact that they used to make filthy comments on his daughter, as that would have affect the prestige of their family in the society. 14. PW 10 Gordhan Lal Nagar was posted as Sub-Inspector in police station Dadabari, on 17.10.92. He deposed that on 17.10.92 one Badri Prasad Dube came and gave written- report regarding this incident. After chalking out the FIR, during investigation one motor-cycle has been recovered at the instance of Pappu @ Salamuddin. Tempo No. RJ-20/0313 was seized in presence of the owner of tempo. The girl has also been recovered from the possession of Akbar. Akbar was arrested on 23.10.92, his arrest-memo is Ex.P-17. Statements of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. Accused Yasin was identified in jail by Rinesh Dube in presence of Shri Govind Prasad, Special Judicial Magistrate CAD Kota. He deposed that Rinesh has rightly identified accused Yasin. 15. In the statements of accused-appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. they simply said that they have falsely, been implicated in this case. Judgment of the trial Court has been perused and arguments have been heard of their respective advocates. It is argued before this court that she has not been taken from Kota against her wishes, but she has gone willingly. Even counsel for accused Akbar has contended that Rinesh has kidnapped Akbar. This argument appears to be baseless. 16. The consistent case of the prosecution is that when prosecutrix used to go to school in tempo which were being driven by Akbar and Bhaiyan, they used to make filthy comments. They used to make filthy comments on her, even she had complained to her father Badri Prasad Dube, but for the fear of prestige in the society no complaint was made. On 16.10.92, she left the college at 10.30 a.m. She was with miss Priti Sharma (Pw. 4) in college, at that point of time Lata & Mamta came and look her out of the assembly hall. On 16.10.92, she left the college at 10.30 a.m. She was with miss Priti Sharma (Pw. 4) in college, at that point of time Lata & Mamta came and look her out of the assembly hall. She did not come back in the college on that day. The prosecutrix has deposed that outside the college gate Bhaiyan and one friend of Pappu were waiting in tempo. Lata had made her sit in the tempo. That tempo was driven to Chhavni and Kotdi. At Kotdi Sarafat, regular driver of the tempo, met and then he drove the tempo towards Dad Devi. On the way Pappu met them on Bullet motor-cycle at that time Lata asked to Pappu and Bhaiyan to call Akbar. Then after the railway-crossing in a village Sarafat asked to friend of Pappu to bring 'pan' and gave one pan to prosecutrix. Thereafter they started to Daddevi and before the temple of Dad Devi they stopped the tempo and stayed under the shade of tree, and after some time Akbar, Bhaiyan and Pappu joined there again. This time Lata disclosed their plan and asked Akbar to take prosecutrix out of Kota and Mamta had also supported her plan. 17. Akbar threatened the prosecutrix that if she will not go with him, he will finish her whole family and showed Rampuri knife. While they were returning then at the bank of canal Lata & Pappu again met them, there Lata left the motor-cycle and got in tempo. Bhaiyan and Pappu took the prosecutrix on Bullet motor-cycle to the house of Bhaiyan in Nayapura. There Akbar again threatened that if she will not act as per their direction he will finish her whole family and will publish her photographs in newspaper. She was compelled to wear 'burka' and she was taken to bus-stand, there they boarded in the bus going to Jaipur. In Jaipur they stayed in the house of Nanhe Khan, relative of Pappu. On next day Pappu came back from Jaipur and the prosecutrix was taken to Mathura by Akbar & Bhaiyan. They stayed there in the house of relative of Akbar. In the night Akbar raped her, on the roof of the house. Bhaiyan stayed there 2-3 days. On 21.10.92 Bhaiyan came back to Kota and on 22.10.92 Akbar & prosecutrix came at Noratta there police came and arrested Akbar and rescued the prosecutrix. 18. They stayed there in the house of relative of Akbar. In the night Akbar raped her, on the roof of the house. Bhaiyan stayed there 2-3 days. On 21.10.92 Bhaiyan came back to Kota and on 22.10.92 Akbar & prosecutrix came at Noratta there police came and arrested Akbar and rescued the prosecutrix. 18. From the record, there is no dispute that the girl Rinesh Dube has been taken from college to Dadabari and then to the house of Bhaiyan in Nayapura. There she was forced to wear 'burka' and then she was taken to Jaipur in bus by Akbar, Bhaiyan and Pappu. They reached at Jaipur and stayed in the house of Nanhe Khan, relative of Pappu. Next day they boarded in bus for Mathura. There they stayed with relation of Akbar and there Akbar raped her. All these facts are basically based on the evidence of prosecutrix, that further found corroboration by the arrest of Akbar in Noratta by SHO Gordhan Lal Nagar. Thus on the basis of statement of prosecutrix conviction can be upheld. 19. Their lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the similar issue in case State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain [1990 Cr.LR (SC) 328] . In para No. 16 of the judgment their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed as under:- "It is only in the rarest of rare cases if the Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is so trustworthy, truthful and reliable that other corroboration may not be necessary." In para No. 17 of the judgment their Lordships of Supreme Court have further observed as under:- "To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime." 20. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime." 20. It is true that nowhere the prosecutrix raised any voice, but the fact has come on record that some photographs were taken by accused and the prosecutrix was threatened that if she will not act as per their direction her photographs will be published in newspaper and her whole family will be finished, even she has been compelled to write some letter addressing to Akbar. Not only that she has categorically staled that a Rampuri knife was shown to her at Dad-devi then in Nayapura in the house if Bhaiyan, then in Mathura when Akbar has committed rape with her in the house of his relative. If it is assumed that prosecutrix has falsely implicated, then why she has not levelled allegation of rape against all the accused, but this allegation has been levelled only against Akbar. No reason has come on record why prosecutrix has falsely implicated the accused-appellants. Even she has named the girls who are spoiled by the gang of these persons. It is pure and simple case of black-mailing of innocent girls by organised gang, who take advantage of the circumstances of innocent girls. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that prosecutrix has gone willingly with these persons. Question also does arise that when the prosecutrix had friendship with Akbar in that case she should have gone with him, why these number of persons came and joined one after other ? Why Pappu & Bhaiyan went to Jaipur and Mathura? This fact also come on record that P.W. 9, Badri Prasad Dube, father of the prosecutrix, had not made any complaint even when Rinesh Dube was complaining about filthy comments of these accused-persons, as that would have affect his prestige in the society, and the matter was not reported to police. 21. PW 5 Dr. G.S. Visnar has deposed that prosecutrix is not habitual of intercourse. The hymen cold have been torn even 5-7 days before the examination, which was done on 24.10.92. As such the doctor has not given any definite period as to when her hymen Was torn. 21. PW 5 Dr. G.S. Visnar has deposed that prosecutrix is not habitual of intercourse. The hymen cold have been torn even 5-7 days before the examination, which was done on 24.10.92. As such the doctor has not given any definite period as to when her hymen Was torn. No explanation has been given why the prosecutrix has levelled false allegation of rape and take on her a blot forever. Therefore, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the statements of prosecutrix. The corroboration of medical report is not always necessary for conviction under Section 376 IPC. 22. In this case as per the statement of prosecutrix rape has been committed on her in Mathura i.e. 17.10.92 and she has been examined on 24.10.92 by doctor. Therefore, if doctor has not given any definite opinion about rape, that does not affect the case of prosecution. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are totally in agreement with the findings of the trial court that accused Akbar has committed offence under Section 376 IPC and all other accused have committed offence under Section 366 IPC. However, considering the nature and facts & circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the appellants is excessive.In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellants is upheld. The sentence of Akbar is reduced from Life Imprisonment to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and from 10 years R.I. to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences respectively. The sentence of accused Pappu @ Salamuddin; Sarafat and Yasin is reduced from 10 years' R.I. to 5 years' Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's Rigorous Imprisonment. *******