B. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27-11-1980 passed by Sri S. B. Singh, the then IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T. No. 110 of 1978 State v. Ram Charan and Mahendra whereby he convicted both the accused-appellants under Sections 365 and 376, I. P. C. and sentencing each one of them to undergo R. I. for a period of two years for the offence under Section 365, I. P. C. and R. I. for a period of 5 years for the offence under Section 376, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecutrix in this case is Km. Santosh, daughter of Shanker Lal Harijan. Her father had died before the occurrence and she lived with her mother Smt. Dharmo P. W. 3 along with her younger sister Yashoda and one more younger sister and one younger brother. The prosecution story was that on 16-3-1978 at about 11 A. M. the prosecutrix was abducted from her mothers house by the accused-appellant Ram Charan and his three companions, one of whom was Mahendra accused-appellant. Ram Charan accused-appellant had come to the house and told the prosecutrix that her mother who was a mid-wife had asked for the medicine box, that at that time these two accused-appellants and their two companions Harbansh and Munna caught hold of her and closed her mouth with the help of handkerchief and dragged her and carried her at a taxi to the shop of Mahendra accused-appellant at Kallupura and there she was kept confined and in the night she was raped by all the 4 culprits. She claimed that she was made to smell something by which she became unconscious, that at 3 a. m. she regained consciousness and after that all the 4 culprits put her in a taxi and took her near Basant Cinema and left her there near a water tank and she was threatened that acid will be thrown on her if she would raise alarm. She came from there to her mothers house and narrated the incident to her and then went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. there on the same day i. e. on 17-3-1978 at 6. 15 p. m. and on its basis a case was registered under Sections 363, 365 and 376, I. P. C. against all the 4 of them. 15 p. m. and on its basis a case was registered under Sections 363, 365 and 376, I. P. C. against all the 4 of them. ( 3 ) THE prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. She was medically examined by lady doctor Premlata Jain P. W. 7 on 18-3-1978 at 12 noon at the women hospital Ghaziabad. Her observations are as follows :"examined Kumari Santosh d/o Shankar Lal, R/o Jatwada, Thana Ghaziabad at W. H. Ghaziabad at 12 noon brought and identified by constable Kalyan Singh 438 Kotwali, Ghaziabad G/e she is an average built girl. Ht. 166 cm. Wt. 100 Ibs. Teeth 14/14 spaces for third molar not formed. Breasts developed. Pubic and axillary hairs dev. There are marks of Bite all over face. Clothes are torn. Blood discharge from Rt. Nipple. M/i Old scar round in shape above the Umbilicus and Lt. side about 1/2", in diameter. P/v Hymen ruptured. Bleeding from vagina present. Fresh rupture of hymen is there. The Vagina admits two fingers with care at A/v N/s Fxs. clear. Vaginal smear sent for microscopic Exam. Age of the girl is about 16 years. " ( 4 ) HER X-ray revealed that at the elbow joint, all the epiphysis have fused and at wrist epiphysis of right ulna have completely fused and epiphysis of right radius had nearly fused. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the X-ray examination, the age of the prosecutrix came to be 18 years, though, at the trial the prosecutrix has given her age to be 16 years on the date of occurrence. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has believed the entire prosecution evidence and consequently convicted and sentenced both the accused-appellant who had been challenged by the police. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has not disputed that the prosecutrix has been abducted and raped. We have noted earlier the medical evidence recorded by the lady doctor. There were marks of bite all over her face. Her clothes were in a torn condition and blood discharge was coming out from her right nipple. Her hymen was found ruptured. There was bleeding from her vagina. There was fresh rupture of hymen. The vagina admitted two fingers only with care. Her clothes (Salwar Exb. 1 and Kurta Exb. There were marks of bite all over her face. Her clothes were in a torn condition and blood discharge was coming out from her right nipple. Her hymen was found ruptured. There was bleeding from her vagina. There was fresh rupture of hymen. The vagina admitted two fingers only with care. Her clothes (Salwar Exb. 1 and Kurta Exb. 2) were taken into custody by the I. O. from her house on 21-3-1978 and these were shown to her in her re-examination at the trial and she stated that at the time of occurrence she was wearing these cloths and further stated that the spots which were present on these clothes are relating to the rape committed by the culprits. She also testified that these clothes had got soiled at the time of rape and these were torn at the time of her being dragged by the culprits. All these constitute very strong corroborating material in favour of the prosecution story. So there was no escape from the harsh reality of her abduction and rape. ( 7 ) IT is claimed that both the accused-applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. However, as far as the accused-applicant Ram Charan is concerned, there is no escape from the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. He has been named by the prosecutrix in the F. I. R. straightway. At the trial also, the prosecutrix named him as the culprit who came to her mothers house and asked for the medicine box of her mother who was a mid-wife. She has also testified that she was taken by him to a shop and there she was kept confined and raped in the night by him and by 3 of his companions. Her testimony is corroborated by the evidence of her younger sister Km. Yashoda P. W. 2 that Ram Charan accused-appellant came to their house and asked the prosecutrix to give medicine box of her mother saying that she had called for the medicine box and when the prosecutrix came out from the house along with medicine box to her mother who was a mid-wife she was caught hold by 4 persons and was dragged and carried away by force and she also claimed that she had raised an alarm when the culprits took the prosecutrix away. It is immaterial that the public witnesses of the abduction Chhotey P. W. 4 and Chhokey Lal P. W. 5 turned hostile. Chhotey P. W. 4 claimed that at 2 A. M. there was hue and cry that somebody has abducted the prosecutrix. Chhokey Lal P. W. 5 claimed that he had heard in the morning that the prosecutrix has been abducted. Then he said that he had heard that a fight had taken place. Nothing revolves on the testimony of these hostile witnesses. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellants has placed reliance on the cross-examination of the mother of the prosecutrix namely Smt. Dharmo P. W. 3 where it was elicited from her that she had come back to the house at 1. 00 a. m. in the night and then her younger daughter P. W. 2 had told her that 4 bad characters had abducted the prosecutrix at 11 in the night. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that this statement of the mother of the prosecutrix throws a shadow of doubt over the entire prosecution story. According to the prosecutrix, the abduction had taken place at 11. 00 a. m. and not at 11 P. M. as has come in the statement of Smt. Dharmo, mother of the prosecutrix. ( 9 ) I have given thought to this. The law regarding appreciation of the testimony of the victim of sexual assault to crystallised by a series of judicial decisions of the Apex Court. In the authority State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 SCC (Cri) 316 : ( AIR 1996 SC 1393 ), the Apex Court said (at p. 1400 of AIR) : "the testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands, almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. "as noted earlier, the testimony of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the medical evidence. She has external injuries on her body which ruled out the possibility of consent about the going of the victim or the sexual intercourse with the victim. It is not in dispute that the accused-appellant the resident of the same village in which prosecutrix lived and her testimony is that she knew this culprit from before the occurrence and it has nowhere been suggested to her that she did not know this accused by name and face from before the occurrence. He has been named by Km. Yashoda P. W. 2 also. She also has not been suggested anywhere that she did not know this accused-appellant from before the occurrence. So there cannot be any doubt about the identity of this accused-appellant Ram Charan as the initial abducter. He has been named by Km. Yashoda P. W. 2 also. She also has not been suggested anywhere that she did not know this accused-appellant from before the occurrence. So there cannot be any doubt about the identity of this accused-appellant Ram Charan as the initial abducter. It is not the case of the defence that he was involved in the initial abduction but separated himself from his companions and was not involved in the rape. The whole incident was a continuing transaction. Smt. Yashoda has testified that her mother had come to the house at about 1. p. m. on the date of abduction. Naturally she would have narrated the occurrence as such to her mother when she came. In her examination-in-chief, Smt. Dharma testified that when she came to her house she found Km. Yashoda and other children at the house and they told her that somebody knocked at the door from the out side and called by name of Santosh saying that her mother is calling for the medicine box and that the prosecutrix opened the door and that she came back to the house in the morning. She testified further that the prosecutrix complained that she had been abducted by 4 persons that she had named both the accused-appellants and had complained of rape by them. She also stated that she did not know the accused persons. The manner in which she has given her evidence indicates that she was deliberately trying to help the accused persons to escape from the charges. It may be that she was not declared hostile by the prosecution but her testimony in the case speaks for itself. The witnesses are subject to pressures of all kinds and the prosecutrix and her mother Smt. Dharmo were Harijans by caste and Smt. Dharmo was a widow having several minor children to bring up. So it is not surprising that she yielded to some pressure or other and made this statement omitting the name of Ram Charan accused-appellant from the information about the abduction given by Km. Yashoda and in the cross-examination went to the length of saying that she (Smt. Dharmo) came back to the house at 1. 00 a. m. and then Km. Yashoda had told her that 4 culprits took away the prosecutrix at 11. Yashoda and in the cross-examination went to the length of saying that she (Smt. Dharmo) came back to the house at 1. 00 a. m. and then Km. Yashoda had told her that 4 culprits took away the prosecutrix at 11. 00 p. m. We have noted earlier that Smt. Dharmo gave her statement in such a way as if the prosecutrix had eloped with somebody who knocked from the out side and gave a fake message that her mother was calling for the medicine box and on the pretext of it, he came out from the huose and disappeared with somebody and she came back in the next morning. If she had eloped like this, she would not be having the injuries on her body as revealed by the medical evidence on record. It was not suggested to the prosecutrix or to Km. Yashoda anywhere in their cross-examination that the prosecutrix had eloped from the house with some paramour and that she was a consenting party throughout in wherever she went and whatever was done with her. It is also to be noted that Km. Yashoda P. W. 2 was not suggested by the defence that her mother Smt. Dharmo had come back to the house in the night at 1. 00 a. m. and that at that time she had told her mother Smt. Dharma that the prosecutrix had been abducted at 11 in the night. So the said statement of Smt. Dharmo P. W. 3 has to be discarded as a false statement altogether. Here it is to be kept in mind that Smt. Dharmo P. W. 3 is not a witness of the abduction and consequently her testimony at the trial about the complaint made to her by Km. Yashoda P. W. 2 giving the time of abduction as 11 P. M. cannot be a substantive piece of evidence about the fact of abduction at 11. 00 P. M. There is consistent testimony of the prosecutrix and Km. Yashoda P. W. 2 about the abduction at 11 A. M. and there is absolutely no reason to discard their testimony on the point. As noted earlier, it was a continuing transaction. ( 10 ) THERE is also no doubt that her abduction has been made by as many as 4 persons and that she has been raped by as many as 4 persons. As noted earlier, it was a continuing transaction. ( 10 ) THERE is also no doubt that her abduction has been made by as many as 4 persons and that she has been raped by as many as 4 persons. Her testimony on this point cannot be doubted. The plurality of culprits is also clear from the evidence of Km. Yashoda P. W. 2. However, the accused-appellant Mahendra has to get the benefit of doubt because from the F. I. R. itself, it is clear that she learnt the names of the companions of Ram Charan accused-appellant only when they were talking with each other at the shop where she was taken by Ram Charan accused-appellant and his companions. In other words, she did not know Mahendra accused-appellant from before by name and by face. There was also no allegation in the F. I. R. that Km. Yashoda P. W. knew the companions of Ram Charan accused-appellant by name and by face. In her evidence at the trial, the prosecutrix testified about the coming of Ram Charan accused-appellant and his three companions and her abduction by them. In para 3 of her testimony she said that she did not know the 3 companions of Ram Charan accused-appellant by name. She further stated that in the shop of Mahendra Barber, these persons were naming each other as Mahendra Harvansh and Munna. Infact, it is not clear from her statement whether this Mahendra Barber whose shop was mentioned by her was the same person Mahendra whose name was being taken by the culprits with each other or a different person. Km. Yashoda P. W. 2 has not named Mahendra accused-appellant among the companions of Ram Charan accused-appellant. She has not given the name of any of the three companions. She has categorically stated that she did not know anyone except Ram Charan accused-appellant out of the 4 culprits who had forcibly abducted her sister (the prosecutrix ). ( 11 ) IT is undisputed that the investigating officer did not put up the accused-appellant Mahendra at a test identification parade for identification by the prosecutrix and by Km. Yashoda. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has contended that in the absence of identification parade having been held, the nomination of Mahendra accused-appellant at the trial by the prosecutrix cannot be made the foundation of his conviction. There is substance in this argument. Yashoda. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has contended that in the absence of identification parade having been held, the nomination of Mahendra accused-appellant at the trial by the prosecutrix cannot be made the foundation of his conviction. There is substance in this argument. ( 12 ) IN these circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to go to Mahendra accused-appellant. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal fails as regards Ram Charan accused-appellant and his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 365 and 376, I. P. C. are confirmed, however, the appeal is allowed to the extent of Mahendra accused-appellant. His conviction for the offences under Sections 365 and 376, I. P. C. is set aside and he is acquitted of both the offences. ( 14 ) BOTH the accused-appellants are on bail from this Court. The bail of Ram Charan accused-appellant is cancelled. The C. J. M. concerned shall get Ram Charan accused-appellant arrested and send him to the District Jail concerned to serve out his sentence according to law. ( 15 ) MAHENDRA accusd-appellant need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. ( 16 ) LET a certified copy of this judgment be sent to the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and the C. J. M. Ghaziabad for information and compliance. The compliance report shall be submitted to this Court within a month from today. ( 17 ) THE report of the C. J. M. Ghaziabad in this Criminal Appeal shall be listed before this Bench on 21-1-1998 for orders. . Order accordingly. .