Judgment : K. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THERE two appeals are taken up together as they relate to the same occurrence. ( 2 ) THESE two appeals have been directed by accused 1 and 2 respectively against their conviction and sentence by the learned VII Assistant Sessions Judge. City Civil Court. Madms in SC. No. 166 of 1990 dated 21-4-1992. By the said judgment each of the appellant have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 366 I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment each for a period of ten years for the offence under Section 376 I. P. C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution in short is given below: The victim girl Dhanalakshmi P. W. 1 was working as a servant maid in the house of P. W. 4 Praveen Kumar at the time of the occurrence. On 30-8-1989 which was a Bharat bandh day at 8. 00 p. m. P. W. 1 came out of the house of P. W. 4 with a small vessel to purchase curd. While she was proceeding in the Purasawakkam Road P. W. 2 Chockalingam who was residing in that area advised P. W. 1 not to go at that hour as it was a bandh day and the road was deserted. While P. W. 2 was talking with the victim girl both the appellants namely. Durai and Samuvel came along with one Mani and accosted P. W. 2 as to how he can talk with the girl of their area and assaulted P. W. 2. P. W. 2 got afraid and ran away leaving his cycle. Thereafter the appellants and Mani threatened P. W. 1 at the point of knife and dragged her towards Dalith Lane near a primary school. In that lane two lorries were standing and there was a wall by the side of the lorries. In the place between the lorries and the wall the appellants and another at the point of knife pushed down the victim girl and committed rape on her one by one. After the incident the victim girl met P. W. 3 her uncle a rickshaw puller and told what had happened. They took P. W. 1 to the house where she was working and informed about the incident. After the incident the victim girl met P. W. 3 her uncle a rickshaw puller and told what had happened. They took P. W. 1 to the house where she was working and informed about the incident. Then the matter was informed to the mother of the victim girl. Thereafter, P. W. 1 went to the Vepery Police Station at 9. 30 p. m. on 30-8-1989 and gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police P. W. 10 who was present at the Police Station. The statement of P. W. 1 was recorded by P. W. 10 and her signatures were obtained which is Ex. P1. Then P. W. 10, registered a case in Crime No. 1578 of 1989 under Section 376 I. P. C. and. prepared Express F. I. R. Ex. Plo. He sent Exs. P1 to Plo to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and copies of Ex. Plo to the superior officials. Since the Inspector of Police was on come other duty. P. W. 11 who was working as Sub-Inspector took up the investigation on the instructions of P. W. 10. P. W. 11 recovered the clothes worn by P. W. 1 under Form 95 in the presence of P. W. 5 and another, Raju. Thereafter, P. W. 11 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation Mahazar Ex. P3 in the presence of some witnesses. The clothes recovered from P. W. 1 have been marked as M. Os. 3 to 7. The rough sketch was prepared by P. W. 11 at the place of occurrence. ( 3 ) ON 31-8-1989, P. W. 1 was produced before the Doctor P. W. 8 to determine her age radiologically and also whether she was subjected to sexual intercourse. After examining P. W. 1 P. W. 8 was of the view that she under went recent sexual intercourse and she had completed 18 years of age and not 20 years of age. Ex. P8 is the certificate issued by the Doctor. At 10. 30 a. m. on 31-8-1999, P. W. 11 arrested both the appellants at Rangaiyachetty Street Lane in the presence of witnesses and recorded the confession given by them. Both the appellants took P. W. 11 and the witnesses to the place of occurrence. The first accused Al produced M. O. l knife from the place where it was concealed. 30 a. m. on 31-8-1999, P. W. 11 arrested both the appellants at Rangaiyachetty Street Lane in the presence of witnesses and recorded the confession given by them. Both the appellants took P. W. 11 and the witnesses to the place of occurrence. The first accused Al produced M. O. l knife from the place where it was concealed. while the second accused A2 produced M. O. 2 knife. Both the knives were recovered by P. W. l under separate mahazars Ex. P14 and P15 respectively. The admissible portions of the statement reading to the recovery of the said two-knives have been separately marked as Exs. P12 and P13. Both the appellants were produced before the Doctor P. W. 7 and he was of the opinion that both the appellants are fit for sexual intercourse. Exs. P7 and P8 are the certificates issued by the doctor. The clothes recovered from the victim girl were sent to chemical analysis by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned at the request of the investigation officer P. W. 11. The Chemical Examiner found spermatoza present. Ex. P17 is the report of the Chemical Examiner. P. W. 1 correctly identified both the appellants in the test-Identification parade conducted on the requisition of the investigation officer before the Judicial Magistrate P. W. 9 and Ex. 9 is the report. After completing the investigation. Inspector of Police - Selvaraj laid the charge-sheet about which P. W. 11 had deposed in the Court. ( 4 ) THE learned II Metropolitan Magistrate took, up the case on his file as PRC. 21947/89. After observing the legal formalities he had committed the case for trial before the Sessions Judge. Chennai Division. The case was transferred to the file of the VII Assistant Sessions Judge. City Civil Court. Madras and he took up the case for trial in SC. No. 166/90. ( 5 ) WHEN both the appellants appeared before the VII Assistant Sessions Judge City Civil Court. Madras he furnished copies of all the relevant documents on which the prosecution relied on free of cost. When questioned both the appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Eleven witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. Seventeen exhibits and fourteen M. Os. were also marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence witnesses were, examined by the appellants. ( 6 ) THE learned VII Assistant Sessions Judge. When questioned both the appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Eleven witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution. Seventeen exhibits and fourteen M. Os. were also marked on the side of the prosecution. No defence witnesses were, examined by the appellants. ( 6 ) THE learned VII Assistant Sessions Judge. City Civil Court. Madras on an appreciation of the evidence placed before him both oral and documentary was of the view that the evidence of P. W. 1 the victim is spontaneous and thoroughly acceptable and there was no circumstance to disbelieve her version. Likewise he found the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses was also acceptable. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the defence. However. P. Ws. 6, 7, 9 to 11 were not cross-examined by the defence counsel. Ultimately the learned VII Assistant Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore he convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. ( 7 ) WHEN these appeals were taken up for arguments learned counsel Mr. N. Doraiswamy represented Mr. T. K. Sampath in Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 1992 filed by Al. Learned counsel. Mr. Doraiswamy appeared for the second accused who has filed the Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1992. ( 8 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge is not correct in relying on the evidence of P. W. 1 alone and reaching the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellants under Sections 366 and 376 I. P. C. It was submitted that there was no independent witness to speak about the rape committed on P. W. 1. On a careful consideration of the evidence of P. W. 1 and the other witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution. I find it very difficult to accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. P. W. 1 in her evidence had given minute particulars about the manner in which she was threatened and dragged to the place of occurrence at the point of knife by the two appellants and another. I find it very difficult to accept the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. P. W. 1 in her evidence had given minute particulars about the manner in which she was threatened and dragged to the place of occurrence at the point of knife by the two appellants and another. She had also deposed in a convincing manner that the appellants and another committed rape on her one by one and their male organ entered her private parts. She has also spoken about the injuries sustained by her at the time of the occurrence which is amply corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 8 Doctor who had examined the victim girl. P. W. 2 has spoken that the appellants and another threatened him while he was speaking with the victim girl just before the incidence of rape occurred. ( 9 ) THE learned VII Assistant Sessions Judge had elaborately discussed the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 in the judgment. The fact that some of the witnesses have not been cross-examined by the defence counsel in my view will not militate the case of the prosecution for the reason that it is for the accused to give proper instructions to his advocate. If the defence counsel had not chosen to cross-examine some of the witnesses the fault lies only on the appellants/accused and the prosecution cannot be found fault for the same. The report of the Chemical Examiner clearly proves that spermatoza was found on the clothes of P. W. 1 recovered by the investigating officer. Since the other accused Mani was absconding the case has been split up and trial proceeded against the appellants. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants is unable to pin-point any procedural error or legal infirmity committed by the learned Assistant Sessions judge. ( 11 ) THE learned Government Advocate for public prosecutor had pointed out that in the case reported in Kamel Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh. It had been laid down by the Supreme Court of India that no corroborative evidence is necessary in a case where the victim girl or the lady came forward and deposed in the Court she has been subjected to sexual assault without her consent and if the Court finds the evidence of the victim is acceptable and trustworthy the Court can act upon the same. In the present case on hand. I am satisfied that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has carefully analysed the evidence and had concluded that the deposition of the P. W. 1 victim girl is not biased and she told only the truth. Likewise. P. W. 2 also has stated what he saw on the date of the occurrence. Therefore, I find no firm ground to interfere with the reasoning of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and therefore the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants is not accepted. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that a teen-aged girl who went in the road on a bandh day had been dragged to a distance at the point of knife and gang raped by threatening her with knives. I am of the opinion that the sentences imposed by the learned Assistant Session Judge is proper and no interference is called for. ( 12 ) IN the result the conviction sentences imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge are confirmed and both the appeals are dismissed. ( 13 ) THE appellants are on bail. They should surrender their bail bonds at once. The learned VII Assistant Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras shall issue non-bailable warrants against both the appellants secure their presence and commit them to the prison to undergo the un-expired portion of the sentences without any delay. Appeals dismissed.