JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants were the accused on the file of learned Special Judge SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bharatpur, bearing Sessions Case No. 62/96. They were found guilty under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, convicted thereunder and each of the accused was sentenced under Section 376(2), Indian Penal Code to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- (in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' S.I.). 2. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated September 8, 1997 action for filing the instant appeal has been resorted to. 3. Brief resume of the facts is that informant Radhey Harijan instituted written FIR (Ex. P/7) with the Police Station Chiksana (Bharatpur) on August 8, 1996 with the averments that his daughter Sunita aged 15-16 years had gone to the field to attend the call of nature at about 7-8 p.m. on August 6, 1996. There she was abducted by the accused Raju, Sukhveer, Genda and one other person. They took her to jungle, tied her hands and legs and committed rape on her. When Sunita did not return back, Bijjo, the son of the informant went towards the fields in search of Sunita. He found her in the company of the accused next day morning around 5-6 a.m. On seeing Bijjo the accused escaped. Bijjo untied her hands and legs. The informant had gone away in search of a girl suitable for marriage. When he came back in the evening he came to know about the incident. Report could not be lodged by him in the night. P.S. Chiksana registered a case under Section 376/34, Indian Penal Code and investigation commenced. Prosecutrix was medically examined, the accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter the case was committed to the learned Court below, where charges under Sections 376, 376/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were framed. The accused denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. No defence witness was examined by the accused. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned herein above. 4. The accused denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. No defence witness was examined by the accused. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned herein above. 4. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully perused the record. 5. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellants. (in short the accused) canvassed that there are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and on the basis of such evidence conviction is not sustainable. The learned counsel further contended that there is unreasonable delay in lodging the report which is fatal. The manner is which the prosecutrix implicated the accused is highly improbable. According to the prosecutrix the accused lit sticks near the place of incident but no marks of fire was shown in the site plan Ex. P.1. This clearly indicates that entire allegations levelled against the accused are false and baseless and the prosecution story cannot be believed. In the medical examination of the prosecutrix no marks of violence were found on her private parts. If the three accused ravished the prosecutrix during whole night she must have sustained injuries on her private parts. The prosecutrix in her statement stated that the accused took bite on her cheek but no such injury was found on the cheek of the prosecutrix. As the statement of prosecutrix was not corroborated by the medical evidence the accused could not have been convicted. Witness Dharampal deposed that the clothes of the prosecutrix had been washed by surf. On a perusal of FSL report reveals that seminal stains were found on the salvar and underwear of the prosecutrix. It clearly indicates that the accused have been falsely implicated. Lastly Mr. Naqvi, learned counsel contended that if the accused are found guilty, lenient view may be taken looking to their young age, as both the accused are less than 21 years on the date of incident. 6. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix had rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court. 6. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix had rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court. P.W. 3 Sunita categorically stated in her statement that when she had gone to attend the call of nature, she was subjected to abduction by the accused. They took her to mustard field. Accused Raju was the first person who committed rape on her. Thereafter Genda committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and after Genda accused Sukhveer had ravished her. She also stated that she sustained injuries on her mouth and chest and other places. she further deposed that the accused ravished her whole of the night. Handkerchief was tied over her mouth whereas her hands and legs were tied by ropes. When her brother Bijjo came accused escaped and her brother untied her and she narrated whole of the incident to her brother and when in the evening her father came he was also apprised of the incident. She was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing could elicit from her cross- examination so as to disbelieve her statement. P.W. 1. Bijjo deposed that in the morning at about 5-6 he found Sunita in a field. Her hands and legs were tied by ropes whereas her mouth was tied by handkerchief. After having untied her he took her to the house. P.W. 2 Parmanand, who is the neighbour of the prosecutrix deposed that when Sunita did not return on February 6, 1996 he had gone to search her, but he could not find her till 12.00 in the night. Thereafter he came back. P.W. 4 Kishore Kumar deposed that in his presence police seized underwear and salvar of Sunita. P.W., 5 Dr. V.L. Meena deposed that Sunita sustained abrasion on right leg and a bruise on her left cheek. She was between 16 to 18 years. Radhey, P.W. 6, who is the father of the prosecutrix stated that when on February 7, 1996 he came back to his house at about 7.00 has son Bijjo apprised him of the incident. Thereafter he instituted FIR. P.W. 7 Mukesh deposed that in his presence salvar and underwear was seized by the Police. P.W. 8 Shanti is the mother of prosecutrix who deposed that Sunita intimated her about the incident. P.W. 9 Radhey Shyam, Head Constable, arrested the accused persons. Thereafter he instituted FIR. P.W. 7 Mukesh deposed that in his presence salvar and underwear was seized by the Police. P.W. 8 Shanti is the mother of prosecutrix who deposed that Sunita intimated her about the incident. P.W. 9 Radhey Shyam, Head Constable, arrested the accused persons. P.W. 10 Ramvati is the sister of informant Radhey, who also corroborated the prosecution story. P.W. 11 Phool Singh, Investigating Officer, deposed that he investigated the case. P.W. 12 Dr. Saroj Singh examined the private parts of the prosecutrix and deposed that hymen of Sunita was ruptured but healed. Except this no other injury was found on her private parts. PW 13 Dharampal A.S.I. of PS Chiksana before whom the FIR was submitted. PW 14 Hari Lal, Constable, carried the sealed packets to the FSL Jaipur. In the statements recorded under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code the accused denied the charges and stated that they were falsely implicated. 7. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, 1996 CR LJ 1728 their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated that even if there is some delay in lodging the FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter. In the case on hand the delay in lodging the FIR has properly been explained by the informant who is father of the prosecutrix. According to him, he came to know about the incident when he returned from his village in the evening of February 7, 1996 and next day in the morning he instituted the FIR. So I am of the considered view that reasonable explanation has been given by the informant and it cannot be deemed as unnatural. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court further observed: "The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds if difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations." 8. In the case on hand hymen of the prosecutrix Sunita was found ruptured and in addition to it abrasion on her body was also found. As already observed by me the testimony of the prosecutrix could not be shattered in the cross-examination. No doubt there are minor contradictions in the statements, but I am of the considered view that the statement of prosecutrix Sunita inspires confidence. The prosecution has established beyond doubt that the accused persons committed rape. Explanation given by the accused that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity cannot be believed. Therefore, I am not persuaded with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused and hold that the accused are guilty of offence under sub-section (2) of Section 376 Indian Penal Code. So far as the last argument of the learned counsel that the sentence awarded to the accused may be reduced looking to their age, I intend to refer the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bopdem Sundara Rao, Vol. IV Current Criminal Reports (SC) 1995, page 108, which is reproduced thus - "7. In recent years, we have noticed that crime against women are on the rise. These crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against the mandate of the Legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of the crime in particular and the society as a whole in general but also at times encourage a criminal. The Courts have an obligation while awarding punishment to impose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the society's crime for justice against such criminals. Public abhorrence of the crime needs a reflection through the Court's verdict in the measure of punishment. The Courts have an obligation while awarding punishment to impose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the society's crime for justice against such criminals. Public abhorrence of the crime needs a reflection through the Court's verdict in the measure of punishment. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of the appropriate punishment. The heinous crime of committing rape on a helpless 13/14 years old girl shakes our judicial conscience. The offence was inhuman. There are no extenuating or mitigating circumstances available on the record which may justify imposition of sentence less than the minimum prescribed by the Legislature under Section 376 (1) of the Act." 9. In the case on hand gang rape was committed by the accused on a helpless teenager Sunita and no liberal view can be taken. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, 1980 Cr LJ page 8, took a view that looking to the age of the accused who was in his early twenties and was not a habitual offender and signs of repentance were seen and the family of the accused and victim being closely related, reduction of sentence was justified and sentence was reduced from four years to two years' rigorous imprisonment accordingly. 10. But in Rafiq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SC 559 Hon'ble Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the Bench observed : "Counsel submitted that a 7 years sentence was too severe. No because, as we have stated earlier, rape for a woman is deathless shame and must be dealt with as the gravest crime against human dignity. No interference on the score of culpability or quantum of punishment is called for in the circumstances." 11. Therefore, in the instant case I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 12. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. judgment passed by the learned trial Court is hereby confirmed.Appeal dismissed *******