JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Through this appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and order dated 22-2-1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, is Sessions Case No. 415 of 1994, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter: (i) Under section 363 r/w section 366 r/w section 34 I.P.C. to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 3 months R.I.; (ii) Under section 376(2) (g) I.P.C. to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. In addition, the appellant Suresh Ganpat Mundhe has been convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 3 months R.I. for the offence under section 506(II) I.P.C. and the appellants-Sunil Dadu Pr. Khandale, Balu Chudaman Gaikwad and Sanjay Sonaji Dongare to undergo 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to suffer 3 months R.I. under section 34 I.P.C. for the offence of criminal intimidation. The substantive sentences of the appellants have been order to run concurrently. We cannot refrain from observing that the learned trial Judge should not have convicted under section 34 I.P.C. for the offence of criminal intimidation and instead should have convicted for the offence under section 506(II) r/w section 34 I.P.C. 2.The prosecution case in short as contained in the F.I.R. lodged by the prosecutrix Anita Jadhav P.W. 1 and in her statement in the trial Court is as under: The prosecutrix Anita Shivaji Jadhav P.W.1 at the time of the incident was residing with her mother Gunabai P.W. 2, her younger brother Arjun and her mother's sister in Bhatnagar colony in Pimpri in Pune District. She knew the appellants since they resided in her neighbourhood. On 17-8-1994 at about 8 a.m. her mother Gunabai had gone for work. Thereafter, she left for her maternal uncle's house in Chinchwad. While on way, to his house, near the field of one Patil, she met the four appellants namely Suresh Mundhe, Sunil Khandale, Balu Gaikwad and Sanjay Dongare. They told her" Come let us go to see Lohgad Fort". At first, she refused but, on their strong insistence, relented. She accompanied them to Pimpri Railway Station. All of them reached there at 10. They told her" Come let us go to see Lohgad Fort". At first, she refused but, on their strong insistence, relented. She accompanied them to Pimpri Railway Station. All of them reached there at 10. a.m. From there, they boarded a local train and reached Malavali Railway Station at 11 a.m. From Malavali, they climbed the hill on foot and reached Lohgad Fort at 1 p.m. After reaching Lohgad Fort, the appellants led Anita to a tomb near an arch situated there and thereafter, the appellant Suresh caught hold of her hand and asked her to undress, and when she refused, threatened to kill her. Consequently, she removed her clothes. Thereafter, the appellants also removed their clothes. First appellant-Suresh raped her and thereafter, appellants Balu, Sanjay and Sunil committed rape on her. While raping her, they pressed her breasts inserted their penis in her vagina and made forcible movements therein and discharged their semen in her vagina. As they were four in number and had threatened to kill her, she did not resist them. While leaving, they threatened her" If you disclose our names to anybody, we will finish you". While leaving, one of them had left his blue jerken on the spot which she produced at the time of lodging of the F.I.R. Thereafter, Anita put on her clothes. While she was returning. She saw two policemen (one of whom has been examined as Bapu Gaikwad P.W. 4) informed them about the incident, and showed them the place where the appellants had raped her. Bapu Gaikwad and his associate (Constable Borkar) searched for the appellants in the surrounding area but, could not find them. Thereafter, all of them came to Malavali Railway Station walking. Thereafter they came to Lonavala Rural Police Station. 3.The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by Anita Jadhav, P.W. 1. The evidence of Constable Bapu Gaikwad P.W. 4 and A.P.I. Arjun Bhosale P.W. 7 shows that Anita came to Lonavla Rural Police Station on 17-8-1994 at 8.30 p.m. Evidence of A.P.I. Bhosale also shows that after making inquires from her, he recorded her F.I.R. in writing and registered the offence at 11.15 p.m. In para 2 of his examination- in-chief A.P.I. Bhosale has stated that the reason for the delay in registering the case was that Anita was talking very slowly and seemed to be mentally dull. 4.The evidence of Gunabai P.W. 2, the mother of Anita, shows that at about 8.30 p.m. in the evening, when she came home, she did not find Anita. Consequently, searching for her, she went to Chinchwad but, did not find her there. She also searched for her at her cousin sister's place but, did not find her. Hence, she slept. 5.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by A.P.I. Bhosale P.W. 7. After registering the F.I.R. he sent Anita for medical examination to Sasoon Hospital, Pune. On 18-8-1994, at about 8.30 a.m. he went to the spot and prepared the panchanama of the scene of the offence on the pointing out of Constable Borkar, to whom Anita had shown the place of the incident. Then, he recorded the statement of six witnesses and returned to police station. In the meantime, a lady Constable who had got Anita admitted in the Sasoon Hospital, Pune, returned along with clothes which Anita was putting on at the time of the incident and he seized the said clothes in the presence of two panchas under a panchanama Exhibit 10. On 19-8-1994, he arrested the appellants and showed them to Anita who recognised them as the persons who has raped her. He thereafter, recorded the supplementary statement (statement under section 161 Cr. P.C.) of Anita. He then took the appellants to the police station; seized their clothes, and arrested them under a panchanama Exhibit 11. He sent the appellants for medical examination. Samples of their blood and semen were taken at Sasoon Hospital. On receiving them they were sent by him to the Chemical Analyst. On 31-10-1994, after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. 6.Going backwards, the medical examination of Anita P.W.1 was conducted on 18-10-1994 at 5.15 p.m. at Sasoon Hospital, Pune by Dr. ( Mrs.) Poornima Pathak P.W. 3. On examining her, Dr. Pathak found that there were no injuries on her breasts, lips, cheeks, thighs and back. She also did not notice any injury on labia minora. She found an old healed hymenal tear. On examining the vagina, she found that it admitted two fingers easily. In the opinion of Dr. Pathak, Anita was habituated to sexual intercourse. On examining her, Dr. Pathak found that there were no injuries on her breasts, lips, cheeks, thighs and back. She also did not notice any injury on labia minora. She found an old healed hymenal tear. On examining the vagina, she found that it admitted two fingers easily. In the opinion of Dr. Pathak, Anita was habituated to sexual intercourse. 7.Since ascertaining the age of Anita was very vital, in view of the offences, for which she was being prosecuted, she was referred for the age verification to Dr. Promod Godbole P.W.5, Associate Professor in Pathalogy and Officiating Professor in Forensic Medicine, B.J. Medical College, Pune (at the time of the incident). On 1-9-1994, Dr. Godbole examined her. On seeking the X-ray reports which were taken, he came to the conclusion that she was about 14 years of age. To prove her age, the prosecution also examined one Jyotsna Vaidya P.W. 6 who was a teacher in Kamla Nehru Kanyashala, Pimpri, where Anita had studied in the year 1986 in First Standard. She stated that at time of admission in proof of Anita's age, her mother had brought the Janmatipan which was returned by the school authorities. She also brought the Admission Register wherein Anita's date of birth was entered as 17-1-1981. 8.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellants were charged on the counts for which they have been found guilty by the trial Court. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. A suggestion given to Anita during the course of her cross examination which she denied was that she did not know the names of the persons who had raped her and on the insistence of Shankar Nikam and Sunil Kale, who were enmical with the appellants, she falsely deposed against them. During the trial, in all the prosecution examined seven witnesses. We may straight away mention that Anita P.W. 1 is the solitary eye-witness of the incident. Apart from Anita, her mother Gunabai P.W.2, Constable Bapu Gaikwad P.W. 4 who immediately met her at Lohgad Fort after the incident, two doctors namely Dr. Pathak P.W. 3, Dr. Gokhale P.W. 5, Jyotsna Vaidya P.W. 6 a teacher in Kamla Nehru Kanyashala, Pimpri where Anita had studied and the Investigating Officer A.P.I. Bhosale P.W. 7 were also examined. Apart from Anita, her mother Gunabai P.W.2, Constable Bapu Gaikwad P.W. 4 who immediately met her at Lohgad Fort after the incident, two doctors namely Dr. Pathak P.W. 3, Dr. Gokhale P.W. 5, Jyotsna Vaidya P.W. 6 a teacher in Kamla Nehru Kanyashala, Pimpri where Anita had studied and the Investigating Officer A.P.I. Bhosale P.W. 7 were also examined. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution; rejected the defence of the appellants; and convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated in para No. 1 above. Hence, this appeal. 9.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. We are constrained to observe that we do not find any substance in this appeal. 10.The crucial evidence in the instant case is of Anita P.W. 1, the prosecutrix. In para 2, we have set out the prosecution story on the basis of the recitals contained in her F.I.R. and her examination-in-chief. In short, she stated therein that on the date of the incident, at about 8 a.m. her mother left for work. Thereafter, she left for her maternal uncle's place in Chinchwad. While she was on way to his place, she met the appellants, whom she knew from before, near the field of Patil. They insisted that she should accompany them to the Lohgad Fort. Initially, she resisted but, on their insistence, relented. She accompanied them to Pimpri Railway Station which they reached at about 10. a.m. There they caught a local train and alighted at Malavli Railway Station at about 11. a.m. Thereafter, they climbed the hill and reached Lohgad Fort at about 1 p.m. In the said fort, at the arch, near the tomb, the appellant-Suresh caught hold of her hands and asked her to undress. He threatened to kill her if she did not comply with his directions. Consequently, she undressed herself and thereafter, the appellants undressed themselves. First appellant- Suresh followed by the other three appellants raped her in the manner described in para 2. After raping her, the appellants ran away. Thereafter, she dressed herself and while she was coming down, she met two constable ( Bapu Gaikwad P.W. 4) and Borkar ( not examined) and told them about the incident. Along with the Constables, she searched for the appellants but, did not find them. After raping her, the appellants ran away. Thereafter, she dressed herself and while she was coming down, she met two constable ( Bapu Gaikwad P.W. 4) and Borkar ( not examined) and told them about the incident. Along with the Constables, she searched for the appellants but, did not find them. Thereafter, she came along with them to Lonavla Rural Police Station where she lodged the F.I.R. 11.We have gone through the statement of Anita P.W. 1 and we find that it inspires confidence. Her evidence shows that she knew the appellants from before the incident. In her cross-examination, in para 3 she has stated that she lives in Bhatnagar colony wherein there are 28 buildings, each having four floors. She stated therein that in the building wherein she resided, on the ground floor, the appellants- Balu and Sanjay lived. In Building No. 17, the appellant- Suresh lived. The appellant-Sunil was also earlier residing in Bhatnagar colony. Since Anita knew the appellants from before the incident, she ultimately succumbed to their pressure of accompanying them to the Lohgad Fort where they raped her. It is pertinent to point out that the spot panchanama (Exhibit 23) of the incident, the genuineness of which has been admitted by the defence, under section 294 Cr. P.C. shows that the incident took place behind the walls towards the south of 6th arch and above 5th arch and persons could hide behind those walls. It also shows that at the place of the incident, grass was pressed and disturbed and the place of the incident was soft ground. 12.It is significant to point out that Anita had no rancour or animosity against the appellants and in our view, in the absence of the same, would not have falsely implicated the appellants. It is true that in her cross- examination, she admitted that between Shankar Nikam and the appellants, there was a strained relationship but, why Anita should have been a tool in the hands of Shankar Nikam is something which the appellants Counsel has not been able to establish. 13.It should be borne in mind that if a witness has no reason to falsely implicate an accused, a Court is very slow in rejecting his testimony. The reason is that normal human experience is that in the absence of any rancour or ill-will, a person would not falsely implicate another. 13.It should be borne in mind that if a witness has no reason to falsely implicate an accused, a Court is very slow in rejecting his testimony. The reason is that normal human experience is that in the absence of any rancour or ill-will, a person would not falsely implicate another. 14.It is true that the medical evidence does not prima facie corroborate the commission of rape by four persons but, we should evaluate this medical evidence in the background of certain circumstances. Firstly, it should be borne in mind that in between the incident and medical examination, there was a gap of more than 28 hours. We say this because, the incident took place on 17-8-1994 at 1 p.m. and Anita was medically examined by Dr. pathak on 18-8-1994 at 5.15 p.m. In our view, on account of efflux of 28 hours, symptoms of rape may have disappeared. It is very likely that during these 28 hours. Anita may have bathed and therefore, semen stains etc. might have been washed. Again the circumstances, that Dr. Pathak found Anita to be habituated to sexual intercourse and she was raped under the threat that if he raised cries, she would be killed, are also pertinent. It is common knowledge that if sexual intercourse is committed upon a woman who is habituated to sexual intercourse and who has been threatened that in case she raised cries, she would be killed, she would offer no resistance and hence no injuries would be found on her person. Another reason for absence of abrasions or marks of violence on Anita's person is that her evidence shows that on the date of the incident, it had rained and consequently the surface on which she lay while being raped, must have become soft. We feel it pertinent to point out that a perusal of the spot panchanama Exhibit 23 shows that the ground on which she was made to lie down and subjected to rape was soft. 15.Assurance is forthcoming to Anita's evidence by the circumstances that during the course of the investigation, her clothes were seized under a panchanama Exhibit 11 and sent to the Chemical Analyst. The blood sample and the semen sample of the appellants were also sent to the Chemical Analyst. 15.Assurance is forthcoming to Anita's evidence by the circumstances that during the course of the investigation, her clothes were seized under a panchanama Exhibit 11 and sent to the Chemical Analyst. The blood sample and the semen sample of the appellants were also sent to the Chemical Analyst. In para 30 of the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge has observed that the report of the Chemical Analyst shows that the blood group of the appellants Suresh and Balu was 'O' and the blood group of the appellants Sunil and Sanjay was 'B'. The learned trial Judge has observed that the semen group and the blood group of a person would be the same. He has also observed that since on the sari of Anita, the Chemical Analyst found semen stains of 'B' and 'O' group, it was evident that this was a highly incriminating circumstance against the appellants. We find merit in his reasoning. 16.We have already referred earlier to the evidence of Dr. Godbole P.W. 5 and Jyotsna Vaidya P.W. 6. Their evidence shows that Anita was aged about 13½ years at the time of the incident. In all fairness, we may add that Mr. Chitnis learned Counsel for the appellants has frankly stated that it would not be possible for him to assail Anita's age as established by the said witnesses. Since Anita was below 16 years of age, at the time of the incident, in our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and since she was below 18 years of age, at that time he acted correctly in convicting for offences punishable under section 363 and 366 I.P.C. So far as the offence under section 506(2) I.P.C. is concerned, question of age is not relevant. 17.In our view, the learned trial Judge also acted correctly in convicting the appellant Suresh for the offence under section 506(2) I.P.C. and the remaining appellants for the said offence read with section 34 I.P.C. 18.We would be failing in our fairness, if we do not refer to the submissions canvassed by Mr. Chitnis learned Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Chitnis vehemently contended that the F.I.R of the incident was not lodged at 11.15 p.m., on 17-8-1994 as contended by the prosecution but, at about 3 p.m. the same day as admitted by Anita during her cross-examination. Chitnis learned Counsel for the appellants. Mr. Chitnis vehemently contended that the F.I.R of the incident was not lodged at 11.15 p.m., on 17-8-1994 as contended by the prosecution but, at about 3 p.m. the same day as admitted by Anita during her cross-examination. He also urged that the original F.I.R lodged by Anita has been suppressed by the prosecution. It is true that in her cross-examination, Anita stated that she lodged the F.I.R. at about 3 p.m. but, in our view, the said statement was made by her under some confusion. It should be borne in mind that Anita was aged about 14 years at the time of her deposition and the learned trial Judge who had the advantage to watch her demeanour, has observed in the impugned judgment, that she was slow of understanding. In such a situation, we feel that instead of placing reliance on Anita's admission that the F.I.R. was lodged at 3 p.m. it would be proper and safer to place reliance on the admission of Constable Bapu Gaikwad P.W. 4 and A.P.I. Arjun Bhosale P.W. 7 both of whom stated in their examination-in-chief that Anita reached the police station at 8.30 p.m. (and not at 3 p.m.) on 17-8-1994. A.P.I Bhosale has stated that after enquiring from her, he recorded her complaint and since she was slow of understanding, it took him time in recording the complaint and that was the reason why her complaint was registered at 11.15 p.m. It is also pertinent to mention that during the cross-examination, no suggestion was given to A.P.I Bhosale that the F.I.R was lodged at 3 p.m. and not at 11.15 p.m. and the original F.I.R. lodged by Anita had been suppressed. What was suggested to him and which he denied was that Anita had come with Constables Gaikwad and Borkar to the police station at 3.30 p.m. For the said reasons, we feel that the said submission of Mr. Chitnis is without merit. 19.Mr. Chitnis next contended that the absence of injuries on the person of Anita, belie the commission of rape on her by the four appellants. We are constrained to observe that we also find that this submission is devoid of substance. Evidence of Anita shows that she was threatened that she would be killed if she raised cries. In such a situation, she was raped. We are constrained to observe that we also find that this submission is devoid of substance. Evidence of Anita shows that she was threatened that she would be killed if she raised cries. In such a situation, she was raped. The spot panchanama, the genuineness of which has been admitted by the defence under section 294 Cr. P.C., shows that the grass on which Anita was raped was soft. This recital in the spot panchanama appears to be correct because, the evidence of Anita is that it had rained on that day. Again Anita was found to be used to sexual intercourse by Dr. Pathak P.W. 3 who medically examined her. It is common knowledge that if a woman is accustomed to sexual intercourse then marks of violence or injuries on private parts would not be there. 20.Mr. Chitnis next urged that Anita 's evidence shows that at first she did not disclose the name of her rapists and this shows that either she did not know the is names or falsely implicated them. In this connection, he invited our attention to her cross-examination wherein she admitted in para 5 that on the date of the incident, she came in a police jeep to her house and Shankar Nikam and Sunil Kale disclosed to the police the names of the appellants. This admission of the hers has to be read in conjunction with that in the next line which reads "I had not told to the police, the names of the accused because, they had threatened me." We find that her averment that the accused had threatened her is correct because, it finds a mention in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R, Anita has categorically stated that the accused persons had threatened her that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, they would kill her. In the F.I.R, she has also named all the accused appellants. For the said reasons, we reject this submission also. 21.Mr. Chitnis next urged that since Anita has only mentioned the first names and not the full names of the appellants, in her F.I.R, it was imperative for the Investigating Agency to have held a identification parade of the appellants during investigation, wherein Anita should have been sent to identify the appellants. We regret that we do not find any merit in this submission either. We regret that we do not find any merit in this submission either. It is well settled that if a witness knows an accused by name, the test identification would be a fare. In our view, a test identification is only necessary in those cases where a witness does not know an accused by name. 22.Mr. Chitnis finally urged that the circumstance that on the date of the incident, prior to the lodging of the F.I.R, Anita came to her house in a police jeep shows that she came from police station. It is true that the evidence is not very clear as to how she reached her house in a police jeep but, in our view, this circumstance does not necessarily show that she had been to the police station and from there, she came in a police jeep. At any rate, this is hardly a circumstance which would wash off the weighty evidence of Anita. Her evidence has to be evaluated bearing in mind that she had no rancour or illwill against the appellants and in the absence of any plausible reason on her part to falsely implicate them, she would not have falsely implicated them. 23.This leaves us with only one question namely the question of sentence. The minimum sentence for the offence of gang-rape under section 376(2)(g) is 10 years R.I. and since the appellants have been awarded the said sentence, there in no question of reducing their sentence. It is true that even in cases of gang-rape, for special reasons, it is open to the Court to award a sentence of less than 10 years R.I. but, we find that in the instant case, no special reasons have been brought on record which would justify a sentence below the minimum. The appellants who knew Anita from before the incident first cheated her confidence by luring her to accompany them to Lohgad Fort; and thereafter under a threat that if she raised cries, they would kill her in a very beastly manner, committed rape on her, one after the other. The appellants who knew Anita from before the incident first cheated her confidence by luring her to accompany them to Lohgad Fort; and thereafter under a threat that if she raised cries, they would kill her in a very beastly manner, committed rape on her, one after the other. The nature of the committed by the appellants and the manner in which they committed the same, as a matter of fact, calls for a more deterrent sentence but, we are helpless as the State of Maharashtra has not preferred an appeal for enhancement of sentence under section 377 Cr.P.C. and we think that it would be improper spector to issue a notice for enhancement of sentence to the appellants at this belated stage. So far as the sentences of the appellants on other counts are concerned, we feel that they are not excessive. At any rate, they have been directed to run concurrently with their major sentence under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. 24.For the said reasons, we confirm the convictions and sentences of the appellants on all the counts and dismiss this appeal. The appellants are in jail and shall remain there till they serve out their sentences. In case certified copies of this Judgment are applied for by the learned Counsel for the parties, the same shall be issued on an expedited basis. Appeal dismissed. -----