B. K. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 14-8-1981 passed by Sri R. D. Mathur, the then IVth Additionalsessions Judge, Jhansi in S. T. No. 63 of 1978 (State v. Lakhan Singh and others), whereby he convicted the accused-appellant Lakhan Singh of the offence under Section 376, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of 5 years and convicted Jassi and Ram Kishan accused appellant Nos. 2 and 3 of the offence under Section 376 read with Section 109, I. P. C. and sentenced each one of them to undergo R. I. for a period of 5 years. ( 2 ) THE prosecutrix in this case is Smt. Pan Kumari, a married woman. Her age on the date of occurrence as estimated on the basis of ossification test by Dr. C. B. Agrawal was 19 years and the said estimate has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge and there is no reason to doubt the same. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case was that the prosecutrix Smt. Pan Kumari had come to her parents house in Havetputra in the days of occurrence, that on 18-2-1977 she had gone in the noon to collect green fodder from matiyara field of Dr. of village Munar, that while she was going to the field she found all the three accused appellants sitting together on a hillock, that when she was plucking green fodder from the field, the accused-appellants reached there, accused Lakhan Singh caught her Jholi, in which she was keeping the plucked fodder and clasped her and asked her as to why she was taking the green fodder from his field, whereupon, she said that it was the field of the Dr. that thereupon, the accused-appellant Lakhan Singh threw her to the ground, that she asked from Jassi accused-appellant as to why he does not forbid Lakhan Singh accused who is throwing her to the ground, that on this all the accused-appellants started laughing and clapping, that Lakhan Singh accused-appellant committed rape upon her gagging her mouth, that after it all the 3 accused-appellants ran away from there, that Michchu and Natthu witnesses came to the spot, that the prosecutrix made the complaint to them about the occurrence, that she went back to her parents house weeping, that on that day, her brother had gone to some other village, her mother had gone to her Maika and her father had also gone there, that on information being given, her parents came, that her father accompanied her to the police station on 19-2-1977 and dictated her FIR to the clerk constable in the noon at 12. 10 p. m. on that basis a chick report was prepared and a case was registered under Section 376 I. P. C. ( 4 ) HER medical examination was made by Dr. Smt. Prabhawati Jain on 19-2-1977 at 6. 15 p. m. There was no mark of injury over her body. Uterus was about 20 weeks size. Foetal parts were felt and foetal movements were present. Labia Majora was reddish hymen old ruptured. ( 5 ) AT the trial, the prosecutrix had narrated the entire occurrence on oath. Natthu P. W. 2 testified that when he reached near the Har of Nunar near the culvert of canal, he saw the prosecutrix crying and also saw all the 3 accused-appellants running. He also stated that he saw the prosecutrix standing and on enquiry by him, she told him that Lakhan Singh accused-appellant had committed rape upon her and that the other two persons had not done any rape with her. The lady doctor gave the medical evidence at the trial. The usual evidence about the investigation was also led at the trial. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the prosecution evidence. He consequently, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid. ( 6 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that the Sessions Judge wrongly accepted the prosecution evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has believed the prosecution evidence. He consequently, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforesaid. ( 6 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellants has argued that the Sessions Judge wrongly accepted the prosecution evidence. He pointed out that there were no marks of external injury found on the body of the prosecutrix by the lady doctor, while the prosecutrix had claimed that her back and buttocks had abraded by fall and dragging, that the prosecutrix claimed that her bangles had broken which she had shown to the investigating officer who had taken the said broken bangles in custody at the spot while the investigating officer had not testified to finding any such broken bangles and to taking of any such broken bangles into custody. He has also placed reliance on the fact that the Dhoti which she was wearing at the time of occurrence was taken in custody by the investigating officer but was not sent to the forensic expert for examination. He has also claimed that there were material contradictions appearing in the prosecution evidence which make the prosecution story doubtful. It has also been claimed that the prosecutrix was a girl of easy virtue and for this reason also, her evidence should not have been believed. He has claimed that the accused-appellantshave been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. ( 8 ) THE learned A. G. A. has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and claimed that there was no ground for false implication and there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the prosecutrix which was amply corroborated by circumstantial evidence. ( 9 ) BEFORE coming to the factual aspect of the case, it will be useful to refer to the recent authority of the Apex Court State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393 : 1996 AIR SCW 998 : (1996) Cri LJ 1728 ). In that case, it was argued before the Apex Court that there was delay in lodging the first information report. The Apex Court found that there was no delay and further that, if at all, there was some delay, the same has not only been properly explained by the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances of the case was also natural. The Apex Court found that there was no delay and further that, if at all, there was some delay, the same has not only been properly explained by the prosecution but in the facts and circumstances of the case was also natural. The Apex Court said (at p. 1006, para 7 of AIR SCW) :"the Courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complaint about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged". IN that case as soon as the father of the prosecutrix learnt about the rape, he approached the village Sarpanch, who in his turn got in touch with the sarpanch of the village where the occurrence had taken place and when the Panchayats failed to provide relief or render any justice to the prosecutrix, she and her family decided to report the matter to the police and before doing so, the father and the mother of the prosecutrix discussed whether or not to lodge a report to the police in view of the repercussions it might have on the reputation and future prospects of the marriage etc. of their daughter. In that case, the prosecutrix had been abducted and taken to another place and then raped and after it taken back near the Boys High School from where she was abducted and abandoned there and there she did not give information to the teachers at the centre and complained only to the mother on reaching her house and the Apex Court observed (at pp. 1007-08 of AIR SCW) :"a girl, in a tradition bound non permissive society in India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society. ". . . 1007-08 of AIR SCW) :"a girl, in a tradition bound non permissive society in India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society. ". . . "the Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict on 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? 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 at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at 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 asexual 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. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another personss lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable. "in the present case, the evidence is that she protested to Jassi and cried and when on her cries Natthu P. W. reached the spot, she complained to him and returned to her house weeping and the delay in lodging the first information report has been satisfactorily explained. Her brother and parents were away from her village and her parents were sent message and called back to the village and then she went to the police station accompanied with her father and herself lodged the first information report. Therefore, the Sessions Judge was right in not discarding the prosecution case on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. He was also right in holding that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the Sessions Judge was right in not discarding the prosecution case on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. He was also right in holding that the delay has been satisfactorily explained. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellants have referred to the statement elicited from the prosecutrix in her cross-examination that her parents returned at the village the next day after the occurrence and that she had gone to lodge the report the same day on which her father had returned in the evening at 7-8 p. m. and pointed out that according to prosecution the chick report had been prepared on 19-2-1977 at 12. 10 p. m. at the police station and her medical examination had been made on 19-2-1977 itself at 6. 15 p. m. In this regard, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly ignored the contradictions in view of the fact that the accused persons had not challenged before him anywhere the time of the medical examination of the prosecutrix by the lady doctor as noted above and the fact that the statement of the prosecutrix who was an illiterate and ignorant village girl was being recorded at the trial on 14-4-1981 after a lapse of more than 4 years from the date of occurrence (17-2-1977) (18-2-1977 ). He has also observed that the prosecutrix had no knowledge that the first information report of the incident is to be lodged at the earliest. He has also placed on record that in the evening her parents returned and on the next day, she went to the police station along with her father and maternal uncle to lodge the first information report. He has also rightly observed that a report about the rape incident affects the family honour and that in the case in hands, the honour of not one but two families was at stake namely the parents side and in-laws side of the prosecutrix and that it is not uncommon that such considerations delay action on the part of near relations of a young girl who is raped. Therefore, nothing revolves in this case on the delay in the lodging of the FIR which is amply explained and also having regard to the common course of conduct in this type of cases. Therefore, nothing revolves in this case on the delay in the lodging of the FIR which is amply explained and also having regard to the common course of conduct in this type of cases. ( 11 ) IT has been argued before me by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the FIR in this case has been ante timed. However, this plea is only an after thought because no such suggestion was made to the constable Brij Narain who recorded the chick report (P. W. 3) or to the lady doctor Prabhawati Jains (PW 5) in her cross-examination. ( 12 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons for ignoring the absence of any injuries on the external body of the prosecutrix in the medical report recorded by the lady doctor contrary to the claim by the prosecutrix that she has received injury on her back and buttock in the transaction. He has observed that it is true that she had stated that the accused had dragged her in the field and that she had received scratches on her back and buttock but she could not have seen these scratches because as per her own saying they were on that part of the body which could not be seen by one self and that because of being dragged she might have left that she had received scratches on her back and buttock but no apparentmarks of injury might have been caused. I see no reason to differ particularly in this case where the prosecutrix was carrying an embryo in her womb. She was having pregnancy of 20 weeks as per the medical report of the lady doctor which has not been challenged. The presence of pregnancy in her womb might have deterred her from struggling and giving stiff resistance. In fact her pregnancy would have largely made her incapable of struggling and giving stiff resistance. The evidence indicates that there was green grass present in the field where the occurrence took place which might have prevented the coming of visible injury marks on her back and buttock. Further- more, it has to be kept in mind that the occurrence took place on 18-2-1977 before noon whereas the medical examination was made on the next day at 6. 15 p. m. Minor abrasions could have become obliterated or invisible after lapse of this much time. Further- more, it has to be kept in mind that the occurrence took place on 18-2-1977 before noon whereas the medical examination was made on the next day at 6. 15 p. m. Minor abrasions could have become obliterated or invisible after lapse of this much time. ( 13 ) THE probability of consent is ruled out in the present case for the simple reason that on medical evidence, the prosecutrix was carrying 20 weeks pregnancy. She could hardly likely to take the adventure of having sexual intercourse in the field in the village of her parents with this accused Lakhan Singh and that too in broad day light. As a matter of fact, no plea of consent has been raised before me. The ground is only of false implication of all the 3 accused-applicants. ( 14 ) MUCH has been tried to be made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant of the fact that P. W. 2 Natthu had made an admission in his cross-examination that the prosecutrix was not a chaste girl, "nanak KUNWAR KA CHAL CHALAN THIK NAHIN HAI" There was absolutely no material to indicate that the prosecutrix was a girl of an immoral character. It was likely that Natthu P. W. 2 might have agreed to oblige the accused-appellants by making this admission. This likelihood becomes near certainty when we notice the statement of the prosecutrix, at the trial as P. W. (sic) (i. e. prior to the testimony of Natthu P. W. 2) that the witnesses have been paid by the accused persons and so they have returned from the way and had not come to the Court to appear as a witness in the case. It is not necessary that money would have been paid in her presence but her statement does indicate that she got news that they have been won over and so had returned from the way. The fact that while she was examined on 15-4-1981, Natthu P. W. 2 was examined at the trial on 30-4-1981 is also suggestive that he was subject to some such influence. In his examination-in-chief, he first said that when he first reached near the culvert of canal, he saw nothing. Then he said that the prosecutrix was crying. Then he said that besides this, he saw 2-3 persons running away. In his examination-in-chief, he first said that when he first reached near the culvert of canal, he saw nothing. Then he said that the prosecutrix was crying. Then he said that besides this, he saw 2-3 persons running away. This reply gave the impression that he could not identify them as they were running. Then he stated that he saw Lakhan Singh, Jassi and Ram Kishan running from the spot. He said that he saw the prosecutrix standing (meaning thereby that he did not see her being ravished) but then he had to say that on being asked the prosecutrix told him that the accused Lakhan had committed rape with her and two other persons had not done any such act with her. It is not, therefore, surprising that the defence extracted an admission from this witness that the moral conduct of the prosecutrix was not proper. This reply has also to be viewed in the background of the suggestion made to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination when she was in the witness box i. e. prior to this witness that before this occurrence some persons had tried to commit rape with her and that she had been called to police station Gurusahai. She had denied on oath that some persons had tried to commit rape with her and she also denied that she was called to police station about any such matter. This admission of Natthu P. W. is also to be weighed in the light of the suggestion made earlier to him (Natthu P. W. 2) in his cross-examination that after her marriage, some persons had molested her and that before the occurrence she was molested by some boys of a Habetpura. His reply to the first suggestion was that he did not know. His reply to the second suggestion was that he did not recollect. It is significant that it was after these replies that it was extracted from him, "nanak KUNWAR KA CHAL CHALAN THIK NAHIN HAI". The aforesaid suggestions made to the prosecutrix and to Natthu P. W. 2 (prior to this admission of Natthu P. W. 2) even if admitted as a statement of fact, did not show that she was a girl of easy virtue. The aforesaid suggestions made to the prosecutrix and to Natthu P. W. 2 (prior to this admission of Natthu P. W. 2) even if admitted as a statement of fact, did not show that she was a girl of easy virtue. Far from it, on the contrary, these suggestions if given the fullest amplitude only tended to show that some boys wanted to molest her and rape her and had attempted to do so but had failed to succeed. If she was a victimof molestation and attempted rape as suggested to her or to this witness (Natthu P. W. 2) it could not be said even for a moment that she was a girl of easy virtue. It was not the suggestion of the defence that she was caught red handed prior to the present occurrence in a compromising position with some malice and that the matter had come to the knowledge of the police but it was hushed up. Under these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the admission extracted from Natthu P. W. 2 that she was not a chaste girl. ( 15 ) IN this connection, it will be useful to refer to the relevant observations of the Apex Court in Gurmit Singhs case ( AIR 1996 SC 1393 : 1996 Cri LJ 1728, Para 15), which are as under :"even in cases, unlike the present case, where there is some acceptable material on the record to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no such inference like the victim being a girl of "loose moral character" is permissible to be drawn from that circumstances alone. Even if the prosecutrix in a given case, has been promiscuous in her sexual behaviour earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse to anyone and everyone because she is not a vulnerable object or prey for being sexually assaulted by anyone and everyone". ( 16 ) RELIANCE has been placed on the facts that it was stated by this witness Natthu P. W. 2 that when he heard the cries of the prosecutrix and saw the accused persons at the hillock, they had already covered the distance of one or two and half furlongs. ( 16 ) RELIANCE has been placed on the facts that it was stated by this witness Natthu P. W. 2 that when he heard the cries of the prosecutrix and saw the accused persons at the hillock, they had already covered the distance of one or two and half furlongs. It was a broad day light occurrence and it is not disputed that these accused-appellants were known to this witness from before and so there could be no difficulty in identification of these accused-persons even from that distance. Even assuming that he could not identify them, the prosecution case is not damaged in the least because in any case, he corroborates the prosecutrix about her cries which show that she was subjected to forcible rape and that she had made a complaint to him that she was ravished by Lakhan Singh accused-appellant. If the witness has said that she did not make any allegation about the other two persons it only shows that she was a truthful witness and was not out to make imputations against these two accused-appellants beyond what had actually happened. ( 17 ) THERE is of course the contradiction about broken bangles but it is to be noted that in this case the investigating officer made the spot inspection on 20-2-1977 while the occurrence took place in the forenoon of 18-2-1977. He might have not taken care to look for broken bangoles or after this much gap of time the broken pieces might have become untraceable. Further in this case the point is not material because sexual intercourse by consent is ruled out in this case as noted above. The investigating officer has been negligent in not sending the Dhoti of the prosecutrix that was taken in custody by him, for examination by the forensic expert for signs of semen, blood etc. Further this failure to send the Dhoti for the examination by the Forensic expert could not lead to discarding the testimony of the prosecutrix which is otherwise trustworthy and to acquittal of a culprit against whom the case is otherwise established. As a matter of fact, the report of the Forensic expert could not be of help either way in the case of marriage women. ( 18 ) A plea of false implication has been taken by Lakhan Singh accused-appellant. As a matter of fact, the report of the Forensic expert could not be of help either way in the case of marriage women. ( 18 ) A plea of false implication has been taken by Lakhan Singh accused-appellant. It is claimed that prior to this occurrence, Gayadeen, father of the prosecutrix used to take foodgrain from his house at Sawai and when the foodgrains was demanded back, he get irritated and get him falsely implicated so that the foodgrains might not have to be returned. The prosecutrix has pleaded ignorance of any such taking of grain on Sawai by her father but she has denied the plea of false implication categorically. It cannot be believed that the father of the prosecutrix who was a married woman would get the accused-appellant Lakhan Singh falsely implicated in this case for the sake of escaping the payment for or return of any wheat taken by him on Sawai from him. The father of a married girl was least likely to adopt such a course for such a matter. Furthermore, the prosecutrix was not at all likely to become party to any such accusation which would not only affect her honour but also put her entire marital life in jeopardy. There is no reason why she could falsely implicate this accused-appellant for having committed rape upon her. ( 19 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellants has placed reliance on a authority of the Apex Court Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of Maharashtra,1998 (37) All Cri C 515 : ( AIR 1998 SC 3131 ): 1998 Cri LJ 4559. I have gone through this authority. I am afraid this authority does not help the present accused-appellant. That case revolved on its own facts. It is the sum total of all the established facts and circumstances which gives the outcome of the case. It is the over all picture which emerges on a consideration of all the material facts and circumstances on record in their proper prospective. It is true that in the case of Suresh also the medical evidence did not record any external injury on the body of the victim while she claimed that she had received scratches on her body because of dragging and resistance but then there were other material circumstances also obliging the court to reject her testimony. It is true that in the case of Suresh also the medical evidence did not record any external injury on the body of the victim while she claimed that she had received scratches on her body because of dragging and resistance but then there were other material circumstances also obliging the court to reject her testimony. There were material discrepancies between her testimony and the testimony of her brother-in-law. She had not made any complaint to her brother-in-law or any other person soon after the occurrence. The case of the prosecutrix was that she had gone to the shop of appellant No. 1 for purchasing match box and that at that time she was carrying a bundle of food articles on her head and she kept it on the platform of the shop and the Apex Court observed that if she had really gone only for the purpose, there was no necessity for her to do so, that then another witness had found the bundle of food articles aforesaid not outside the shop but outside the door of the middle room of the shop i. e. to say well within the shop and the Apex Court inferred that if that was so that it would mean that she had gone inside the shop willingly and was not lifted from the outer portion of the shop and then dragged and taken into the middle room. It was in that context that her claim of having received injury and the absence of injury marks in medical report were considered as a further circumstance discarding her testimony. That was a case where in her evidence prosecution had stated that when the incident took place, she was pregnant, that it was already 7 months old and because of the rape, she had aborted on the 3rd day and the Apex Court noticed that when she was examined by Dr. Suley after a few days, no positive sign or recent abortion was noticed and the Apex Court, therefore, observed that it would go to show that she was making a deliberate improvement on material point when she stated that at the time of rape she was in an advance stage of pregnancy with a view to rule out consent. Suley after a few days, no positive sign or recent abortion was noticed and the Apex Court, therefore, observed that it would go to show that she was making a deliberate improvement on material point when she stated that at the time of rape she was in an advance stage of pregnancy with a view to rule out consent. As against it in the present case, the medical evidence has established that at the time of occurrence, the prosecutrix was carrying a pregnancy of as many as 20 weeks and there was no challenge to this medical evidence from the side of the accused-appellant and I have observed earlier that this circumstance ruled out the possibility of her having had sexual intercourse with any 3rd person with consent and that too in her parents village in broad day light in an open field. ( 20 ) EVEN at the cost of repetition, it must be stated here that in this case, the evidence on record indicates that she promptly made a protest to Jassi co-accused, and made a complaint to Natthu P. W. 2 at the spot itself and went from the spot to her parents house weeping which was not the conduct of a women having promiscuous relations with others. It was not a case where the girl makes a complaint on being found by others in a compromising position with a third person. ( 21 ) IN view of the above discussion, the finding of the learned sessions Judge against Lakhan accused-appellant that he has committed rape upon the prosecutrix was perfectly valid and justified and no valid exception can be taken to the same. ( 21 ) IN view of the above discussion, the finding of the learned sessions Judge against Lakhan accused-appellant that he has committed rape upon the prosecutrix was perfectly valid and justified and no valid exception can be taken to the same. ( 22 ) SO far as the accused-appellants Ram Kishan and Jassi are concerned, it has been argued besides claiming that they have been falsely implicated in this case, that the acts and omissions imputed to them did not constitute an offence under Section 376 I. P. C. read with Section 109 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the circumstances put forward by the prosecution namely the sitting together of all the three accused-appellants at the hillock while the prosecutrix was going to the field of Doctor Nunar for plucking green fodder, the coming of all the three to the spot together, and the fact that on her complaint to Jassi he and Ram Kishan accused-appellants both laughed and clapped and that all the 3 accused-appellants ran away from the spot together. I have given though to the question. Abetment of the doing of a thing is done if a person instigates any person to do that thing or enters into conspiracy for the doing of that thing and if an act or illegalomission takes place in pursuance thereof in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing. If anything is done in order to facilitate the commission of that act, it amounts to aiding the doing of that thing. In this case, these two accused-appellants Jassi and Ram Kishan did not commit rape with the prosecutrix, they did not physically hold any part of her body nor did they even intimidated her nor did they do any other act to facilitate the commission of rape by Lakhan Singh accused-appellant. There is also no evidence to show any connection between Lakhan Singh accused-appellants and the other two accused-appellants Jassi and Ram Kishan much less any material to establish any conspiracy to commit rape or to facilitate the commission of rape by Lakhan Singh accused-appellant. ( 23 ) THE acts and the commission imputed to these two accused-appellants could hardly be held to amount to abetment of the offence of rape by Lakhan accused-appellant. ( 23 ) THE acts and the commission imputed to these two accused-appellants could hardly be held to amount to abetment of the offence of rape by Lakhan accused-appellant. In any case, Jassi and Ram Kishan accused-appellants ought to get the benefit of doubt. ( 24 ) COMING to the question of sentence with regard to Lakhan Singh accused-appellant, it is enough to say that in recent times, there has been an increase in violence against women causing serious concern. Rape is an experience which shakes the foundations of the lives of the victims. There are cries for harshest penalties and there is justification for the same. Considering the nature of the crime and the facts of the case, the sentence of 5 years R. I. awarded by the trial Court cannot be said to be in any manner excessive. If a lenient view is taken in the matter of punishment in such a case, it would give a wrong message to the likeminded. ( 25 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the appeal so far it relates to Lakhan Singh accused-appellant is dismissed. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 376, I. P. C. simpliciter made by the learned Sessions Judge is maintained. He is on bail from this Court. His bail is cancelled. Let him be taken into custody forthwith and sent to the District Jail concerned to serve out his sentence according to law. ( 26 ) IN regard to Jassi and Ram Kishan accused-appellants, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of both these accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 376/109, I. P. C. is set aside and they are acquitted of the same. They are on bail from this court. They need not surrender to it. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. ( 27 ) LET a copy of this judgment be sent by the office to the learned Sessions Judge concerned at once for compliance. The learned Sessions Judge shall get the accused-appellant Lakhan Singh arrested and consigned to the District Jail concerned for serving out his sentence according to law. The compliance report shall be submitted by the learned Sessions Judge to this Court within 15 days from today. ( 28 ) LET this Criminal Appeal be listed again before this Bench on 17-5-99 for orders along with the compliance report of the learned Sessions Judge concerned. ORDER accordingly. .