JUDGMENT - S.G. MAHAJAN, J.:---This common judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1995. Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995 is brought by appellants No. 1 Ashok Kawaduji Salame and No. 2 Ashok Ramrao Bhujbal, who were accused No. 1 and 2 respectively, and Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1995 is brought by appellant Anil Pundlikrao Badhe, who was an accused No. 3, in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1993 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati. Each of the above accused was convicted of the offences under section 376(2)(g), section 506 read with section 34 and section 448 read with section 34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default to suffer R.I. for six months more for the offence under section 376(2)(g) I.P.C., to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under section 506 read with section 34 I.P.C. and again to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under section 448 read with section 34 I.P.C. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Accused No. 4 Jitu alias Jitendra Marotrao Deshbhrathar in the abovesaid sessions trial is not an appellant since he was acquitted of all the offences. The aforesaid appellants have challenged the above order of conviction and sentence in the appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : (a) At the time of incident, prosecutrix Ku. Meena daughter of Prabhakarrao Gawande was residing together with her mother in one Badgewada in Kalyannagar locality, Amravati. However, some three days prior to the incident, her mother had gone out of station. (b) The incident took place on 21-2-1993, around 11.00 p.m. On that day, the prosecutrix was alone at her house. The milk vendor used to come to Badgewada every day at about 10 to 10.30 p.m. to supply the milk to the occupants of Wada. On that day, the prosecutrix heard the voice of the milk vendor, who was supplying milk in the Wada. When she heard the voice of milk vendor at her door, she opened the door. She was holding the utensil for taking milk. As soon as she extended her hand outside to take the milk, all the four accused forced their entry in her house. When she heard the voice of milk vendor at her door, she opened the door. She was holding the utensil for taking milk. As soon as she extended her hand outside to take the milk, all the four accused forced their entry in her house. One of them pressed the mouth of the prosecutrix and prevented her from shouting. One accused closed the door and latched it from inside. Another threatened her with knife. The other one caught hold of her hands and legs. She was lifted physically and was put on the cot. The saree on her person was removed forcibly and the petticoat was made upwards. All the four accused persons then committed rape upon the prosecutrix turn by turn. At the time when the forcible sexual intercourse was being performed by the accused persons, the prosecutrix was prevented from raising shouts and her legs and arms were caught hold of by the others besides the accused performing the intercourse and thus she was prevented from offering the resistance. She was also threatened with knife. When she requested not to outrage her modesty, one of the accused rudely threatened her that he would tear her off. When the prosecutrix was being raped by the accused persons, one after another, one or the other out of them was going out either for smoking or for chewing pan. Because of the forcible penetration of penis in the vagina of the prosecutrix, it started bleeding. The forcible sexual intercourse as above continued upto midnight. The accused persons thereafter left the house and went away. Even after the accused persons left the house of the prosecutrix, she did not raise the shouts calling the neighbours because she was feeling giddiness and she was semi-conscious. She could not get up from the cot. For the whole night she remained lying on the cot itself in the same condition. (c) Prosecutrix Meena got up in the next morning at about 7.30 a.m. she went to the house of her friend named Sushma. On going there, she again became unconscious. She regained consciousness at about 10 a.m. Then she narrated the entire incident to Sushma. The prosecutrix and Sushma decided to go to Police Station for lodging a report. However, Sushma advised that first they should go to one Nanakram Nanwani residing in Kalyannagar, whom Sushma was treating as uncle. On going there, she again became unconscious. She regained consciousness at about 10 a.m. Then she narrated the entire incident to Sushma. The prosecutrix and Sushma decided to go to Police Station for lodging a report. However, Sushma advised that first they should go to one Nanakram Nanwani residing in Kalyannagar, whom Sushma was treating as uncle. The prosecutrix and Sushma thus proceeded towards Kanwarnagar. On the way to Kanwarnagar, all the accused persons were noticed to be sitting on the bridge. As soon as the prosecutrix and Sushma reached the shop of Nanakram, the prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to him and told him that all the four culprits were sitting on the bridge. Nanakram took the prosecutrix towards the abovesaid bridge on his vehicle - Sunny Moped, but by that time, the accused had left the place. So Nanakram and the prosecutrix went towards the square of Kalyannagar in search of the accused persons. All the four accused were seen at that place. On seeing Nanakram and prosecutrix, the accused persons ran away and they could not be found in spite of chase made by Nanakram and the prosecutrix. Then both of them went to Frezarpura Police Station to make a report, but they were informed to lodge the report in Police Station Rajapeth (as the area in which the offence was committed was within the jurisdiction of that Police Station). Nanakram and prosecutrix then arrived at Police Station Rajapeth. The prosecutrix lodged an oral report in the Police Station, which was reduced into writing by police. At that time, the prosecutrix was not knowing the names of the accused, so she referred to them as four young boys. However, in the report, the prosecutrix gave the details of the incident and also disclosed that at the time of committing rape, some of the culprits were uttering that they were sent by one Naresh. The crime at serial No. 72/93 under section 376 I.P.C. came to be registered. (d) After the report of prosecutrix Meena was recorded and the crime was registered by the police, she was referred to Dufferin Hospital, Amravati, for her medical examination. The Medical Officer Dr. Agrawal examined prosecutrix Meena medically at 4.15 p.m. and also collected the necessary samples. On examination, Dr. Agrawal noted the injuries on the hymen of the prosecutrix with the presence of blood. In the opinion of Dr. The Medical Officer Dr. Agrawal examined prosecutrix Meena medically at 4.15 p.m. and also collected the necessary samples. On examination, Dr. Agrawal noted the injuries on the hymen of the prosecutrix with the presence of blood. In the opinion of Dr. Agrawal, the rape had taken place. Meena was admitted in the hospital for the repairs of tear of vaginal wall. The samples of pubic hair, vaginal smear and blood of the prosecutrix collected as above were handed over to the concerned Police Constable, who produced the same in Police Station Rajapeth. P.S.I. Teli seized the same under the seizure memo. On 23-2-1993 between 10.30 and 11.30 a.m. P.S.I. Teli drew the spot panchanama in presence of prosecutrix. P.S.I. Teli then seized from the spot of occurrence the petticoat of the prosecutrix and one Solapuri bed-sheet, which were stained with blood-mixed semen. The prosecutrix was an indoor patient in the hospital upto 26-2-1993. (e) S.D.P.O. Pradip Deshpande had already taken over the investigation of the abovesaid crime on 23-2-1993. On taking over the investigation, he first went to the hospital, interrogated prosecutrix Meena and obtained the detailed information from Meena pertaining to Naresh, whom she had referred in her report. On the same day, S.D.P.O. Deshpande recorded the statements of Nanakram Nanwani, Sushma Ingle (Friend of Prosecutrix) and one Bandu Shekharwate. On that day, Naresh was not available. On 24-2-1993, he was available and his statement was recorded by S.D.P.O. Deshpande. From that statement, S.D.P.O. Deshpande got the clue of accused Nos. 1 to 4 as the culprits. A search was made for the accused persons. Accused No. 1 Ashok Salame, No. 2 Ashok Bhujbal and No. 3 Anil Badhe came to be arrested on 10-3-1993. On 11-3-1993, all the three accused were produced before the Magistrate and their police custody remand was obtained till 17-3-1993. (f) On 12-3-1993, S.D.P.O. Deshpande interrogated accused No. 3 Anil Badhe. He seized the clothes worn by Anil at the time of incident from his person under the panchanama. Accused No. 1 Ashok Salame gave an information that the knife was kept at the house of a woman named Rekha Kamble and he undertook to produce the same. The memorandum of his version came to be recorded and the accused, panchas, S.D.P.O. Deshpande and Police staff went to the house of Rekha Kamble by police jeep. Accused No. 1 Ashok Salame gave an information that the knife was kept at the house of a woman named Rekha Kamble and he undertook to produce the same. The memorandum of his version came to be recorded and the accused, panchas, S.D.P.O. Deshpande and Police staff went to the house of Rekha Kamble by police jeep. The knife was produced by accused No. 1 Ashok Salame by taking it out from one cloth bag from the house of Rekha Kamble. The same was seized by S.D.P.O. Deshpande under the seizure panchanama. On the same day, S.D.P.O. Deshpande seized the clothes of accused No. 1 and 2 under separate seizure panchanamas. (g) On 15-3-1993, accused No. 1 to 3 were referred to General Hospital, Amravati, for the collection of samples of their semen. On that day, the semen sample of accused No. 3 Anil Badhe was collected and the samples of semen of the other two accused were collected later on. The samples of blood of the accused persons were also collected. All the property including the various samples, was forwarded to the Chemical Analyzer, Nagpur, for examination. (h) On 14-4-1993, the test identification parade was held by Executive Magistrate Shri Gulhane in the premises of Central Jail, Amravati. During the identification parade, the prosecutrix identified accused No. 1 Ashok Kawduji Salame and accused No. 2 Ashok Bhujbal. Again on 6-5-1993, another test identification parade was held in the Central Jail for the identification of accused No. 3 Anil. The prosecutrix identified accused Anil also. Accused No. 4 Jitu alias Jitendra was absconding. (i) The report of Chemical Analyser was received on 14-6-1993. It was favourable to the prosecution since the blood group of the accused persons was tallying with the blood group in semen stains detected on the garment of prosecutrix. (j) On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was put up against the accused persons, in absence of accused No. 4 Jitu alias Jitendra. 3. J.M.F.C., Amravati, committed the case to the Court of Session for the trial of the accused persons. During the pendency of sessions trial, accused No. 4 Jitu alias Jitendra was arrested and produced before the Court of Session and he was taken in judicial custody. 4. 3. J.M.F.C., Amravati, committed the case to the Court of Session for the trial of the accused persons. During the pendency of sessions trial, accused No. 4 Jitu alias Jitendra was arrested and produced before the Court of Session and he was taken in judicial custody. 4. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, framed the charge of the offences under section 376(2)(g), section 506 read with section 34 and section 448 read with section 34 I.P.C. It was read over and explained to the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty. Their defence was of denial and they contended that they were falsely implicated in this case. 5. Prosecutrix Meena deposed the facts as are detailed in the prosecution story above in sub-paras (a) to (c) of para 2 of the judgment. Although the prosecutrix deposed before the Court that the accused persons raped her (meaning thereby the accused who were before the Court), she was not knowing them at the time of incident. So in the oral report lodged by her in Police Station Rajapeth, which is at Exhibit 59, she did not name any of the accused and stated that four young boys entered her house and committed rape upon her. Hence the F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons. Investigating Officer S.D.P.O. Deshpande got the clue of the accused persons from Naresh, whom there was a reference in the report. After the accused No. 1 to 3 were arrested, the test identification parade was held and prosecutrix Meena identified those accused during the said identification parade. 6. As already stated above, the evidence of prosecutrix Meena shows that in the next morning she went to her friend Sushma and from there she and Sushma went to P.W. Nanakram, whom Sushma was treating to be her uncle. The evidence of prosecutrix also shows further that on the way to the shop of Nanakram with her friend Sushma, the accused were seen sitting on the bridge. She also further testified that after approaching Nanakram, she and Nanakram went on the vehicle of Nanakram in search of the accused persons and at Kalyannagar Chowk the accused persons on seeing her and Nanakram ran away and in spite of their chase for about 15 minutes, they could not be found. 7. She also further testified that after approaching Nanakram, she and Nanakram went on the vehicle of Nanakram in search of the accused persons and at Kalyannagar Chowk the accused persons on seeing her and Nanakram ran away and in spite of their chase for about 15 minutes, they could not be found. 7. The evidence of P.W. Sushma is that on 22-2-1993 at about 7 to 7.30 a.m. prosecutrix Meena came to her and knocked the door of her house. As soon as P.W. Sushma opened the door, prosecutrix Meena began to weep and cry. Her physical condition was very shabby. There were blood marks on her lips. There were also blood stains on her gown. Prosecutrix Meena told Sushma that four boys had entered her house, they were having knife. The prosecutrix then said something about rape. She lay on the cot and fell unconscious. She regained consciousness at about 10 to 10.30 a.m. and then she narrated the whole incident of rape on her by four boys under the threat to life with a knife. The further version of P.W. Sushma is that she and the prosecutrix left the house for going to Police Station Rajapeth but then Sushma suggested that they should go to one Nanakram, whom Sushma was treating as her uncle. When Sushma and the prosecutrix were on their way to the shop of Nanakram, four boys were seen sitting on the bridge. After Sushma and the prosecutrix crossed the bridge, the prosecutrix told Sushma that she was raped by those very boys. On reaching the shop of Nanakram, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to him also and informed him that the culprits were sitting on the bridge. The further version of P.W. Sushma is that prosecutrix and Nanakram left the shop to trace out the aforesaid boys and Sushma went home. 8. The evidence of P.W. Nanakram Nanwani is that about two years before recording of his evidence, at about 10 a.m., prosecutrix Meena and P.W. Sushma came to his shop. The prosecutrix told him that during the previous night she was raped by four persons and those four persons were sitting at Kalyannagar Chowk. P.W. Nanakram then deposed that he went alone to Kalyannagar Chowk but he did not find anybody and he returned to his shop. He told the prosecutrix that there was nobody present at Kalyannagar Chowk. The prosecutrix told him that during the previous night she was raped by four persons and those four persons were sitting at Kalyannagar Chowk. P.W. Nanakram then deposed that he went alone to Kalyannagar Chowk but he did not find anybody and he returned to his shop. He told the prosecutrix that there was nobody present at Kalyannagar Chowk. Then the prosecutrix asked him to leave her at her friend's house. So he gave lift to the prosecutrix on his Sunny Moped. On the way, the prosecutrix asked Nanakram to turn the Moped to a side as the culprits were sitting there. According to P.W. Nanakram, when he turned the Moped towards that side, 3/4 persons began to run away. He and the prosecutrix tried to chase them. However since there was a drainage, he could not take his vehicle on that side and taking the benefit of this position, those persons succeeded in running away. P.W. Nanakram claimed that he and the prosecutrix chased those persons for about 15 to 20 minutes, but they escaped. The prosecutrix said that she wanted to lodge a report in the Police Station. P.W. Nanakram and the prosecutrix first went to Frezarpura Police Station, but police told that the spot of incident was within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajapeth. So they went to the Police Station Rajapeth. Nanakram left the prosecutrix at the Police Station and went away. 9. The evidence of prosecutrix Meena as to the events those took place in the next morning, is corroborated by the versions of P.Ws. Sushma and Nanakram. However, these two witnesses, i.e. Sushma and Nanakram, could not identify the accused persons before the Court as the boys sitting on the bridge or running away from Kalyannagar Chowk. 10. The accused persons disputed their identity as the persons committing rape upon prosecutrix Meena. Shri R.M. Patwardhan and Shri Habibuddin Ahmad, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused persons as the culprits. The learned Counsel also assailed the story narrated by the prosecutrix expressing a great doubt about the happening of the incident in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Shri R.M. Patwardhan and Shri Habibuddin Ahmad, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants, contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused persons as the culprits. The learned Counsel also assailed the story narrated by the prosecutrix expressing a great doubt about the happening of the incident in the manner alleged by the prosecution. It could be gathered from the arguments of the learned Counsel that they wanted to suggest that the conduct of the prosecutrix, who was a grown-up woman of 28 years' age at the time of incident, a divorcee, serving as a Home Guard and also a Sales Girl, in not intimating the incident to the inmates of the Wada where she was living, and causing delay in lodging the report in the Police Station, would create a doubt about the story of forcible sexual intercourse, particularly in the light of the fact that she was having acquaintance with Naresh at whose instance the culprits were alleged to have come to her house at that night. The learned Counsel expressed a doubt that the accused persons were falsely implicated at the instance of Naresh. 11. The Counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix shows that soon before the culprits forced their entry in her house, the milk vendor was at her door, he had supplied the milk to the other occupants of the Wada and had given a call to the prosecutrix. As per the learned Counsel, while the milk vendor was present at the door of the prosecutrix and when the other occupants of the Wada were keeping awake for taking milk, the culprits would not enter her house and commit rape. The learned Counsel further submitted that the milk vendor and the occupants of the Wada would have been the material witnesses, but they were not cited as witnesses. As per the learned Counsel, the story that the prosecutrix extended her hand with a utensil to take the milk, cannot be taken as genuine and it was introduced with a view to show the forced entry of the accused in the house. 12. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants further pointed out that as per the prosecutrix while the accused were committing rape upon her turn by turn, one of them was going out for smoking or chewing pan. 12. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants further pointed out that as per the prosecutrix while the accused were committing rape upon her turn by turn, one of them was going out for smoking or chewing pan. The Counsel submitted that there was only one gate to the Wada; So the accused going out for the above purpose would have been easily noticed by the inmates of the Wada. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that the pan stall owner also would have been a material witness, but he was not cited. 13. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants further assailed the conduct of the prosecutrix in not raising the cries when the accused persons were alleged to have entered the house and committed rape. It was pointed out by the Counsel that even after the so-called incident of rape was over, the prosecutrix closed the door from inside, without giving a call to anybody and went to sleep. According to the learned Counsel, the first reaction on the part of the prosecutrix that was expected was to wake up the neighbours and to inform them about the incident. It was further contended that in the next morning also the prosecutrix instead of informing the incident to the inmates of the Wada, went to her friend. All this conduct, according to the Counsel for the accused-appellants, is unnatural on the part of the girl, who was alleged to have been raped. 14. The Counsel for accused-appellants then attacked the delay in lodging the report by the prosecutrix in Police Station. It was submitted that the incident was alleged to have taken place on 21-2-1993 at about 11 p.m., whereas the report was lodged by the prosecutrix on 22-2-1993 at 3.15 p.m. As per the Counsel, the prosecutrix ought to have lodged the report during the same night and even if it is taken that she did not lodge it that time due to fear, she should have gone to Police Station immediately in the next morning. The evidence of prosecutrix shows that in the next morning she first went to the house of her friend Sushma, fell unconscious at her place, and on regaining consciousness she and Sushma went to the house of Nanakram. The evidence of prosecutrix shows that in the next morning she first went to the house of her friend Sushma, fell unconscious at her place, and on regaining consciousness she and Sushma went to the house of Nanakram. As per the learned Counsel, the prosecutrix had no reason to go first to the house of her friend Sushma and even if it is taken that she wanted the company of her friend she and her friend could have straightway gone to the Police Station instead of going to a person whom her friend was merely treating as her uncle. 15. The learned Counsel wanted to suggest that the story of rape was concocted by the prosecutrix with the help of Sushma and Nanakram. The learned Counsel canvassed that the story narrated by the prosecutrix that on her going to the house of her friend Sushma, she fell unconscious, is doubtful because in that event, she would have gone to the doctor. As per the learned Counsel, the story of feeling giddy and lying in unconscious state at the house of Sushma till 10 a.m. and the further story that the rapists were noticed to be sitting on the bridge, who ran away on seeing Nanakram and herself, and in spite of their chase, they could not be caught, was introduced merely to explain the delay and the story does not stand to the reason. According to the Counsel for the accused-appellants, the delay in lodging the report suggests that the prosecutrix must be hesitating to lodge the report. The learned Counsel expressed two possibilities - One is that the prosecutrix must be a consenting party; another is that she must have caused the delay with an ulterior motive to lodge the report with a plan. 16. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellants invited the attention of this Court to the recitals in the F.I.R. Exhibit 59 that the rapists were saying that Naresh had sent them and they wanted to take revenge regarding the case. The learned Counsel heavily assailed the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine Naresh as a witness. According to them, when the Investigating Officer got the clue about the accused persons from Naresh, he was a most material witness and his non-examination has seriously caused a prejudice to the defence. The learned Counsel heavily assailed the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine Naresh as a witness. According to them, when the Investigating Officer got the clue about the accused persons from Naresh, he was a most material witness and his non-examination has seriously caused a prejudice to the defence. It was contended that the accused were procured at the instance of Naresh, with whom the prosecutrix had enmity. It was canvassed that Naresh might have given the names of the innocent persons in order to save his skin. A further doubt was expressed that there must be some understanding between the prosecutrix and Naresh, with whom she was acquainted. 17. The above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellants may be dealt with first before going to point of identity of the accused persons as the rapists. I am unable to concur with the learned Counsel for the appellants in above respects. It cannot be said that because the milk vendor might be present at the door, the culprits would not force their entry in the house. It may be noted that the rapists were four in number. They suddenly came. There was every possibility that the milk vendor might have disappeared from the scene either out of fear or because of indifference. It is to our common knowledge that the people are reluctant to interfere even on watching such incidents. The version of Investigating Officer S.D.P.O. Deshpande in his cross-examination is that he did not interrogate the milk vendor as P.S.I. Teli told him that he had interrogated him, but he had not given any useful information. This shows the tendency of the milk vendor to remain away. 18. The Counsel for accused-appellants assailed the conduct of prosecutrix Meena in not raising the cries when the culprits were alleged to have forced their entry in her house and committed forcible sexual intercourse turn by turn. The reason behind not raising the cries by the prosecutrix is obvious. The culprits were four in number. As soon as they entered the house of the prosecutrix, one of them pressed her mouth and prevented her from raising the shouts. Another culprit threatened her with knife. Her hands and legs were caught by the culprits and she was lifted physically and was put on the cot. The culprits were four in number. As soon as they entered the house of the prosecutrix, one of them pressed her mouth and prevented her from raising the shouts. Another culprit threatened her with knife. Her hands and legs were caught by the culprits and she was lifted physically and was put on the cot. While the forcible sexual intercourse was being performed with her, she was again prevented from raising the shouts and that time also her arms and legs were caught by the culprits and at that time also she was threatened with knife. One of the culprits rudely threatened her that he would tear her off. The prosecutrix must have been scared and frightened. In such circumstances, no woman could raise any cry. Except surrendering, the prosecutrix could do nothing else. 19. So far as the other occupants in the Wada are concerned, there were two possibilities as to why they did not interfere - Either after taking the milk from the milk vendor, they might have closed the doors of their houses and since no cries were raised by the prosecutrix, they might not be knowing as to what was going on in the house of the prosecutrix or even if they might be aware that something was happening in the house of the prosecutrix, they might have chosen to remain in their houses only with the doors closed for the same reason as in the case of milk vendor, that is to say, either out of fear or due to indifference. 20. When the culprits were performing rape upon prosecutrix Meena turn by turn, one out of them was going out for smoking or chewing pan. Again the above two possibilities are there. The inmates of Wada might not have watched the culprits going out on the pan stall as the doors of their houses were closed or even if they had noticed the culprits going out and coming back, they might have kept silence out of fear or indifference. The pan stall owner could not have been a material witness as argued by the Counsel for appellants. His stall was situated outside the gate of the Wada and he was not supposed to know what was going on inside the Wada and particularly in the house of prosecutrix. The pan stall owner could not have been a material witness as argued by the Counsel for appellants. His stall was situated outside the gate of the Wada and he was not supposed to know what was going on inside the Wada and particularly in the house of prosecutrix. He was also not supposed to know that the persons coming to his pan stall were the rapists. 21. During the night after the culprits left the house of the prosecutrix, she did not wake up the neighbours, i.e. the inmates of the Wada, as her evidence shows that she was feeling giddy and she was semi-conscious. She could not even get up from the cot. Thus she was unable to move and she slept in the house itself. 22. In the next morning, instead of informing the incident to the neighbours in the Wada, the prosecutrix chose to go to her friend Sushma. It seems that she was confused and frightened and, therefore, she could not make out properly as to what course she should adopt - whether to approach the neighbours and disclose the incident to them or to go first to the friend and to act on her advice. It may also be that she might not be certain that the neighbours in the Wada would extend any help to her. It was most natural on her part to go to the friend, to inform the incident to her and to take her assistance. This conduct of the prosecutrix cannot be regarded to be odd. The incident itself was such that she must have been confused and frightened. 23. The learned Counsel for accused-appellants heavily criticized the delay in lodging the report. No doubt the report was lodged by the prosecutrix late, that was on the next day at 3.15 p.m. But the facts that have come on record themselves explain the delay. At the cost of repetition, it may be said that the forcible sexual intercourse was performed with the prosecutrix by four persons turn by turn. So after such severe sexual assault, the prosecutrix was unable to go out and she remained lying in the house itself, as she was feeling giddy and semi-conscious. In the next morning, she chose to go to her friend. She went there and fell unconscious. P.W. Sushma, whom the prosecutrix approached in the morning, described her condition. So after such severe sexual assault, the prosecutrix was unable to go out and she remained lying in the house itself, as she was feeling giddy and semi-conscious. In the next morning, she chose to go to her friend. She went there and fell unconscious. P.W. Sushma, whom the prosecutrix approached in the morning, described her condition. According to P.W. Sushma, when prosecutrix Meena arrived at her house, she began to weep and cry. Her physical condition was very shabby. There were blood marks on her lips and blood stains on her gown. While she started narrating the incident about rape, she lay on the cot and fell unconscious. She was unconscious till about 10.30 a.m. Naturally, P.W. Sushma must have thought it fit to consult the person whom she was treating as her uncle. So both of them went to P.W. Nanakram. As the culprits were seen by the prosecutrix in the midway, she and P.W. Nanakram moved first to trace them, but when they fled, Nanakram and the prosecutrix went to Police Station Frezarpura and then to Police Station Rajapeth, as the offence was of the jurisdiction of that Police Station. The delay is thus satisfactorily explained by the events themselves that occurred as above. No inference can be raised that the prosecutrix was hesitant to lodge the report, as was submitted by the learned Counsel for accused-appellants. 24. The evidence of prosecutrix Meena shows that at the time of committing rape, some of the accused were uttering that they were sent by Naresh. Prosecutrix Meena admitted that she was knowing Naresh Fusnate and he was living in Gupta Wada at Kalyan Nagar. Taking into account the fact of acquaintance of the prosecutrix with Naresh, the learned Counsel for accused-appellants expressed so many doubts and submitted that the incident must not have occurred in the manner described by the prosecutrix. The learned Counsel suggested the possibility of consent or the false implication of the accused by Naresh. To my mind, the fact that Naresh, who was acquainted with the prosecutrix, had sent the culprits to her, would not go to indicate that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the rape. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. She had a graze abrasion 3 x 2 inches over the left shoulder. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. She had a graze abrasion 3 x 2 inches over the left shoulder. On examination of external genitalia, it was noticed that the hymen edges were edematous. Red bleeding clots. Tenderness was present. Recent 1 + 10 trauma appeared on the hymen. There was a laceration (tear) over the vaginal wall having the size of 3 x 1 inches, edges edematous. The prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital for the repair of the tear of vaginal wall. The injuries sustained by the prosecutrix on her private part due to the sexual assault were severe. This medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of consent. The Counsel for the accused-appellants further submitted that Naresh, who was a material witness was not examined by the prosecution. As per the learned Counsel, Naresh might have falsely implicated the accused persons to save his skin and since he was acquainted with the prosecutrix, there must be some understanding between Naresh and the prosecutrix. The learned Counsel also contended that the delay in the report seems to have occurred as the prosecutrix must be having an ulterior motive to lodge the report with a plan. In this connection, it is to be stated that there is no material on record, which would support the above doubt. The sequence of events, which itself supplies the reasons for delay, does not suggest that the delay was caused by the prosecutrix with a design to concoct the case at the instance of Naresh so as to enable him to implicate somebody falsely. 25. The evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. It is cogent and convincing. There is no reason why her testimony should not be believed. The medical evidence also strongly corroborates her version and it excludes the possibility of consent. On going through her version, there seems no possibility of any concoction of the case with a view to implicate somebody falsely. 26. The learned Counsel for accused-appellants cited some authorities on the point of circumstances in which the prosecution story about rape would be doubtful. The first case is (Banti alias Balvinder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh)1, 1992 Cri.L.J. 715. This was a case of gang rape. The prosecutrix did not make any complaint to anybody for five days. 26. The learned Counsel for accused-appellants cited some authorities on the point of circumstances in which the prosecution story about rape would be doubtful. The first case is (Banti alias Balvinder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh)1, 1992 Cri.L.J. 715. This was a case of gang rape. The prosecutrix did not make any complaint to anybody for five days. The report was lodged after five days with a false explanation for delay. No injuries were found on any part of her body. The prosecutrix was found to be a lady of immoral character or of lax morals. It was held that it was unsafe to rely on her mere word that she was raped by five persons or any of them. This cited case has no application to the present case on facts. The facts of the present case are different. In the instant case, though the report was somewhat delayed, the facts themselves are sufficient to explain the delay. Again in the present case, the injuries were found on the private part of the prosecutrix including the tear of vaginal wall, which was a severe injury. The prosecutrix in the present case cannot be termed as a woman of immoral character or of lax morals only because she is a divorcee and she had an acquaintance with Naresh. There is no material on record to show that she was of immoral character. The next case cited is (Undarya Narayan Dokaphode and another v. State of Maharashtra and another)2, 2000(5) Bom.C.R. 152 : 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 122 . The principle laid down in this cited case is that the evidence of a witness, who does not have any reason to falsely implicate, is not ipso facto accepted by the courts and it is only accepted if it is in tune with probabilities and inspires confidence. The case further enunciates that where an evidence of victim of alleged gang rape is not in conformity with probabilities and it does not sound credible, it would not be safe to accept it without corroboration to sustain the conviction under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. The facts of this cited case are also different. The F.I.R. lodged by the victim was six days after the incident. There was no medical evidence showing that she had undergone intercourse. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecutrix is certainly in conformity with the probabilities. The F.I.R. lodged by the victim was six days after the incident. There was no medical evidence showing that she had undergone intercourse. In the present case, the evidence of the prosecutrix is certainly in conformity with the probabilities. As already stated above, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is well explained and the medical evidence corroborates the version of the prosecutrix, which shows that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. The third case cited by the Counsel for the appellants is (State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hafiz Faroki and others)3, 1998(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)926 : A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 2382. The facts of this cited case are also different. In this cited case, it was alleged that the rape was committed by either persons and that too twice and the accused had pushed the prosecutrix out of running train after giving kicks. However, except a small incised would on right hand and some minor superficial abrasions, no other injury was found on her person. There was also no evidence to show that the prosecutrix raised the shouts while the accused were taking her forcibly to railway yard. In such circumstance, it was held that there was a possibility of the prosecutrix going with the accused willingly and involving the accused falsely with ulterior motive. Such are not the facts of the present case. Here in this case, the severe injuries were caused to the vagina of the prosecutrix due to sexual assault. Though the prosecutrix in the present case did not raise the shouts, the proper explanation has come on record in that behalf that her mouth was pressed and the rape was committed at the point of knife. So also the door of her house was closed from inside and the prosecutrix was alone with the four culprits. The consent theory is totally ruled out in the present case. The next case cited is (Anmol s/o Shridhar Gharde and others v. The State of Maharashtra)4, 1999(5) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)209 : 1999 Cri.L.J. 4239. In this cited case also, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was of four days and it was not satisfactorily explained. The evidence of the prosecutrix was suffering from infirmities and it was not supported by the medical evidence. The evidence of the friend of the prosecutrix showed that the prosecutrix was having love affairs with the accused and that part of the evidence was unchallenged. The evidence of the prosecutrix was suffering from infirmities and it was not supported by the medical evidence. The evidence of the friend of the prosecutrix showed that the prosecutrix was having love affairs with the accused and that part of the evidence was unchallenged. So it was held that there was a possibility of false implication and the conviction could not be based on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone without any corroboration. Obviously, as discussed earlier, such are not the facts of the present case. The further case cited is (Ramcharan v. State of Madhya Pradesh)5, 1993 Cri.L.J. 1825. The evidence of the prosecutrix in this cited case was all make believe. The story given out by her was unnatural and made a heavy demand on credulity. There was a probability that the prosecutrix was falsely implicating the accused having motive against him and there was no corroboration by proof of any clear circumstance, which would lend assurance that she had spoken the entire truth. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused. In the present case, as already discussed above, the evidence of the prosecutrix is cogent and convincing. On going through her version, one would not carry an impression that her evidence is make believe. The story narrated by her is natural and the rape theory is strongly corroborated by the other evidence, which shows that her version is truthful. The last case cited is (State of Maharashtra v. Vasant Madhav Devre)6, 1989 Cri.L.J. 2004. In this cited case, the probability of the consent of the prosecutrix to the sexual intercourse performed by the constable was not ruled out. The facts of the cited case are also different. In this cited case, the further developments that the husband of the prosecutrix tried to settle the matter with the accused by asking him to pay the amount of Rs. 3,000/- as a Zagda amount, were suggestive of the fact that the husband must be in the know of the fact that the sexual intercourse performed by the constable with the prosecutrix was with her consent (The payment of "Zagda" amount has a peculiar meaning in Dhule District). In the present case, as already discussed above, the consent theory is completely ruled out. 27. Now the question that comes for consideration is about the identity. In the present case, as already discussed above, the consent theory is completely ruled out. 27. Now the question that comes for consideration is about the identity. The learned Counsel for accused-appellants contended that the prosecution has not established the identity of the accused-appellants as the culprits. So far as the test identification parade is concerned, there are two objections from the side of the appellants. The first is that the identification parade was delayed and the second one is that the accused-appellants were shown to the prosecutrix by the police before the identification parade was held. 28. The accused-appellants were arrested on 10-3-1993. The identification parade in respect of accused-appellant No. 1 Ashok Kawaduji Salame and accused-appellant No. 2 Ashok Ramrao Bhujbal (in Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995) was held on 14-4-1993, whereas the identification parade in respect of accused-appellant Anil Pundlikrao Badhe (in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1995) was held on 6-5-1993. This was an inordinate delay in the opinion of the Counsel for the accused-appellants. According to them, the identification of the appellants alleged to have been made by the prosecutrix in this case has lost its value on this count. On this point, the learned Counsel cited the authorities. (1) (Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu Kashmir)7, 1972 Cri.L.J. 15 and (2) (Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra)8, 2000(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)549 : 2000 Cri.L.J. 380. The need for holding the test identification parade soon after the arrest of the accused is illustrated in these cases. The ratio of Rameshwar Singh's case is that where the accused person is not known previous to the occurrence, to the witness identifying the accused at the trial, then identification of the accused by such witness soon after the former's arrest is of vital importance in the interest of justice and fairplay both to the accused and the prosecution. In Rajesh Govind Jagesha's case the identification parade was held after about five weeks from the arrest of the accused. The explanation for delay was not trustworthy. There were some other flaws also in the identification parade. It was held that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. 29. As regards the second flaw, that is about the showing of the accused persons by the police to the prosecutrix before the identification parade, the evidence of the prosecutrix herself is worth noting. There were some other flaws also in the identification parade. It was held that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. 29. As regards the second flaw, that is about the showing of the accused persons by the police to the prosecutrix before the identification parade, the evidence of the prosecutrix herself is worth noting. Prosecutrix Meena testified that after the arrest of the accused No. 1 to 3 (the appellants in these appeals), she was called at Rajapeth Police Station to see them and to confirm if they were the culprits. While deposing about the test identification parade that was held in respect of accused-appellants Ashok Kawaduji Salame and Ashok Ramrao Bhujbal, the prosecutrix stated that the constable told her that the persons seen at the Police Station were to be identified. Then again, while deposing about the identification parade in respect of accused-appellant Anil, the prosecutrix stated that the constable asked her to identify accused Anil Badhe, who was seen at the Police Station, and accordingly, she identified him. On the point of this flaw, the Counsel for the accused-appellants cited (Aas Mohammad and others v. State)9, 1978 Cri.L.J. 381. In this cited case, the faces of some of the accused in the judicial custody were shown to the witnesses before identification. Other accused were present at same place on the same date. The benefit of doubt was given to such accused persons. 30. In respect of the above drawback in the test identification parade, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that the Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure and he made the arrangements to show the accused persons to prosecutrix Meena at the Police Station much before the holding of the test identification parade. The learned Judge was, therefore, of the opinion that in such circumstances, normally much importance could not be given to the identification of the accused persons during the test identification parade. He, however, distinguished the present case. It was observed by him that the facts of the present case are materially different from the ordinary cases where the victim gets very short opportunity to see the culprits at the time of commission of offence and thereafter the culprit is seen at the Police Station. 31. He, however, distinguished the present case. It was observed by him that the facts of the present case are materially different from the ordinary cases where the victim gets very short opportunity to see the culprits at the time of commission of offence and thereafter the culprit is seen at the Police Station. 31. Coming to the facts of the present case, it may be stated that although the identification parade in this case has lost much of its value because the accused were shown to the prosecutrix in the Police Station prior to the test identification parade, it cannot be said that the identity of the accused-appellants is not established as rapists. The prosecutrix had identified the accused-appellants before the Court as the persons committing rape upon her. The evidence on record shows that the electric light was burning in the house of the prosecutrix at the time of incident. The accused-appellants were in that room for complete one-and-half hours. Since each of them committed rape upon the prosecutrix, she had an opportunity to watch them clearly. Not only this, but immediately in the next morning she saw the accused-appellants at first, sitting on the bridge and then near Kalyan Nagar Square. So she had an opportunity to revive her memory in the next morning. Thus the evidence of the prosecutrix regarding the identification of the accused-appellants before the Court as the rapists is trustworthy and though there are drawbacks in the test identification parade, the identity of the accused-appellants as above stands established. 32. The evidence of prosecutrix Meena regarding the identification of the accused-appellants as rapists, is also corroborated by the Chemical Analyzer's report. Though the Chemical Analyzer's report cannot be taken as a conclusive proof, a great value is to be attached to such report from the corroboration point of view. The samples of blood and semen of accused-appellants were collected. So also the petticoat and bed-sheet, which were stained with semen, were seized from prosecutrix Meena. All these articles were sent to Chemical Analyzer for examination. The Chemical Analyzer's report Exhibit 57, read together with requisition Exhibit 56, reveals that the group of blood in the semen of accused-appellant Anil was "B". So also the petticoat and bed-sheet, which were stained with semen, were seized from prosecutrix Meena. All these articles were sent to Chemical Analyzer for examination. The Chemical Analyzer's report Exhibit 57, read together with requisition Exhibit 56, reveals that the group of blood in the semen of accused-appellant Anil was "B". Though the group of blood in semen of accused-appellants Ashok Salame and Ashok Bhujbal could not be determined as the results were inconclusive, on the analysis of their blood samples, it was found that the group of blood of accused-appellants Ashok Salame was "B" and that of accused-appellants Ashok Bhujbal was "O". To sum up, the group of blood of accused-appellants Ashok Salame and accused-appellants Anil Badhe is "B", whereas the group of blood of accused-appellants Ashok Bhujbal is "O". Some of the semen stains detected on the petticoat of prosecutrix Meena were of blood group "B" and some were of blood group "O". Thus the testimony of prosecutrix Meena identifying the accused-appellants as the culprits before the Court is strongly corroborated by the Chemical Analyzer's report as above. I have, therefore, no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the identity of the accused-appellants is established as the rapists in this case. 33. For all the above reasons, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly found the accused-appellants guilty of the offences with which they were charged. The order of conviction, therefore, does not need an interference. So far as the sentence passed upon the accused-appellant is concerned, the sentence of imprisonment for a term of ten years awarded for the offence under section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. is appropriate as the same is minimum prescribed for that offence. There are no adequate and special reasons for imposing the sentence of imprisonment for a term less than ten years. The learned Counsel for accused-appellants cited (Premchand v. State of Haryana)10, 1989 Cri.L.J. 1246. In this cited case, the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case coupled with the conduct of the girl did not call for the minimum sentence as prescribed under section 376(2), I.P.C. and, therefore, the sentence was reduced. On facts, the cited case is not applicable to the present one. In this cited case, the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case coupled with the conduct of the girl did not call for the minimum sentence as prescribed under section 376(2), I.P.C. and, therefore, the sentence was reduced. On facts, the cited case is not applicable to the present one. On the other hand, the offence committed by the accused-appellants was heinous and they took the undue advantage of the situation when the prosecutrix alone was present in the house and made a severe sexual assault turn by turn by giving threats. The accused-appellants, therefore, do not deserve any leniency. 34. In the result, both the appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 339 of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1995, fail. Both the appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the same are dismissed. Appeals dismissed. -----