JUDGMENT D.P.S. CHOUDHARY, J. AII the three appeals have been heard together as they arise out of common judgment, dated 21st of March, 1998 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1995 convicting all the nine appellants for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. All the appellants, except Harihar Rajawar has been also convicted under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. However, their sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Hence, this judgment shall govern all the three appeals. 2. The prosecution case in brie s that in the night of 2-3.6.1994, all the nine accused-persons named in the FIR entered into the house of informant, Kamarusnisha (PW 9) and began to assault her parents. They enquired about the informant's brother Manua. Her parents informed that he has gone to casual. They entered into the room of the informant after breaking open the door. She was sleeping with her sister Salama. On the identification by appellant Bhariman Yadav, they caught hold of informant Kamarunisha and bodily lifted where all the accused-persons except Harihar Rajawar committed rape on her one by one. Thereafter, they brought her to the nearby well and hanged with an intention to kill her. She was crying and begged to mercy. Finally, she was released and allowed to go her home. On the way, she met her parents and several villagers. The informant came to know that all the miscreants have also committed dacoity in her house and looted boxes, etc. 1fhe parents of the informant told her the names of the accused-persons whom they have identified, namely (1) Bhariman Yadav, (2) Harihar Rajwar, (3) Mangar Paswan, (4) Sribhagwan, (5) Sanjay, (6) Vijoy Ram, (7) Baban Yadav and (8) Balua alias Shankar Yadav. It is further alleged that earlier Shankar Yadav has tried to commit rape on the informant, for which a case was lodged and he was sent to jail custody. This caused them annoyance and it was motive of the present occurrence. 3. It is further alleged that earlier Shankar Yadav has tried to commit rape on the informant, for which a case was lodged and he was sent to jail custody. This caused them annoyance and it was motive of the present occurrence. 3. The fardbeyan of the informant (PW 3) was recorded by SI, Parasnath Hazara of Akorihi Gola PS on 3.6.1994 at 8.15 a.m. After registering the case, the 10 conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet against all the accused appellants. 4. The case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated because of previous enmity. No occurrence either of rape or dacoity took place. 5. In Support of its case, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses, out of them .PW1 (Bindhyachal Sah), PW 2 (Ramkripal Sharma), PW 4 (Raja Main), PW 5 (Suleman Sah), PW 6 (Jamrati Sah), PW 7(Salama Nisha), PW 8 (Shamsu Nishra) and PW 9 (Kamaru Nisha) have deposed as eyewitnesses. PW 10 (Shailendra Kumar Sinha) is Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement under Section 164, Cr. PC of Kamarunisha (the victim lady) on 18.6.1994 (marked Ext. 1 J. PW 11 (Dr. Nirmala Kumari) and PW 12 (Dr. Lalsa Sinha) are the members of the Medical Board, who have examined the victim lady and her injury report has been marked Ext. 2PW 13 (Ajoy Kumar Singh) is SI of Police, who investigated the case. 6. On behalf of the defence only one witness Shri Singh (DW 1) has been examined, who stated that this case has been falsely instituted by Jumrati Mian and neither any dacoity nor the offence of rape took place. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he has not received any summon from the Court to appear as a witness. He admitted that accused Bhariman Yadav is his uncle and regularly visits his house. 7. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that Kamarunisha (PW 9) is the victim lady and she is only witness on the point of rape. All other witnesses examined have deposed on the point of dacoity alleged, to have been committed by the accused persons in the house of the informant. Therefore, her (PW 9) evidence has to be scrutinized with care and caution. All other witnesses examined have deposed on the point of dacoity alleged, to have been committed by the accused persons in the house of the informant. Therefore, her (PW 9) evidence has to be scrutinized with care and caution. From careful scrutiny of her evidence, it appears that at the time of occurrence, She was sleeping in the room along with her sister Salama and Shamsu Nisha (PWs 7 and 8) Her mother and father (PWs 3 and 6) and one sister Bala (not examined) were sleeping in the varandah. The dacoits entered Inside her house and began to assault her father. She awoke on the cry of her mother. She told her sister Salama (PW 7), who was sleeping along with her, to lit diya. When the dacoits were trying to open the door of the room she with the help of the sister put some bags of gram and wheat at the door. However they forcibly opened the door with the help of a Kudal and entered into her room. On the identification of accused Bhariman Yadav that she was Kamarunisha, the accused-persons bodily lifted her and in spite of her cry. She was brought in the orchard. She further deposed that while the dacoits were taking her towards the orchard, they also bit her cheeks and breasts. Some of the dacoits, including Shankar Yadav caught hold of her leg and she was put on the ground and in spite of protest, she was made naked and one after another all the accused-persons raped her. She also named accused Harihar, who committed rape on her. She stated that after the rape, she was brought to a nearby well with an intention to kill her by throwing into the well. She cried for mercy and accused-persons asked whether she had identified any of the accused-persons, she replied in the negative. Thereafter, she was let out to go home. She met her parents and other villagers and narrated about the occurrence and also named the accused, who committed rape on her. Parents also told her the names of the dacoits whom they had identified while committing dacoity. She was medically examined at Sasaram and Aurangabad. She identified the accused persons, who were present in the dock in the Court. She stated that she was produced before a Judicial Magistrate and her statement under Section 164, Cr. PC was recorded. Parents also told her the names of the dacoits whom they had identified while committing dacoity. She was medically examined at Sasaram and Aurangabad. She identified the accused persons, who were present in the dock in the Court. She stated that she was produced before a Judicial Magistrate and her statement under Section 164, Cr. PC was recorded. In lengthy cross-examination on behalf of all the accused-persons, she has given vivid descriptions with regard to the offence of rape committed on her by all the accused-persons. She stated that she -was made naked by the accused-persons and in the process of protest she had received bruises and other injuries on her person. There was bleeding from her wounds. Where she tried to raise alarm accused-persons used to shut her mouth and assaulted her. She was examined by the Doctors. She stated that she has identified the accused persons when they were forcibly carrying her in the orchard and when they raped her. The accused-persons are co-villagers and 'of neigh boring, hence she knew them from before. 8. The main contention of the appellants is that in view of the evidence of PW 9 (victim girl) the evidence of two lady Doctors (PWs 11 and 12) are relevant. PW 11 stated that at Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad on 5.6.1994 a Medical Board was constituted for 'examination of the victim girl Kamarunisha of which Dr. Lalsa Sinha (PW 1'2) was also a member of the Board. Both of them examined the victim lady. They had' found external injuries at several places on the person of Kamarunisha as follows: (a) On face 1/2c.m. in length size liner abrasion on right side 1/8 c.m. breadth. Colour brownish-black, age about 3-4 days. (b) Multiple liner depressed abrasions of size about 1/4 cm. in length x 1/8 cm. in breadth 13 in number on the left side of the cheek. Colour brownish-black, age about 3 to 4 days. (c) One liner abrasion 1c.m. in length x 1/8c.m. in breadth in front of chest of left side on third intercostals space uniddiable to the mid-clavicle line "Colour brownish black" age 3 to 4 days. The medical report has been marked Ext. 2 on behalf of the prosecution. 9. On the basis of the injuries found by the two Doctors of the Medical Board the had only external injuries on her person. The medical report has been marked Ext. 2 on behalf of the prosecution. 9. On the basis of the injuries found by the two Doctors of the Medical Board the had only external injuries on her person. No injury on her private part was found nor there was any sign of spermatozoa. Both the Doctors stated that they could not give any definite opinion abut the rape. If she was raped by 8-9 persons, the Doctors must have found signs of rape or injuries on her private part. The evidence of the Doctors thus, eliminates the evidence of rape against the accused-persons. She was found aged between 14 to 15 years. 10. The learned APP submitted hat the alleged offence of rape was committed in the night of 2.6.1994 and she was examined by the Medical Board on 5.6.1994. As such it was possible that no spermatozoa was found. The Doctors (PWs 11 and 12) failed to give any definite opinion about the rape but the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable that accused-persons committed rape on her. There was no cogent reason for her to depose falsely and implicate them. The external injuries on the cheeks and breasts of the victim girt found by the Doctors indicates that force was used by the accused persons against her. She stated that some of accused bit her on cheeks and breasts. Her mother (PW 3) stated that she had seen blood coming out from the private part. She narrated about the occurrence to her' family members (PWs 3, 7 and 8) at the earliest opportunity when they were making search of her in the night itself. The apex Court has held in catena of decisions that the evidence of the prosecutrix, if otherwise consistent and reliable, corroboration of her evidence including of medical report is not required in each and every case. 11. A careful scrutiny of the fardbeyan, it appears that she named four appellants; namely, Shariman Yadav, Saban Yadav, Salua Yadav and Mangar Paswan. She stated that these four accused forcibly lifted her from her 1 house and other accused-persons numbering about 10-12 accompanied them to the nearby orchard where she was brought and raped. In her evidence, she named all the nine accused-appellants and stated that they committed rape on her one-by-one. She stated that these four accused forcibly lifted her from her 1 house and other accused-persons numbering about 10-12 accompanied them to the nearby orchard where she was brought and raped. In her evidence, she named all the nine accused-appellants and stated that they committed rape on her one-by-one. The trial Court has come to the finding that there is no consistent evidence against appellant Harihar Rajawar that he also committed rape, hence acquitted him for the offence under, Section 376, IPC. PW 3 stated that her daughter named Managar Paswan, Sribhagwan Paswan, Sanjoy Paswan, Bijoy Paswan, Shankar Yadav, Saban Yadav and Madan Yadav. Her (PW 6) named Madan Yadav, Shankar Yadav, Saban Yadav, Haribar Rajawar, Bijoy Paswan, Sanjoy Paswan,' Managar Paswan, Sribhagwan and Shariman Yadav among the accused, who committed rape on her daughter and these names were disclosed by his 'daughter (victim girl). Therefore, she named all the nine appellants, who committed raped on her. Her evidence on the point of rape finds corroboration from the evidence of PWs 3 and 6, who are competent witness because at the earliest opportunity the victim lady has disclosed them the names of the accused-persons, when she was returning to her house in the night after the occurrence. In such circumstances, there is reliable and consistent evidence against the appellants who have been convicted for the offence under Section 376, IPC. 12. The testimony of prosecutrix should be corroborated as far as possible by other independent witnesses but the apex Court in a decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 (Bharwada B. Hirgibhai Vs. State of Gujarat) held that corroboration is not Sine qua-non" for a conviction in a rape case, for seek corroboration of her evidence amounts to adding insult to her injury. The testimony of the victim girl in such case is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for her corroboration of her statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused when her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. 1996 (1) SC, page 298 Judgment Today: (1996(1) East Cr. C (NOC) 18 (SC) (State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit-Singh). 1996 (1) SC, page 298 Judgment Today: (1996(1) East Cr. C (NOC) 18 (SC) (State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit-Singh). As discussed above, the mother and sister of the victim girl (PW 9) stated that soon after the incident when they met her they found her clothes stained with blood. The medical evidence shows that there was mark of injury on her left cheeks and also on her breasts. These evidence corroborate the evidence of the prosecutrix to prove that she was sexually assaulted. The apex Court has held that evidence Act nowhere says that corroboration is necessary. A women, who has been raped is not accomplice, if she was ravished, she is victim of outrage. The rule is not that corroboration is essential before there can II be a conviction, but that the necessity of corroboration as a matter of pruder except where the circumstance make it safe to dispense with it. In this case, the rape was committed on the victim in the night in a orchard where she was lifted from her house oy the accused-persons. There could have been no other eye-witnesses of this offence. When she was returning home after the occurrence in the night, she met her family members in the way and narrated about occurrence and named the culprits. Her Mother and sisters have found blood-stained on her clothes. The physical injury on her person as mentioned above corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix that when she was being lifted and brought to the orchard in the way some of the accused bit on her cheeks and breasts. Therefore, there is material corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix leading to the conclusion that she was raped by the' accused-persons. Therefore, there is substantial corroboration of her evidence. Besides, her testimony also warranted credence and is consistent on material points and it does not suffer from any basic infirmity. She was medically examined after four days of the occurrence. Both the Doctors stated that they did not find any injury on her private part but found some external injury on her persons, including at her cheek and breast which were aged 3-4 days. The Doctors could not give any definite opinion about the rape. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of the appellants that medical evidence eliminates that victim was raped. The Doctors could not give any definite opinion about the rape. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of the appellants that medical evidence eliminates that victim was raped. With the lapse of time, there was possibility of not finding any recent sign of injury on her private part or presence of spermatozoa, but medical evidence read with the evidence of the prosecutrix along with the evidence of her mother and sister, lead to the conclusion that she was raped on the date of occurrence by accused persons. 13. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that on the point of committing dacoity the prosecution evidence is neither consistent nor reliable. In the fardbeyan PW 9 named only three persons whom she identified among the dacoits and stated that there were 8-10 outsiders. She learnt from her parents the names of eight accused persons, namely, Bhariman Yadav, Harihar Rajawar, Manger Paswan, Sribhagwan Paswan, Sanjoy Paswan, Bijoy Paswan, Baban Yadav, and Balua Yadav. In her evidence, PW 9 has named all the accused persons whom she identified because she knew them from before. Why she named only three accused in her fardbeyan has not been explained by the prosecution. It appears that she added the names of other accused persons at the instance of her family members. Appellants learned lawyer further submitted that PW 3 has named only Bhariman Yadav, Mangar Paswan, Sribhagwan Paswan, Sanjoy Paswan and Bijoy Paswan, whom she identified among the dacoits. PW 6 the father of the informant has named Shankar Yadav, Bhariman Yadav, Bijoy Paswan and Baban Yadav amongst the dacoits. PW 7 has named Shankar Yadav, Bhariman Yadav, Bijoy Paswan, Sribhagwan Paswan and Harihar Rajawar; whereas PW 8 has named six accused-persons namely, Bhariman Yadav, Harihar Rajawar, Bijoy Ram and Madan Yadav. Besides these six persons, he identified one more accused as sala of one Arjun. On the basis of these evidence it was contended that the PWs have not identified all the nine appellants among the dacoits, except PW 8, who is sister Of the informant. As such, their evidence on the point of identification of the accused-persons is not consistent and not corroborated by each other. 14. On the basis of these evidence it was contended that the PWs have not identified all the nine appellants among the dacoits, except PW 8, who is sister Of the informant. As such, their evidence on the point of identification of the accused-persons is not consistent and not corroborated by each other. 14. It was further submitted on their behalf that no case under Section 395, IPC is made out against the appellant because there is no specific allegation of any overt act and using criminal force by them while committing the alleged offence of dacoity from their evidence, it appears that accused persons have looted out some articles from the house. In absence of use of force by the dacoits at best, it is a case under Section 380, IPC and not under Section 395. I.P.C. 15. I have carefully scrutinized the fardbeyan and evidence of the above referred witnesses. In the fardbeyan, it is mentioned 'that accused-persons had assaulted the father and mother of the informant and threatened to kill her brother Manua. Thereafter, they forcibly took away the informant from her house in a nearby orchard. PW 3 stated that at the time of committing dacoity, they snatched the silver chain from her neck and also assaulted her along with her husband. She categorically stated that her husband was tied up the dacoits by a dhoti. This fact finds corroboration from the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 8. All the witnesses stated that the dacoits had broken the door or the room by means of Kudal and entered into the room and forcibly took away the victim girl. They threatened to kill them by means of gun if they raised alarm. In view of these overwhelming evidence, I do not find much substance in the contention of the learned appellants' lawyer that no case under Section 395, IPC is made out against the accused persons. 16. With regard to identification of the appellants among the dacoits, it is true that except PW 8 other witnesses have not named all the nine accused-persons. Some has named six, some seven and some eight among the accused. But considering their evidence together, it is crystal clear that there were more than two identifications against each of the appellants as dacoits, who were known to them from before. Some has named six, some seven and some eight among the accused. But considering their evidence together, it is crystal clear that there were more than two identifications against each of the appellants as dacoits, who were known to them from before. The means of identification is disclosed in the fardbeyan as well as in their evidence. They stated that the dacoits were flashing torch-light in which they identified them. The appellants were not concealing their faces. The contention of the appellants' lawyer is that it is not possible for known persons to commit dacoity without concealing their identity but the apex Court and this Court held in several decisions that these days even the known persons while committing the offence of dacoity do not care to conceal their identity and with embolden behavior they participate in the offence of dacoity even in the house of a known person. 17. Appellants learned lawyer submitted that DW 1 (Sri Singh) stated that no offence of dacoity took place in the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. In cross-examination, he admitted that he was not earlier examined by the I.O. According to him, he heard the cry of Kamarunisha (PW 9) in the Badhar. He admitted that several persons have assembled near the house of the informant in the night. Thus, he partly admitted the prosecution case. 18. Another point that has been raised on behalf of the appellants is that the motive of the occurrence, as alleged in the fardbeyan, has not been proved by the prosecution and none of the witnesses have supported the alleged motive. In the fardbeyan, the informant alleged that about three months back Shankar Yadav, sala of Bhariman Yadav has entered into her house and tried to commit rape with her. She lodged FIR and Sahnkar Yadav was arrested and was remanded to custody. This caused them annoyance and always threatened her family members. For an offence under Section 395, IPC, the motive does not play an important role. It is not essential for the prosecution either to allege any motive for such offence or to prove the same. However if the prosecution alleges some motive in that case it is its duty to adduce evidence in support of such motive. 19. For an offence under Section 395, IPC, the motive does not play an important role. It is not essential for the prosecution either to allege any motive for such offence or to prove the same. However if the prosecution alleges some motive in that case it is its duty to adduce evidence in support of such motive. 19. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of PWs, I find that PWs 3 and 6 (mother and father of the informant) have corroborated the alleged motive, who stated that before this occurrence Shankar Yadav has enterer in their house and tried to commit rape with daughter (PW 9) for which he was jailed. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of the appellants that the motive alleged on behalf of the prosecution has not been proved. The prosecution witnesses have named the appellants and identified each of them in the dock during their evidence in the Court. Therefore, on the point of identification of the accused-appellants there is no doubt, nor there is any evidence on record to show as to why the prosecutrix and her family members will implicate the appellants for an offence of rape and dacoity because in society there is tendency to conceal the offence of rape, as it involves the prestige of the family and future of the victim. 20. Having taken into consideration the evidence on record and the submissions urged on behalf of the appellants and after according my anxious consideration, I am satisfied that the view taken by the trial Court is warranted on the evidence on record. I, therefore come to the conclusion that the fi'1dmg arrived at the trial Court does not require any interference which is accordingly confirmed. 21. In the last, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the sentence of. 10 years RI against each of the appellants under both courts is excessive, and considering the fact that the offence took place in the year 1994 their period of sentence may be reduced. It was also contended that the appellant Saban Yadav is in jail custody since 11.7.1994. In a case gang-rape the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 376, IPC is 10 years. In this case, eight accused persons have committed rape one-by-one on the victim lady who was minor. Therefore, the sentence of 10 years RI imposed against them is adequate. It was also contended that the appellant Saban Yadav is in jail custody since 11.7.1994. In a case gang-rape the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 376, IPC is 10 years. In this case, eight accused persons have committed rape one-by-one on the victim lady who was minor. Therefore, the sentence of 10 years RI imposed against them is adequate. This is a case in which besides committing dacoity in the house of the informant, all the accused-persons forcibly took away the informant from the house and brought her in a nearby orchard and committed rape. As such, dacoity was committed with the offence of rape. Therefore, the appellants do not deserve any sympathy. Their sentences for the period of 10 years RI under each count appears to be adequate. 22. In the result. I do not find any merit in these three appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. The appellants who are on bail their bail-bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court immediately to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The trial Court shall take all the necessary steps for their surrender. 23. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate appeared as amicus curiae in Cr. Appear No. 187 of 1999 and assisted the Court with all his sincerity and ability. The Legal Service Committee of the Patna High Court is directed to pay his fees, in accordance with law. Let a copy of this judgment be made over to him.