JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals, one through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur and another in representative capacity under Section 374 Cr.RC. by accused Sirraj Ahmed are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.1996 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act Cases, Jaipur by which he has convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 376, 377, 384 and 292(2) (A) I.PC., and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on the first count; to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on the second count : to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the third court and to undergo two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the last count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The trial court ordered that both the victims, namely, Shakuntala and Naina Devi shall get Rs. 10,000/- each as a measure of compensation. 2. Though the learned trial court has found the accused appellant guilty and also convicted him for offence under Section 312 IPC, yet, it appears to have escaped to pass an order sentencing the appellant under section 312 IPC. 3. The prosecutrix, namely Shakuntala, a young girl of about 18 years of age and Smt. Naina Devi, mother of Shakuntala belonging to scheduled caste, a poor beggar section of the society, who were the victims of continuous sexual assault by accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed on able bodied youth, after he forcibly took their absence photographs with him at the point of knife in a pre-planned and calculated manner, solely with his ill intention to use Shakuntala and her as an instrument of fulfilling his sexual lust, having left with no way ultimately after giving a cool thought, decided to make public the entire ill episode, resulting into lodging the First Information Report by Shakuntala. 4. Here, before us, accused Sirraj Ahmed is the only appellant, against whom the prosecutrix had lodged the first information report, Ex. P. 19. 4. Here, before us, accused Sirraj Ahmed is the only appellant, against whom the prosecutrix had lodged the first information report, Ex. P. 19. She has alleged that on a black day during summer vacations of 1992 while she was alone at her home, accused Sirraj Ahmed came there in the evening and closed the entire doors of her house. He also closed the doors of the upper story of her house and thereafter, at the point of knife while threatening her to kill, got her entire cloths put off and forcibly committed rape on her. Accused Sirraj also took the photographs of the commission of rape from his Camera already kept on a stool and told her that she will have to sleep with him whenever he would like to do so else he would make the photographs public. Thereafter, accused Sirraj Ahmed went on pertaining this sexual crime with her at her house and at his house situated in Hasanpura for about 5-6 months. In the mean-time, she became pregnant and Sirraj got her abortion in Merry Stopes Clinic. After few days, when she informed her mother of the commission of rape on her. Sirraj Ahmed showed her nacked photographs to her mother and started threatening her as well and started black mailing her. He also visited the person with whom she was engaged few days back and showed him her nacked photographs, as a result of which her engagement stood cancelled. After this incident, she and her mother bagged accused Sirraj and requested him with folded hands to return the photographs, thereupon, Sirraj demanded Rs. 70000/- as against return of photographs and negatives. Her mother gave him Rs. 8,000/-. The prosecutrix further alleged that Sirraj while showing her and her mother some nacked photographs of different girls told them that he is fond of doing such acts and it is his profession and that she will have to abide by his saying. 5. En-passent she also brought to the light that she was not only the victim of such cruel sexual assaults at the hands of accused, but many other worthy victims of his sexual assault and black-mailing, thereby ruining their future. 6. On the aforesaid information, the police registered FIR No. 133/93 under Sections 376, 384 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act and proceeded with the investigation. 7. 6. On the aforesaid information, the police registered FIR No. 133/93 under Sections 376, 384 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act and proceeded with the investigation. 7. During investigation, police arrested accused Sirraj Ahmed on 8.7.1993 vide arrest memo Ex. R 74 and on his information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the police recovered some obsence photographs of Shakuntaia, her mother Naina Devi and some other women from his possession. The police found that accused Sirraj Ahmed has committed rape of different women. The accused was also found to have abducted one Raisa @ Munni with the help of accused Salam and committed rape on her. During investigation of this case, the Circle Officer. Police Station Sadar, Jaipur City having come to know that accused Sirraj Ahmed has also committed rape on Munni in the house of his friend Salam at situated in Maan Sarovar, submitted a letter, Ex. R 110 to the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City about this incident requesting seeking direction for registering a case at Police Station Maan Sarovar, there-upon, FIR No. 12C/93 was registered ana investigation commenced. 8. After investigation, in Crime No. 133/93, the Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellant and six other accused persons for offence under Section 363, 376, 384, 377, 354, 292, 419, 467, 471 and 120 IPC and Section 2 and 3 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act 1986 and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate. After the investigation in FIR No. 120/93 of Police Station, Maan Sarovar was over, a charge sheet was also submitted against accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed and accused Sailam and Shaukin for offence under Section 363, 376, 292, 342 and 120 B IPC and Section 2-3 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986 and against accused Alok Mukherjee, Prem Singh, Naresh Kumar and Deepak Sindhi for offence under Section 292 IPC and Section 2-3 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act, 1986 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who, in turn, committed both cases to the court of Sessions. 9. Both the cases, bearing Sessions Case No. 109/93 arising out of FIR No. 133/93 and Sessions Case No. 113/93 arising out of FIR No. 120/93 came to be tried by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Jaipur. 9. Both the cases, bearing Sessions Case No. 109/93 arising out of FIR No. 133/93 and Sessions Case No. 113/93 arising out of FIR No. 120/93 came to be tried by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Jaipur. The trial court vide its order dated 27.1.1994 directed for collective trial in both Sessions cases. 10. On the basis of material and evidence on record and after hearing learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed under Section 120 B, 292(2)(A), 376, 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 292(2)(E) IPC and Sections 312, 419, 384 and 384 IPC read with Sections 511, 366, 363 and 377 IPC and Section 3 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act. The charge were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 29 witnesses and exhibited number of documents, viz., Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P 111. After the prosecution evidence was over, the trial court examined the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.RC. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. However, he exhibited some documents. 12. On conclusion of trial, hearing counsel for the accused appellant and the learned public prosecutor and on the basis of record the learned trial Court found the accused appellant guilty for offence under Sections 376, 377, 384, 312 and Section 292(2) (A) I.PC. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. 13. We have heard Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the accused appellant, Mr. S.C. Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Akhil Simlote, appearing for the complainant and perused the entire record and judgment of the trial court. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently attacked the findings arrived at by the learned trial court and submitted that none of the findings could be a reason for believing the prosecution case in the given facts and circumstances and hence, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be set-aside by this Court. 15. In the case before us, there are number of victims of sexual crime namely, Raisa @ Munni aged 16 years, Kumari Naaz @ Nazneen aged 15 years, Mst. 15. In the case before us, there are number of victims of sexual crime namely, Raisa @ Munni aged 16 years, Kumari Naaz @ Nazneen aged 15 years, Mst. Shakuntala and her mother Smt. Naina Devi at the hands of accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed. 16. Since recent past, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. The rapist not only violates the victims privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process, it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. In the cases of sexual crime, the Court should examined the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the victim which are not of a fatal nature, to through out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Rape, is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against the basic human rights and is violative of the victim's fundamental right to life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. 17. To re-appreciate the findings arrived at by the learned trial court, we deem it appropriate to scrutinise the statements of the witnesses, in particular, the victims of sexual exploitation and the connecting evidence. 18. PW. 2 Shakuntala has stated that her mother Naina Devi is engaged in stitching work at her house, under the name and style of Peace of Mind Garments and accused Sirraj was engaged by her mother in January, 91 at the salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month. In the month of April, 1991 while she was alone at her home, accused Sirraj came to her, closed the doors and windows from inside and asked her to put off her clothes. On her refusal to do so. Sirraj took out a knife and threatened to cut her into pieces if she does not put off her clothes. Thereafter, accused forcibly put off her clothes, made her to fall and committed rape on her. She further stated that Sirraj kept a automatic camera on a stool, which took the photographs of the commission of rape on her by accused Sirraj. While committing rape, accused repeatedly threatened her to death in case she narrates the story to any one. Thereafter, he went away. She further stated that Sirraj kept a automatic camera on a stool, which took the photographs of the commission of rape on her by accused Sirraj. While committing rape, accused repeatedly threatened her to death in case she narrates the story to any one. Thereafter, he went away. This witness has stated that 2-3 days after this incident, accused came to her house at about 10-11 A.M. and while showing her 4-5 photographs told her that if she wants to have these photos, she will have to accompany him to his house. The photographs related to the intercourse by Sirraj with this witness. She alongwith Sirraj went to the house of Sirraj situated in Hasanpura at about 4-5 PM. in auto-ricksha for the purpose of collecting the photographs. None was present at his house, where also accused Sirraj closed the doors of his house from inside and committed rape on her. He tried to take the photographs from his automatic camera, but because of some fault in the camera, photographs could not be taken. He asked her to go home. She further stated that Sirraj neither returned the photos nor destroyed. The prosecutrix in her examination in chief as described the entire story of her sexual exploitation, commission of rape by accused Sirraj at various places right from April, 1991 till she reported the matter to the police by way of Ex. R 19. 19. PW. 2 Shakuntala has stated that her father handed over a letter of threat (Ex. R 21) to the police along with a naked photograph (Ex. R 20) of her mother. 20. The witness has stated about her conceiving a child and her abortion in Merry Stopes Clinic. According to her statement, Sirraj had put his signatures on the consent Ex. R 24 in the name of J.R Chaudhary and she had put her signatures under the threat of being defamed by Sirraj. 21. Having seen and identified the photographs Ex. R 25 to Ex. R 34, the witness stated that Sirraj Ahmed had taken these photographs in the room situated on the roof of her house. On seeing the photograph, Ex. R 26, the witnesses stated that in that photograph, Sirraj Ahmed penetrated his male organ into her mouth against her will. Likewise, Ex. R 25 to Ex. R 34, the witness stated that Sirraj Ahmed had taken these photographs in the room situated on the roof of her house. On seeing the photograph, Ex. R 26, the witnesses stated that in that photograph, Sirraj Ahmed penetrated his male organ into her mouth against her will. Likewise, Ex. R 29 is the photograph, about which the witness has stated that Sirraj has penetrated his male organ into her anus. Ex. R 30 and Ex. R 37 are the photographs, in which Sirraj is committing intercourse with her. in Exhibits P. 25, 32 and 34, the witnesses is in naked condition. She has described the acts done by Sirraj Ahmed with her in the photographs Ex. P. 25 to Ex.R 38. 22. She has also stated that accused Sirraj got her signatures on blank papers Ex. R 39 to Ex. R 48. He also got her signatures in the name of Shehnaj Khan on some blank papers (Ex. R 49 to Ex. R 55) and in the name of Shehnaz Khan @ Shakuntala Devi on Ex. R 56 to 68. Sirraj also got her signature in the name of Shakuntala Devi on Ex. R 69. a blank 'Vakalatnama.' 23. On seeing the photographs Ex. R 3, 5 and 7, the witness stated that these are the naked photographs of a girl, which Sirraj had shown her. 24. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross- examination. In her cross-examination she has admitted to have written the letters Ex. D. 4 to D. 6, but has stated that Sirraj forcibly got these letters written from her. She has deposed that Sirraj had taken her photographs Ex. D. 8 to D. 15 on the basis of her previous photos under the threat of her exploitation and with a view to lower down her prestige. She has denied these photographs to be related to her marriage with accused Sirraj. She has also denied to have written the letters Ex. D. 21 and D. 22. She has put her signatures in the name of Sehnaz Khan on being asked by Sirraj. She has admitted her signatures of a blank pie paper, Ex. R 56. She has further deposed that she did not study in Maharani College in 1991. She studied in Maharani School Banipark till March 1991. D. 21 and D. 22. She has put her signatures in the name of Sehnaz Khan on being asked by Sirraj. She has admitted her signatures of a blank pie paper, Ex. R 56. She has further deposed that she did not study in Maharani College in 1991. She studied in Maharani School Banipark till March 1991. She then deposed that she had not come in contact with accused Sirraj till 1990. According to her, Sirraj was employed by them and remained under their employment till May, 1992. However, Sirraj continued to visit her house till the report Ex. R 19 was lodged by her. 25. As regards the First Information Report, Ex. R 19, the witness has deposed that she had written this report at the Police Station itself. About 15-20 days prior to the lodging of report, her family members were discussing about lodging the report. She and her mother did not disclose her father about the said incident at the time when he sustained knife injury. He does not remember whether she mentioned her date of birth in Ex. R 19 or not. She has deposed that she did not erase the figure 9' appearing in 1992' from S to T in Ex. P. 19, whereas she has raised it in size. 26. In cross examination, on the questions put to this witness by the counsel for the accused, the witness has deposed that the fact about commission of unnatural offence by the accused is not mentioned in the report Ex. R 19, but has categorically deposed that accused had done so with her. 27. P.W. 3 Dr. Indu Prabhakar and PW. 4 Vaidehi Agnihotri are the witnesses to the abortion of Shakuntala in Merry Stopes Clinic. According to these witnesses, Sirraj introduced himself as J.R Chaudhary and Shakuntala as his wife and that he put his signatures in the name of J.R Chaudhary on Ex. R 24. 28. PW. 6 Hanuman Prasad is a witness of recovery of 21 naked photographs, which included the nude photos of Sirraj Ahmed. This witness has stated that Sirraj torned the metresses and got recovery these photographs from the metresses. He put his signatures on the recovery memo Ex. R 72 and site plan of the place of recovery, Ex. R 73. 29. PW. 8 Kedar Nath Saini is a witness to the site plan Ex. R 22. 30. PW. This witness has stated that Sirraj torned the metresses and got recovery these photographs from the metresses. He put his signatures on the recovery memo Ex. R 72 and site plan of the place of recovery, Ex. R 73. 29. PW. 8 Kedar Nath Saini is a witness to the site plan Ex. R 22. 30. PW. 17 (Jmaid Singh was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station, Sadar, Jaipur, before whom PW. 2 Shakuntala had lodged the report Ex. R 19. 31. PW. 18 Mst. Naina Devi is the mother of Shakuntala. She has stated that she is engaged in stitching of clothes at her house in the name of Peace of Minds Garments. She had employed accused Sirraj in January, 1991 at the salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. After about 5-6 months while her daughter Shakuntala was confined to bed and was weeping, on being asked as to the cause of her weeping. Shakuntala disclosed that Sirraj has been committing rape on her under threat since recent past. She stated that Shakuntala has also informed her that Sirraj has taken her nacked photographs. Shakuntala also disclosed that Sirraj got her abortion in Marry Stopes Clinic identifying her to be his wife. Shakuntala had disclosed that Sirraj had threatened her that he will make public her naked photographs. The witness asked her daughter not to disclose this incident to any one and that she will get the photos from Sirraj. On the next day she went to the house of Sirraj, where he was already present. Sirraj forcibly caused to drink cold drink (Sarbat) and she became unconscious. Having regained she found herself in a 'Lungi' of yellow colour and a white 'kurta' on her body. Thereafter Sirraj also threatened her and committed rape on her at the point of knife and also took her nacked photographs. Few days later, Sirraj came to her house and told that negatives of the photographs are lying at his house and he will get those photographs published in the newspaper. Under threat, Sirraj took her naked photographs and committed rape on her in the room at the roof. Sirraj had a automatic camera with him. She has further stated that Sirraj demanded Rs. 70,000/- as against return of photographs. According to her statement, she said Rs. 8000/- to Sirraj still he did not hand over the photographs. Under threat, Sirraj took her naked photographs and committed rape on her in the room at the roof. Sirraj had a automatic camera with him. She has further stated that Sirraj demanded Rs. 70,000/- as against return of photographs. According to her statement, she said Rs. 8000/- to Sirraj still he did not hand over the photographs. The witness has further stated that Sirraj got her signatures on the blank papers Ex. R 57 to Ex. P. 68, at the point of knife. As regards the obscene photographs Ex. P. 85 to Ex. R 95, some of which are of witness alone and in come photographs the witness is with Sirraj, the witness has stated that accused Sirraj had taken these photographs at different places in different poses. 32. This witness Naina Devi has supported the statements of her daughter PW. 2 Shakuntala in material particulars. 33. PW. 21 Nagarmal Agrawal who was posted as Manager in United Commercial Bank, NEI Branch, Jaipur has certified the opening of account by Sirraj Ahmed in the name of J.R Garments on 29.4.1992. In cross examination, the witnesses has stated that no amount was ever deposited in this account in the name of Peace of Mines Garments and that maximum withdrawal from this account was to the tune of Rs. 2700/-. The schedule attached to Ex. P 98 is the details of the amount drawn from the Account No. C-1/110, which shows that the entry from A to B as regards withdrawal of Rs. 500/- is in the name of Shakuntala and the entry C to D from withdrawal of Rs. 2700/- is in the name of Krishan Kumar. 34. PW. 22 Dr. B.L. Bhatia, who was posted as Medical Jurist in S.M.S Hospital had examined Kumari Shakuntala on the written request of SHO, Police Station, Sadar for determining her age. In the opinion of the doctor, the age of the girl was more than 17 years and less than 19 years. He has stated that his opinion Ex. R 100 is based on the opinion of X-ray Specialist Ex. R 101. 35. PW .23 Keshar Lal Regar is the scriber of Ex. R 80 wherein, accused Sirraj has requested to be pardoned for his various mischiefs and illegal acts. This documents was written on a non-judicial stamp of Rs. He has stated that his opinion Ex. R 100 is based on the opinion of X-ray Specialist Ex. R 101. 35. PW .23 Keshar Lal Regar is the scriber of Ex. R 80 wherein, accused Sirraj has requested to be pardoned for his various mischiefs and illegal acts. This documents was written on a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 3.00 in the meeting of Panchas held on 17.9.1992 for the purpose of resolving the dispute between accused appellant Sirraj and Chain Sukh and Smt. Naina Devi. 36. PW. 24 Smt. Rudi Devi is the elder sister of Smt. Naina Devi. She has stated that Naina Devi informed her that Sirraj has with him their (both mother and daughter) naked photographs and was demanding money. The witness stated that she went to the house of Naina Devi and gave her Rs. 8,000/-. 37. PW. 27 Chain Sukh is the husband and father of victims Naina Devi and Shakuntala. This witnesses has supported the statements of Naina Devi and Shakuntala in material particulars. He has stated in his statement in the month of February, 1993, Sirraj Ahmed had given an envelop to her daughter in the School, which she handed over to him. On opening the envelop, he found a letter to threat and a naked photograph of his wife. He identified the letter Ex. R 21 as the same which he had received. He was shocked having seen the naked photo of his wife and when he asked his wife, she started weeping and disclosed about the incident. The witness stated about the rape committed by accused Sirraj on her and on her daughter having conceived a child and abortion in Marry Stopes Clinic. According to his statement, his wife disclosed that Sirraj Ahmed committed rape on her daughter at the point of knife and took her naked photographs and then at the threat of naked photographs committed rape on her at different places. This witness was also subjected to lengthy cross examination. 38. PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi, Investigating Officer has stated that having entrusted with the investigation of FIR No. 133/93, he recorded the statements of Mst. Shakuntala, her mother Mst. Naina Devi and her father Chain Sukh. He prepared the site plan Ex. P. 22 of the house of Sirraj Ahmed situated in Hasanpura and arrested the accused. 38. PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi, Investigating Officer has stated that having entrusted with the investigation of FIR No. 133/93, he recorded the statements of Mst. Shakuntala, her mother Mst. Naina Devi and her father Chain Sukh. He prepared the site plan Ex. P. 22 of the house of Sirraj Ahmed situated in Hasanpura and arrested the accused. He recovered a photo-album containing 31 naked photographs including the photographs taken during commission of sexual intercourse, hand bag, on Yasika authomatic camera and flash-gun, consequent to the information Ex. R 105 furnished by accused Sirraj Ahmed and prepared seizure memo Ex. R 106. The witness has stated that Chain Sukh gave him a naked photo of his wife wife a letter of threat Ex. R 21, which he seized vide Ex. R 20. 39. PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi further stated that Sirraj gave second information Ex. R 107 at his own that he can get recovered photo album, negatives, photos, blank documents purported to be signed by Naina Devi and Shakuntala and one knife concealed in his attachy lying at the house of his friend Raju Gujar, situated in Hasanpura, Kachhi Basti, Jaipur. The witness recovered these articles vide recovery memo Ex. R 76 and the details of the recovered articles is contained in Ex. R 77. Shri Rajendra Joshi stated that he seized the record relating to the abortion of PW. 2 Shakuntala from Marry Stopes Clinic. 40. PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi has also stated that accused Sirraj Ahmed gave information at his own that he can get recovered the positive photos which he has kept concealed in a cotton metress lying in his rented house situated in Lanka Puri Kachi Basti. He recorded this information as Ex. P 111 and pursuant to this information he recovered 21 coloured photographs of B-2 size, out of which 1 photo was of Naina Devi and rest 20 photos in naked and intercourse condition where of Shakuntala. He made the recovery vide memo Ex. R 72 and also prepared site place Ex. R 73 of the place of recovery. Identifying the recovered Article-1 (knife) and Article 2 Camera along with flash-gun, the witness stated that these are the same items which he had recovered on the information of accused Sirraj Ahmed. Article-2 camera has timer and after it is set, it may take photos. 41. R 73 of the place of recovery. Identifying the recovered Article-1 (knife) and Article 2 Camera along with flash-gun, the witness stated that these are the same items which he had recovered on the information of accused Sirraj Ahmed. Article-2 camera has timer and after it is set, it may take photos. 41. This witness has described the investigation made by him in a chronological order. 42. The question, which arises for our consideration are (i) as to whether accused Sirraj Ahmed forcibly committed rape on Mst. Shakuntala against her will in her house situated in Raigaron-ka-mohalla, Jhotwara, Jaipur at the point of knife at about 3-4 RM. in the month of April, 1991 and took her naked photographs with an intention to blackmail her and continued to cummitt rape against her will at different places on different till the matter was reported to the police, (ii) Whether accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed forcibly committed rape on P.W. 18 Smt. Naina Devi against her will in the month of July 1991 and took her naked photographs and continued to commit rape on her on different occasions at different places at the threat of black mailing her and her daughter Shakuntala by making public the obscene photographs of herself and her daughter Shakuntala. (iii) Whether accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed introducing himself as J.R Choudhary and Shakuntala as his wife in the month of July 1991 got the abortion of Shakuntala in Merry Stopes Clinic, Jaipur, (iv) Whether accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed committed Sodomy with P.W. 2 Shakuntala, (v) Whether accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed exhibited the obscene photographs of Shakuntala, Naina Devi and others. 43. The law is well settled on the point that the prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accompliance of the crime and there is no rule of law that testimony cannot be acted without corroboration on material particulars and her testimony has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness and further, if the Court find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial which would lend assurance of her testimony. 44. In the case in hand, there are two victims of sexual offence, namely PW. 2 Shakuntala and PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi, mother of PW. 2 Shakuntala. 44. In the case in hand, there are two victims of sexual offence, namely PW. 2 Shakuntala and PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi, mother of PW. 2 Shakuntala. We have already discussed the evidence of both the victims. Having scrutinised their evidence in the light of the above settled position of law, we may act upon their testimony without even seeking corroboration on any material particulars as, in our opinion, it is reliable and worthy of credence. 45. As discussed hereinabove, PW. 2 Shakuntala has categorically stated in her statement that in the month of April, 1991 while she was along at her home, accused Sirraj came to her house, closed the doors and windows from inside a.id asked her to put off her clothes. 0:i her refusal to do so, Sirraj took out a knife and threatened that he will cut tier in pieces, if she does not put off her clothes. Thereafter, accused forcibly put off her clothes, made her to fall and committed rape on her. She further stated that Sirraj kept a automatic camera on a stool, which took the photographs of the commission of rape on her by accused Sirraj. While committing rape, accused repeatedly threatened her to death in case the narrates the story to any one. Thereafter, he went away. This witness has stated that 2-3 days after this 10-11 A.M. and while showing her 4-5 photographs told her that if she wants to have these photos, she will have to accompany him to his house. The photographs related to the sexual intercourse by accused Sirraj Ahmed with Shakuntala. She alongwith Sirraj went to the house of Sirraj situated in Hasanpura at about 4-5 P.M. in auto-rickshaw for the purpose of collecting the photographs. None was present at his house, where also accused Sirraj closed the doors of his house from inside and committed rape on her. He tried to take the photographs from his automatic camera while committing rape, but because of some fault in the camera, photographs could not be taken. Thereafter be asked her to go home. She further stated that Sirraj neither returned the photos nor destroyed the same. Accused Sirraj also told her that the persons of lower casts born only for this purpose. According to her statement, Sirraj also committed rape on her 2-3 times on the roof of her house. Thereafter be asked her to go home. She further stated that Sirraj neither returned the photos nor destroyed the same. Accused Sirraj also told her that the persons of lower casts born only for this purpose. According to her statement, Sirraj also committed rape on her 2-3 times on the roof of her house. He committed rape on her the threat that her refusal to have sexual intercourse with him would led him to get the photographs published in the news-paper and that he will defame her. She stated that Sirraj Ahmed took her photographs of the commission of rape at her house. 46. Thus, on carefully scanning her evidence, we find that the trial court has rightly recorded a finding against accused Sirraj that he forcibly committed rape on PW. 2 Shakuntala against her will, in the month of April, 1991 while she was alone at her house and took her obscene photographs from his automatic camera, which he had brought with him and thereafter continued to commit rape against her will on different occasions at different places. 47. From the evidence of prosecutrix it appears that on the next day of her abortion, she fell ill and she disclosed the entire episode to her mother Mst. Naina Devi, P.W. 18 who advised her daughter to keep mum and that she herself will talk to Sirraj Ahmed. 48. P.W. 18 Smt. Naina Devi is none other but the mother of prosecutrix, and is also a victim of sexual lust of accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed. This witness has stated that she is engaged in the business of stitching the clothes and she had employeed Sirraj Ahmed in the month of January, 1991 at the salary of Rs. 1000/- per month. After about 5-6 months while her daughter Shakuntala was confined to bed and was weeping, on being asked as to the cause of her weeping, Shakuntala disclosed that Sirraj has been committed rape on her since recent past under threat. She stated that Shakuntala has also informed her that Sirraj has taken her nacked photographs. Shakuntala also disclosed that Sirraj got her abortion in Marry Stopes Clinic identifying her to his wife. Shakuntala had disclosed that Sirraj had threatened her that he will make public her naked photographs. The witness asked her daughter not to disclose this incident to any one and that she will get the photos from Sirraj. Shakuntala also disclosed that Sirraj got her abortion in Marry Stopes Clinic identifying her to his wife. Shakuntala had disclosed that Sirraj had threatened her that he will make public her naked photographs. The witness asked her daughter not to disclose this incident to any one and that she will get the photos from Sirraj. On the next day she went to the house of Sirraj, where he was already present. Sirraj forcibly caused to drink cold drink (Sarbat) and she became unconscious. Having regained she found herself in a 'Lungi' of yellow colour and a white 'kurta' on her body. Thereafter Sirraj also threatened her and committed rape on her at the point of knife and also took her naked photographs. Sirraj went on saying that since she belongs to Raiger community and, therefore, if it does happen to her, with whom it would happen. Few days later, Sirraj came to her house and showed her naked photographs of her daughtet and told that negatives of the photographs are lying at his house and he will get those photographs published in the newspaper. Under this threat, Sirraj took her naked photographs and also committed rape on her in the room situated at the roof. Sirraj has a automatic camera with him. According to her, Sirraj Ahmed took her photographs in different poses. She has further stated that Sirraj demanded Rs. 70,000/- as against return of photographs. According to her statement, She managed Rs. 8000/- from her sister Rudi Devi and paid to Sirraj, still he did not hand over the photographs. She has stated that despite written apology by accused Sirraj Ahmed in the Panchayat, he continued to threat her and went on collecting Rs. 100-200. 49. From the discussion made above, it is crystal clear that when P.W. 18 Smt. Naina Devi went to collect the obsence photographs of her daughter PW. 2 Shakuntala at the house of accused Sirraj Ahmed situated in Hasanpura, Sirraj Ahmed instead returning the photographs subjected her to forcible intercourse against her will and also took her naked photographs and continued to commit rape on Naina Devi whenever he wanted to fulfil his sexual lust, under the threat and duress of her photographs and the photographs of her daughter Shakuntala. The statements of both the prosecutrix of sexual offence corroborate each other and we have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the trial court that Smt. Naina Devi PW. 18 was also subjected to sexual exploitation at the hands of accused Sirraj Ahmed. He ccmmitted rape on her against her will on different occasions at different places and also took her naked photographs. Her exploitation started when she went to his house to collect the obscene photographs of her daughter. 50. The statements of both the prosecutrix of sexual offence find corroboration with the statement of PW. 27 Chainsukh, who has stated that having received a letter of threat Ex. P. 21 alongwith a naked photograph of his wife, when he asked about the photograph, she started weeping and narrated him the entire story of continuous sexual assault by Sirraj Ahmed with her and her daughter Shakuntala. 51. According to the prosecutrix, Sirraj also committed unnatural offence with her and took the photographs while he was putting her male organ into her mouth and anus. Thus accused went on black-mailing her on various occasions. She stated that she became perturbed when she got pregnancy in July, 1991 because of intercourse by accused Sirraj. When she informed Sirraj of her conceiving a child, he told her not to disclose about her pregnancy to any one and to observe silence, else she will get bad name in the society and none would marry her. Lateron, Sirraj Ahmed advised her for abortion and forcibly took her to Marry Stopes Clinic, where Sirraj introduced himself as J.R Chaudhary and Shakuntala as his wife and got her abortion. On the next day of abortion, the prosecutrix fell ill and she disclosed the entire episode to her mother Mst. Naina Devi, who advised her daughter to keep mum and that she herself will talk to Sirraj Ahmed. 52. This witness further stated that Sirraj got her signatures and her mother's signatures on some blank papers under the threat of getting the photographs published in the newspaper. Sirraj, lateron demanded Rs. 70,000/- for return of photographs, against which her mother paid him Rs. 8000/-. Despite payment of Rs. 8000/-, Sirraj did not return the photographs and told that he will not return the photographs unless he receives Rs. 70000/-. Sirraj, lateron demanded Rs. 70,000/- for return of photographs, against which her mother paid him Rs. 8000/-. Despite payment of Rs. 8000/-, Sirraj did not return the photographs and told that he will not return the photographs unless he receives Rs. 70000/-. A meeting of Panchas of Raigar community was also held, in which Sirraj and his elder brother had also participated and Sirraj had pardoned in writing. The witness further stated that Sirraj got the signatures of her and her mother on blank papers under threat of photographs. He got the signatures of prosecutrix in the name of Shakuntala @ Sehnaz. Accused also told her that if she puts her signatures in the name of Sehnaz, he will return her photographer, but still he did not return the photographs. Sirraj also showed her a photograph of some girl, in which accused was in the stage of committing intercourse. While showing her the photograph, accused Sirraj told her that he is found of such acts and it is his profession and that he used to black-mail in this fashion. 53. The prosecutrix has identified the photographs Ex. P. 25 to Ex. R 34 and has stated that accused had taken these photographs in her room on her roof. She has identified the presence of accused Sirraj in all these photographs (Ex. P. 25 to P. 34) in different poses. She has also identified the papers Ex. R 39 to R 70 upon which the accused had obtained her signatures in the name of Sehnaz @ Shakuntala. She had identified the Camera (Article-2) and has stated that it was the Camera with which the accused had taken her photographs. 54. The statements of both the prosecutrix of sexual offence find corroboration in all material particulars by the statement of P.W. 29 Rajendra Joshi who has conducted the investigation of the case instituted at the report of PW. 2 Shakuntala on 7.7.1993. This witness has stated that he recorded the statements of Shakuntala, Smt. Naina Devi and Chain Sukh. He stated that the complainant and her father produced a naked photograph of Naina Devi and a letter of threat Ex. R 21, which he seized vide memo Ex. R 20. He prepared the site plan of the place of incident, namely the house of accused Sirraj Ahmed, situated that he arrested accused Ahmed vide memo Ex. R 74. He stated that the complainant and her father produced a naked photograph of Naina Devi and a letter of threat Ex. R 21, which he seized vide memo Ex. R 20. He prepared the site plan of the place of incident, namely the house of accused Sirraj Ahmed, situated that he arrested accused Ahmed vide memo Ex. R 74. Accused furnished information at his own that he can get the photographs of Shakuntala and her mother Naina Devi, Camera and the album which he has kept in an almirah. He recorded this information in the Memo Ex. R 105. On the basis of this information, he took accused Sirraj Ahmed to his house, where accused himself took out a red coloured bag from his almirah and on opening the bag, the witness found a album containing 31 naked photographs including the photographs showing intercourse. He also got recovered a automatic camera and a flash-gun from the same almirah. The witness recovered these items vide memo Ex. R 106. The witness then proceeded to the house of Shakuntala and Naina Devi situated in Jhotwara and prepared site plan Ex. P. 23. 55. P.W. 29 Rajendra Joshi has further stated that accused Sirraj Ahmed further gave him information. Ex. R 107 that he has kept concealed in the house of his friend Raju Gujar, situated in Hasanpura-A, Kachhr Basti, Jaipur, a photo album, negatives, photos and some blank papers containing signatures of Shakuntala and Naina Devi, which he can get recovered. Consequently, the witness along with accused Sirraj Ahmed rushed to the house of Raju Gujar and recovered a brief-case, which contained photos, album, negatives, papers, knife and some male-female cloths vide recovery memo Ex. R 76 and prepared a list of these articles, Ex. R 77 and got the signatures of accused Sirraj Ahmed. This witness also seized the record relating to abortion of Shakuntala from Marry Stopes Clinic. 56. The witness further stated that he recommended to the Superintendent of Police for registering a separate case of the matter of rape having been committed on Mst. Munni @ Raisa. 57. According to this witness, accused also furnished information at his own that he can get the positive photos, which he has kept concealed in his rented house situated in Lankapuri Kachhi Basti in a cotton metress. Having recorded this information Ex. Munni @ Raisa. 57. According to this witness, accused also furnished information at his own that he can get the positive photos, which he has kept concealed in his rented house situated in Lankapuri Kachhi Basti in a cotton metress. Having recorded this information Ex. R 111 and after putting his signatures and taking the signatures of Sirraj Ahmed on the information memo proceeded to the place and recovered 21 coloured photographs of B-2 size at the instance and from the possessions of accused Sirraj Ahmed. Out of these 21 photographs, on belonged to Smt. Naina Devi and rest belonged to Shakuntala Devi. All these photographs, one belonged to Smt. Naina Devi and rest belonged to Shakuntala Devi. All these photographs were naked and in the stage of sexual intercourse. These photographs were lying concealed in a cotton metress lying rolled in a corner of the room and accused Sirraj Ahmed himself took out these photographs and handed over to him. The witness prepared site memo, Ex. R 73 of the place of recovery, which contains his signatures. The witness identified the knife, Article-1 and Camera Article 2 as the same which he had recovered on the information of accused Sirraj Ahmed. 58. Thus, on scanning the evidence, we are of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence. Though her evidence could be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars, yet on a careful scrutiny of the statements of the witnesses discussed above, we find that her statement stands corroborated in material particulars with the statements of PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi PW. 27 Chain Sukh and PW. 29 Rajendra Soni. PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi, mother of Shakuntala is also a victim of sexual lust and black- mailing by accused Sirraj Ahmed. The statements of PW. 2 Shakuntala, PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi and PW. 27 Chainsukh are more or less similar in all material particulars and are corroborated with each other. That apart, the statements of both the victims namely, Shakuntala and Naina Devi stand corroborated by the investigation, recoveries and what has been deposed by PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi on the basis of investigation carried out by him. 59. 27 Chainsukh are more or less similar in all material particulars and are corroborated with each other. That apart, the statements of both the victims namely, Shakuntala and Naina Devi stand corroborated by the investigation, recoveries and what has been deposed by PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi on the basis of investigation carried out by him. 59. In the light of the statements of the above four important witness, we do not consider it appropriate to discuss the statements of other witnesses relating to the recoveries, seizure memos, site plans etc. Most of the witnesses have turned hostile. However, their evidence neither affects the prosecution case nor it supports the theory of defence. 60. In assailing the conviction, Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the accused appellant has vehemently canvassed before us that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report. Learned counsel contended that according to the prosecution case, the incident took place in the month of April, 1991 when accused appellant alleged to have entered the house of prosecutrix and having found her alone, bolted the doors of the house from inside and not only forcibly committed rape on her but also took her naked photographs from his automatic camera, but the prosecutrix did not chose to inform the police about the incident. Even when she became pregnant in July, 1991 she got her abortion and she informed the incident to her mother on the next day, but still neither the mother of the prosecutrix nor the prosecutrix thought Mproper to lodge the FIR and even when the entire incident came to the notice of father of Shakuntala and husband of Naina Devi non of them preferred to lodge the report with the police. Thus, according to the learned counsel there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution as not been able to explain this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. This inordinate unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution case and casts serious doubt on the genesis of the occurrence. 61. In support of his above argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Ramji Surya v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1983 SC 810 ) and on Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of Maharashtra (1999 RLW (1) SC 79) . 62. 61. In support of his above argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Ramji Surya v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1983 SC 810 ) and on Suresh N. Bhusare v. State of Maharashtra (1999 RLW (1) SC 79) . 62. It is true that the incident happened in April, 1991 was reported to the police in July, 1993 but it has to be kept in view that accused not only committed rape only once on Mst. Shakuntala, but he took her naked photographs from his automatic camera and under the threat of such photographs the accused went on black mailing her and used her as an instrument of fulfilling his sexual lust. In such circumstances, the victim had no option but to observe silence. Even when she got pregnancy because of rape on her on various occasions by the accused, she accompanied accused Sirraj to Marry Clinic for her abortion as per his advise. It was only when she started bleeding and fell seriously ill, she had to disclose the entire story to her mother. Her mother Mst. Naina Devi, PW. 18 made her daughter to understand not to disclose the incident to any one apprehending danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society and that she would try to get the photographs from Sirraj Ahmed. Accordingly, Smt. Naina Devi went to Sirraj Ahmed, who did not even spare Mst. Naina Devi and committed rape on her and also took her naked photographs. Thereafter, the accused started black-mailing both daughter and mother under the threat and duress of their naked photographs with him. In the facts and circumstances of the present case and taking into consideration the statements of both the victims, we are of the opinion that in the normal course of human conduct, both the victims (mother and daughter) of sexual assault would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience they had undergone and would feel terribly embrassed in relation to their sexual exploitation to narrate it to other or to inform the police, over powered by a feeling of shame and their natural inclination would be avoid talking about it to anyone. The daughter, mother and father appears to have discussed whether to lodge or not to lodge a report with the police in view of the repercussions it might have on the reputation and future of the family and having given cool thought, iodged the First Information Report. We are fortified in our view by the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 ) cited before us by Mr. Satish Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Akhil Simlot, appearing for the complainant. In this case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealing with the causes of delay in the cases of sexual crime have observed as under: "The Courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in 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 complain 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." 63. We are also fortied in our view by the following observations to the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Narayan ( AIR 1992 SC 2004 ) : "True it is that the complaint was lodged two days later but as stated earlier Indian society being what it is the victim of such a crime ordinarily consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police since it involves the question of morality and chastity of a married woman. A woman and her relates have to struggle with several situations before deciding to approach the police, more so when the culprit happens to be related. In such cases, therefore, the delay is understandable and hence merely on that account the prosecution version cannot be doubted." 64. We have also gone through the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant. In such cases, therefore, the delay is understandable and hence merely on that account the prosecution version cannot be doubted." 64. We have also gone through the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the accused appellant. In Ramji Suriya (Supra), the accused were tried for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. In the appeal against conviction, their Lordship of the Supreme Court reversing the conviction observed that there was hardly a distance of 3 miles between the place of occurrence and the Police Station and the reason given by the prosecution for this inordinate delay of nearly 24 hours was hardly convincing. Thus this case is of no help to the accused appellant as the facts in the aforesaid case are entirely distinguishable to the facts of the present case. To our mind delay in the cases involving sexual offence cannot at all be put at par and viewed with same degree with the cases involving offences other than the sexual offence. 65. Another case, Suresh N. Bhusare (supra) on the point of delay is also of no help to the accused appellant. Having perused the judgment, we do not find anything specific about the delay in lodging the FIR. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court having found various infirmities in the statement of the prosecutrix, held that no implicit reliance could have been placed upon her evidence and that the High Court having failed to consider all these important aspects erroneously came to the conclusion that her evidence was reliable. 66. The next ground of challenge urged by Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel for the appellant was that both PW. 2 Shakuntala and her mother PW. 18 Naina Devi were consenting parties to the sexual intercourse with accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed. He submitted that both the victims never resisted against commission of alleged rape by accused Sirraj Ahmed and on the contrary both the victims allowed him to take their photographs of the stage where accused was committing intercourse with them on different occasions. While referring to the photographs Ex. R 25 to Ex. R 34, learned counsel vehemently submitted that these photographs are self explanatory and a look at the same would absolutely make it clear that none of the photographs suggests that neither mother nor daughter resisted accused Sirraj from taking their naked photographs. While referring to the photographs Ex. R 25 to Ex. R 34, learned counsel vehemently submitted that these photographs are self explanatory and a look at the same would absolutely make it clear that none of the photographs suggests that neither mother nor daughter resisted accused Sirraj from taking their naked photographs. According to him, it is case of consent and the accused appellant cannot be said to have forcibly committed sexual intercourse with PW. 2 Shakuntala and PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi against their will. 67. In support of his above arguments, Mr. S.R. Surana has placed reliance on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shanker (2000) 9 SCC 161 . Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 184 ) and Sudhakar & Another v. State of Maharashtra (2000(3) Crimes 122 (SC) . 68. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have contended that the learned trial court has, after crytical examination of the entire evidence and the material on record has come to a definite finding that accused Sirraj Ahmed forcibly committed rape on PW. 2 Shakuntala against her in the month of April, 1991 in her house and took her naked photographs referred in the judgment and thereafter continued to commit rape on her. Likewise, the accused appellant also committed rape on P.W. 18 Naina Devi and took her naked photographs as well when she went to his house for the purposes of collecting the photographs of her daughter Shakuntala and continued to exploit Naina Devi under the threat of naked photographs. Learned counsel that PW. 2 Shakuntala has categorically stated in her statement that accused committed rape on her against her will at the point of knife and took her photographs. Similarly, P.W. 18 Smt, Naina Devi has also stated in her statement that when she went to the house of Sirraj Ahmed for collecting the photographs of her daughter, he offered Sharbat (cold drink). She became unconscious and during her unconscious accused Sirraj changed her cloths, committed rape on her and took her photographs. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant Sirraj Ahmed subjected Shakuntala and her mother Naina Devi to sexual intercourse with their consent. 69. We have considered the rival submissions. She became unconscious and during her unconscious accused Sirraj changed her cloths, committed rape on her and took her photographs. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant Sirraj Ahmed subjected Shakuntala and her mother Naina Devi to sexual intercourse with their consent. 69. We have considered the rival submissions. The evidence of the prosecutrix that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse should normally be believed unless there is material leading to an inference of her consent. In the case in hand, from the statements of PW. 2 Smt. Shakuntala Devi and R W. 18 Naina Devi, it appears to us that neither R W. 2 Shakuntala nor PW. 18 Naina Devi had an occasion to resist against the sexual lust of the appellant. So far as victim P.W. 2 Shakuntala is concerned, it appears from her statement that accused entered her house somewhere in the month of April, 1991, bolted the doors of her house from inside and while taking out of knife compelled her to put off her cloths and then forcibly committed rape on her against her will and took her photographs from his automatic camera, which he had brought with him. It is an admitted fact that accused was an employee of Smt. Naina Devi and he used to visit her house. He was well aware of the fact as to the presence of the family members of Naina Devi at the point of time. Knowing it well that Shakuntala would be alone at her house, he rushed to her in pre-planned manner, having automatic camera and a knife with him and then forcibly committed rape on her as stated hereinabove and thereafter continued to sexually exploit her on various occasions. In these circumstances, we must hold that P.W. 2 Shakuntala was not a consenting party to the sexual intercourse with accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed. 70. We also do not find ourselves in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for accused appellant that accused Sirraj Ahmed did not commit intercourse with PW. 18 Naina Devi against her will amounting to rape as neither there is medical evidence nor her own evidence finds support from any other evidence or material and as such she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. According to victim Naina Devi, in July, 1991 when her daughter PW. 18 Naina Devi against her will amounting to rape as neither there is medical evidence nor her own evidence finds support from any other evidence or material and as such she was a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. According to victim Naina Devi, in July, 1991 when her daughter PW. 2 Shakuntala informed her about the commission of rape and taking her naked and obscene photographs by accused Sirraj Ahmed, she went to the house of Sirraj Ahmed for the purposes of collecting the photographs of her daughter, where accused committed rape on her in the circumstances discussed above. 71. The sexual offences are always committed by the accused after having fully satisfied that the circumstances are favourable to him and that none is present to witness his act and therefore, the version of a victim of rape generally finds support from the surrounding circumstances and the circumstantial evidence. In the case in hand, on scaning the evidence of PW. 2 Shakuntala and PW. 18 Naina Devi, both victims of sexual crime, on seeing the naked and obscene photographs of Shakuntala, particularly the photographs marked Ex. R 25 and Ex. R 38 and the naked and obsence photographs of Naina Devi, in particular the photographs marked Ex. P. 85 to Ex. R 95, we are of the opinion that accused Sirraj Ahmed committed rape with PW. 2 Shakuntala collect the obscene and naked photos of her daughter and continued to fulfil his sexual lust with both the victims till the matter was reported to the Police. 72. We have also gone through the authorities cited by the counsel for the appellant in support of his argument that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt against the accused appellant as against the charge that the forcibly committed rape on PW. 2 Shakuntala and PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi against their will. In Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the prosecutrix who was already in love with a boy named Ashok was kidnapped and was subjected to rape. The trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons. 2 Shakuntala and PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi against their will. In Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra (supra), the prosecutrix who was already in love with a boy named Ashok was kidnapped and was subjected to rape. The trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons. On appeal, the High Court, came to the conclusion that sexual intercourse in question was forcible and amounted to rape and in recording the finding the High Court besides the circumstances that emerged from the oral evidence on record took note of the fact as to in what situation the prosecutrix was at the material time and the fact that both the accused were stranger to the victim. The accused took up the matter to the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with all ingredients of Section 375 IPC held that the sexual intercourse in question is not proved to amount to rape and that no offence is brought home to Ganpat appellant. The observations of the Supreme Court need to be quoted : "The only allegation found by the High Court to have been brought home to Tukaram appellant is that he fondled the private parts of the girl after Ganpat had left her. The High Court itself has taken note of the fact that the first information (Ex. 5) the girl had made against Tukaram serious allegations on which she had gone back at the trial and the acts covered by which she attributed in her deposition to Ganpat instead. Those allegations were that Tukaram who had caught hold of her in the first instance, had taken her to the latrine in the rear of the main building, had lit a torch and had stared at her private parts in the torch light. Now if the girl could alter her position in regard to these serious allegations at will, where is the assurance that her word is truth in relation to what she now says about Tukaram? The High Court appears to have been influenced by the fact that Tukaram was present at the police station when the incident took place and that he left it after the incident. This circumstances, in our opinion, is not inculpatory and is capable of more explanations that one. The High Court appears to have been influenced by the fact that Tukaram was present at the police station when the incident took place and that he left it after the incident. This circumstances, in our opinion, is not inculpatory and is capable of more explanations that one. We do not, therefore, propose to take the girl at her work in relation to Tukaram appeal and hold that the charge remains wholly unproved against him." 73. Thus, the aforesaid case based entirely on different facts and circumstances with that of the facts and circumstances of the instant case is of no help to the accused appellant in the instant case, we take the victims at their word in relation to accused Sirraj Ahmed. 74. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shankar (Supra), the allegations against the accused was that when the prosecutrix was returning from the canal after taking her bath the accused caught hold of her and after taking her inside the shed committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. During her cross-examination she admitted that she was completely naked when he committed rape on her and that at time the accused also was naked. P.W. 1 stated in his deposition that he found both the prosecutrix and the respondent having intercourse on the bed and that they were completely naked and he caught hold of both of them. He stated that the prosecutrix was not raising any cries. In these circumstances their lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances of the case and the state of nakedness in which both the prosecutrix and the respondent were found, having sexual intercourse on a cot, the opinion expressed by the High Court, that the prosecutrix, then aged about 20 years, was a consenting party appears to be highly logical and probable. According to the medical evidence given by P.W. 4, the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse and her hymen admitted two fingers easily. Medical evidence also discloses that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix contrary to the statement of the prosecutrix that she had received injuries on her hands and on the hip. Thus, the medical evidence also lends credence to the version that the prosecutrix was a consenting party forcible sexual intercourse with her. Medical evidence also discloses that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix contrary to the statement of the prosecutrix that she had received injuries on her hands and on the hip. Thus, the medical evidence also lends credence to the version that the prosecutrix was a consenting party forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt." 75. The aforesaid observation of their lordships of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, are of no help to the accused appellant for the simple reason that present one is a case of sexual exploitation of two victims (mother and daughter), which started in the month of April when the later fell to the sexual lust of appellant Sirraj Ahmed at the point of knife and the appellant succeeded in taking her obscene and naked photographs. 76. As a result of our above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that neither Shakuntala nor her mother Naina Devi were consenting parties to the sexual intercourse with accused Sirraj Ahmed. Both the victims having stated on oath that they were forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse and that the act was done against their consent, we are of the view that their testimony has to be accepted like any other testimony because neither their testimony can be held to be improbable nor there is any material available on record to draw other inference than that of forcibly subjecting both the victims to sexual intercourse by accused Sirraj Ahmed under the threat and duress as already held above. 77. In series of cases, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the testimony of a prosecutrix has to be believed and accepted like any other testimony unless there is material available to draw an inference as to her consent or else the testimony of the prosecutrix is such as would be inherently improbable. 77. In series of cases, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the testimony of a prosecutrix has to be believed and accepted like any other testimony unless there is material available to draw an inference as to her consent or else the testimony of the prosecutrix is such as would be inherently improbable. We may refer to the case of State of Rajasthan v. N.K. (2000) 5 SCC 30 ) cited on behalf of the prosecution and the counsel appearing for the complainant, wherein, their Lordships while dealing with the provisions of Section 375 IPC have observed in para 19 that for the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, the sexual intercourse should have been against the will of the woman or without her consent. The Supreme Court further observed : "The victim of rape stating on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse or that the act was done without her consent, as to be believed and accepted like any other testimony unless there is material available to draw an inference as to her consent or else the testimony of prosecutrix is such as would be inherently improbable." 78. Now, we shall deal with the argument of learned counsel for the accused appellant that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW. 2 Shakuntala, PW. 18 Smt. Naina Devi and PW. 27 Chain Sukh. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of these witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC. do not corroborate with their statement recorded in Court during trial. A perusal of their statement shows that both the victims of rape have tried to improve their version solely with a view to implicate accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed with the commission of sexual crime. 79. We have already referred the statements of the prosecution witnesses in the earlier part of our judgment. What we find from the statements of PW. 2 Shakuntala and PW. 18 Naina Devi that right from beginning, i.e. reporting the matter to the Police vide FIR Ex. P 19 till they were examined in Court during trial, both the witnesses had been consistent with their version. Their statements are not only supported by the statement of PW. 27 Chain Sukh, but by the statement of PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi, who carried out the entire investigation of the case. P 19 till they were examined in Court during trial, both the witnesses had been consistent with their version. Their statements are not only supported by the statement of PW. 27 Chain Sukh, but by the statement of PW. 29 Rajendra Joshi, who carried out the entire investigation of the case. We have already held the testimony of both the victims worthy of credence and thus, the argument as to the material contradictions stands washed of. 80. In the case of Data Rama & Nahar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1998 (2) RCC 441) , relied of his argument as to the contradictions in the statements of the victims of rape, the allegation against the accused was that they committed rape on prosecutrix Nand Rani while she was sleeping on the roof of her house, alongwith three children, accused Data Ram & Nahar Singh committed rape on her at the point of 'katta'. On appeal against conviction of the appellants, this Court took into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix, her conduct and the manner in which investigation was done and held that because of discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix, the accused have been implicated because of suspicion. 81. In our view, the aforesaid decision also does not find favour with the case of the present appellant. 82. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has led emphasis on the argument that PW 2 Shakuntala has not stated in her police statement under Section 161 Cr. PC. that appellant committed offence against the order of nature, inasmuch as she was subjected to sodomy. It was for the first time that she made statement as to the unnatural offence having been committed with her by the accused, when she was examined during trial. In our opinion it is not expected of a victim of sexual offence nor it is necessary that the victim of such heneious offence must state each and every act done with her before the police. The photographs Ex. P. 26 and P. 29 are self explanatory, clearly suggesting that accused Sirraj Ahmed committed sodomy with the prosecutrix (PW 2) and the photographs need no corroboration either with the police statement or with any other evidence. 83. Learned counsel has pointed out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. P. 26 and P. 29 are self explanatory, clearly suggesting that accused Sirraj Ahmed committed sodomy with the prosecutrix (PW 2) and the photographs need no corroboration either with the police statement or with any other evidence. 83. Learned counsel has pointed out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. The main witnesses in the case are the two victims of sexual offence. PW 2 Shakuntala. PW 18 Naina Devi, PW 27 Chain Sukh and PW 29 Rajendra Joshi who carried out the entire investigation. On a careful scrutiny of their evidence, we do not find any contradiction in the statements of the witnesses which could be considered fatal to the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies are bound to be there when they speak on details. We do not see any discrepancy in the narration of incident amounting to contradiction in the statements of the witnesses. 84. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekhraj and another [ (2000) 1 SCC 247 ], dealing with a case involving offence under section 376 IPC distinguished discrepancy and contradiction and observed : "Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the deposition. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the special status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement." 85. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellant was that the photographs produced in evidence by the prosecution are not admissible in evidence under the provisions of Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act since the prosecution has failed to prove the photographs by production of negatives nor there is evidence of expert to rule out the possibility, of trick photography and to prove that the photographs produced evidence were the real photographs produced evidence were the real photographs. In support of his argument, learned counsel has invited out attention to the judgments of different High Courts. 86. We have considered the aforesaid argument and also gone through the judgments cited. Needless to say, all the photographs produced in evidence have been recorded on the information and at the instance of accused Sirraj Ahmed from his house and the house of Raju, friend of Sirraj Ahmed and this fact stands fully established by the statement of PW 29 Rajendra Joshi, Investigating Officer. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery of photographs and the existence of these photographs is not questioned. That apart, PW 2 Shakuntala and PW 18 Naina Devi have certified the existence and truthfulness of these photographs, Ex. P. 25 to Ex. P. 34. Further, the existence and truthfulness of these photographs cannot be doubted for the simple reason that accused Sirraj Ahmed himself has stated that PW 2 Shakuntala and PW 18 Naina Devi themselves used to take the photographs with a view to exploit him. Thus, not only the prosecution but the accused himself has proved the existence of the photographs and, therefore, the argument that the photographs have no evidentiary value in view of the provisions of Section 62 of the Act deserves rejection. 87. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his above arguments are of no avail since the facts of the present case are absolutely different with those involved in the cited case. 88. The reliance placed on the first case, namely, Latino Andre v. Union of India ( AIR 1968 Goa 132 ) pertains to the Land Acquisition Act and the learned Single Judge held as under: "The accuracy of photographic copies, particularly of external objects, as shown in the photograph, is to be established on oath, to the satisfaction of the Courts, either by the photographer or someone who can speak of their accuracy." 89. In State of Gujarat v. Bharat (1991 Cr. L.J. 978) , the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court while dealing with the evidentiary value of photographs in view of the provisions of Sections 63, 145 and 155 of the Evidence Act, have held as under: "The photographs should not be admitted in evidence without examining the person who took the photographs and the negatives of the same being produced on record. Even when rightly admitted in evidence, their evidentiary value is almost nil. This evidence of photographs, ordinarily cannot be used to contradict the eye witness account and the evidence of Panch as well as investigating officer. Further, as far as the place of incident or for as the place of incident or for that matter any place of which demarcations and delineations are required to be noted, photographs, even if duly proved would not be good pieces of evidence." 90. In our view, the facts of the aforesaid case being entirely distinguished with the facts of the present case, the above case has no application, more particularly, in the present case, accused appellant himself was the person who took the photographs. 91. In Laxman v. Anusuyabai (AIR 1976 Bombay 264) , the question for consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether negative of the group photograph alleged to have been taken at the time of adoption ceremony and its enlarged print, which according to a witness was made from another photo print in respect of which the negative is lost, was admissible in evidence. The Division Bench held as under: "It is only when the person who takes a photograph and developes it into a negative himself comes into the box and deposes to both these facts, that a negative becomes admissible in evidence. As far as enlarged print (Ex. 63) is concerned, the position is still worse, for no print or enlargement can be admitted in evidence without its negative being produced and proved in the manner already indicated above. Moreover, the evidence of witness Dattatraya Chavan does not show which was the photo print from which the photograph which has been tendered as Exhibit No. 63 was taken. In this state of evidence, in my opinion, the said enlarged photo print (Ex. 63) has also not been duly proved and should not have been admitted in evidence." 92. In the case in hand, since the existence of the photographs produced in evidence is not questioned, there was no need of getting the negatives of the photographs produced for the proposes of proving the truthfulness of the photographs, whereas in the aforesaid case question of proof related to a photograph developed by a negative of some photograph. Thus the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the present case. 93. Thus the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the present case. 93. Learned counsel for the accused appellant then submitted that it was not the accused appellant, but PW 2 Shakuntala and PW 18 Naina Devi who exploited the accused appellant and that both were involved -in prostitution. They had taken the photographs of Sirraj Ahmed and by showing the photographs, they used to monetary and sexually exploit him. The FIR Ex. R 19 was lodged in a pre-planned and calculated manner after due deliberations with the family members. Learned counsel argued that till the appellant continued to fulfil the monetary demands of PW 2 Shakuntala and PW 18 Naina Devi and when it came to their notice that there remains nothing in the bank account of appellant, the report Ex. R 19 was lodged against him. In support of his contention, learned counsel has submitted that PW 2 and PW 18 have admitted in their statements that they have withdrawn monthly from the bank accounts of Sirraj Ahmed. He has also referred to Ex. D44 and Ex. R94 to show that there remained balance of only Rs. 50/- and Rs. 258/- in the bank accounts of Sirraj Ahmed. He also submitted that both Shakuntala and Naina Devi wanted to get rid of Naina Devi's husband Chain Sukh at the instance of accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed and both used to get Rs. 1500/- per month from him. In these circumstances, learned counsel submitted that possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out and that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 94. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel representing the complainant have submitted that the learned trial court has discussed the evidence in details and has come to a definite conclusion that the stand of the accused that PW 2 Shakuntala and Naina Devi both were engaged in prostitution is nothing but a statement made in his defence. 95. We have considered the rival submissions. 95. We have considered the rival submissions. The mere fact that the photographs have been recovered on the information and at the instance of accused Sirraj Ahmed from his own house and the house of his friend Raju, as stands proved by the evidence of PW 29 Rajendra Joshi, Investigating Officer, in itself is sufficient to conclude that it was appellant Sirraj Ahmed alone who used to sexually exploit PW 2 Shakuntala and PW 18 Naina Devi. It is highly strange as to how they could have black mailed and sexually exploited Sirraj Ahmed when all naked and obscene photographs have been recovered from the possession of Sirraj Ahmed himself. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, deserves rejection. 96. As regards the defence taken on behalf of the accused appellant that PW 2 Shakuntala and PW 18 Naina Devi wanted to get Chain Sukh murdered and used to get Rs. 1500/- per month under threat, and for that learned counsel has referred to the letters, Ex. D4 to Ex. D. 6 we have again looked at the statements of PW 2 Shakuntala, who has deposed that Sirraj Ahmed had obtained her signatures by threat. We concur with the finding of the learned trial court that a person in possession of obscene photographs of a lady can very well compell her to do anything whatever he desires. Therefore, the plea of defence that PW 2 Shakuntala and PW 18 Naina Devi wanted to get rid of Chain Sukh deserves rejection and the letters Ex. D 4 to D. 6 are nothing but an attempt to create evidence in defence. 97. Now we shall deal with the charge against the appellant under Section 377 I.PC. Learned counsel has contended that there is no allegation against the accused appellant as regards unnatural offence having been committed by him either in the FIR Ex. R 19 or in her statement Ex. D28, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex. D. 29). According to him, it was for the first time that she levelled against the appellant that he committed sodomy with her and therefore, it should be considered as an improvement. According to him, the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 3771.P.C. 98. D. 29). According to him, it was for the first time that she levelled against the appellant that he committed sodomy with her and therefore, it should be considered as an improvement. According to him, the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 3771.P.C. 98. PW 2 Shakuntala in his statement has stated that accused penetrated his male organ into her mouth and annul and committed sodomy with her. The statement of PW 2 Shakuntala to this effect stands proved by the photographs Ex. P 26 and R 29. Merely because PW 2 Shakuntala has not made this allegation either in the FIR or in her statement before the police or in her statement under Section 164 Cr. RC., her statement to this effect cannot be ignored, particularly in view of Ex.R 26 and R 29, which fully corroborate her testimony. These photographs have been recovered by the Investigating Officer Rajendra Joshi, PW 29 at the instance and from the possession of accused Sirraj Ahmed consequent to his information. A look at these photographs leave no room of doubt to disbelieve the statement of PW 2 Shakuntala as regards commission of unnatural offence by accused Sirraj Ahmed against her will. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 377 I.P.C. 99. We have gone through the evidence as regards the offence under Section 384 IPC and the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court. PW 2 Shakuntala has categorically stated that accused Sirraj got her signature on blank papers (Ex.R39 to Ex. P. 55) under the threat of her obscene photographs. He also got her signature in the name of Shakuntala Devi @ Sehnaz Khan on blank papers Ex. R 56 to 68 and on Ex. P. 69, a blank 'Vakalatnama'. Similarly, PW 18 Naina Devi has categorically deposed that accused Sirraj got her signatures on blank papers (Ex. P. 57 to Ex. R 68) We have also examined the statement of PW 29 Rajendra Joshi who has seized and recovered the aforesaid blank papers having signatures of Naina Devi and Shakuntala. He has deposed that he had recovered the aforesaid papers (Ex. P 39 to Ex. R 70) at the instance of accused Sirraj Ahmed. 100. P. 57 to Ex. R 68) We have also examined the statement of PW 29 Rajendra Joshi who has seized and recovered the aforesaid blank papers having signatures of Naina Devi and Shakuntala. He has deposed that he had recovered the aforesaid papers (Ex. P 39 to Ex. R 70) at the instance of accused Sirraj Ahmed. 100. From the above, it can safely be concluded that the finding of the trial court that appellant Sirraj Ahmed got the signatures of the prosecutrix on blank papers at the point of knife and that these blank papers could have been converted into valuable securities, deserves to be confirmed. 101. The learned trial Judge has also found the accused appellant guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 312 IPC and in our opinion, rightly so. Undisputedly, Sirraj Ahmed got the abortion of PW 2 Shakuntala done in Marry Stopes Clinic and PW 3 Dr. Indu Prabhakar and PW 4 Dr. B.S. Agnihotri are the witnesses to the abortion of PW 2 Shakuntala. Having carefully analised the evidence on record, the prosecutrix, as discussed above, when came to know of her having conceived a child became perturbed and when she informed Sirraj of her pregnancy, he asked her to observe silence else she would get a bad name and compelled her to get her abortion under the garb of his wife and ultimately Sirraj took her to Marry Stope Clinic where he introduced himself as J.R Chaudhary and Shakuntala as his wife. A perusal of statement of Shakuntala shows that she put her signatures on the consent form Ex. R 24 under the threat of Sirraj Ahmed and we do not seen any reason to discard her testimony. 102. Though the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Sirraj Ahmed made public or exhibited the obscene photographs of PW 2 Shakuntala or PW 18 Naina Devi or the alleged victim Naz @ Nazneen, yet it is well established beyond any reasonable doubt that appellant Sirraj Ahmed showed and exhibited the obscene Photographs of Mst. Raisa (Exs. R 3 R 5 and P 7) to PW 2 Shakuntala. PW 2 Shakuntala has categorically stated in her statement that accused Sirraj Ahmed showed her the naked photographs of a girl and told her that he is found of such photographs and it is his profession. . Raisa (Exs. R 3 R 5 and P 7) to PW 2 Shakuntala. PW 2 Shakuntala has categorically stated in her statement that accused Sirraj Ahmed showed her the naked photographs of a girl and told her that he is found of such photographs and it is his profession. . The witness has certified the photographs Ex. R 3, R 5 and P. 7 as the same which were shown to her by accused Sirraj Ahmed. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that appellant Sirraj Ahmed exhibited these indecent or scurrilous photos and by doing so, he intended for blackmail and thus, the trial court was justified in recording a finding of guilt against the appellant under Section 292 (2) (a) of the Penal Code. 103. The out come of the above discussion is that the various items of circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution to bring home guilt against the appellant stood proved by cogent and satisfactory evidence and the offences alleged against the accused stand proved by clinching evidence and telling circumstances. In our view, there are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned convictions. 104. The trial court having held the accused appellant guilty for offence under Sections 376, 377, 384, 312 and 292 (2) (a) IPC sentenced him for different terms of imprisonment including life imprisonment under Secs. 376 and 377 IPC, except for offence under Section 312 IPC. 105. The only question now remains to be considered is as to whether the sentences awarded to the appellant were either harass or were commensurate with the gravity of the offence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 106. A bare rending of the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 376 IPC makes it clear that whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years. Section 377 IPC provides that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, ^all be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 107. Section 377 IPC provides that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, ^all be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 107. The trial court having found the appellant guilty for offence under sections 376 and 377 IPC has convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment on each count. Of course, the question of sentence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial Judge. If the trial court has exercised its discretion properly after taking into consideration the relevant factors and the gravity of the offence while imposing sentence, in our opinion, the discretion of the trial court should not be interfered with in appeal by the High Court. 108. Recently, the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000) 4 SCC 75 while dealing with a case of rape with a child below the age of 12 years, took note of rising crime against women. The Apex Court quoted in its judgment the following observations in the case of State of A.P v. Bodem Sundara Rao (1995) 6 SCC 230 ) : "In recent years, we have noticed that crime against women are on the rise, these crimes are an affront to the human dignity of the society. Imposition of grossly inadequate sentence and particularly against the mandate of the legislature not only is an injustice to the victim of crime in particular and the society as a whole in general but also at times encourages a criminal. The Courts have an obligation while awarding punishment to impose appropriate punishment to impose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the society's cry for justice against such criminals. Public abhorrence of the crime needs a reflection through the Court's verdict in the measure of punishment". 109. After taking into consideration the aforesaid observations the Apex Court enhanced the sentence and while dealing with the offence of rape and its traumatic effect on a rape victim made the following observations : "Sexuai violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. 109. After taking into consideration the aforesaid observations the Apex Court enhanced the sentence and while dealing with the offence of rape and its traumatic effect on a rape victim made the following observations : "Sexuai violence apart from being a dehumanising act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self extreme and dignity it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely". 110. The present one is not only a case of rape with a girl or woman, but is a case of continuous sexual exploitation of not only a down trodden young girl of about 18 years of age, but of her mother who are Regar by caste, a extreme poor segment of the society. The accused appellant being fully aware of the family circumstances of the victims, on some occasion and having found the circumstances favourable to him, went to the house of Shakuntala PW 2 in the month of April, 1991 in a planned and calculated manner having an automatic camera with him. After the accused entered her house, he bolted the doors of her house from inside, took out a knife, and then at the threat to done away with her life, forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse amounting to rape and also took her obscene photographs of such ill moments while he was forcibly committing rape on her. He also threatened her not to disclose the said incident to any one, else he will kill her. In July, 1991 when her mother PW 18 Naina Devi came to know about her daughter's continuous sexual exploitation by appellant Sirraj Ahmed to get the photographs of her daughter. Surprisingly enough, the appellant instead returning the photograph, did not spare her and not only committed rape on her but also took her naked photographs in the manner as already discussed above and went on using both daughter and mother as instrument of fulfilling his sexual lust till the matter was reported to the Police. 111. Surprisingly enough, the appellant instead returning the photograph, did not spare her and not only committed rape on her but also took her naked photographs in the manner as already discussed above and went on using both daughter and mother as instrument of fulfilling his sexual lust till the matter was reported to the Police. 111. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, and keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the Apex court, we think that in such a heinous crime, the appellant should not be extended any leniency in the matter of sentence. We must conclude that the trial Court has recorded adequate reasons while awarding the sentence against the accused appellant for the proved offences and the same do not warrant any interference by this Court. 112. The trial Judge, as stated above, appears to have escaped the passing of sentence on the appellant for offence under Section 312 IPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case. We deem it proper to pass sentence against the appellant for offence under Section 312 IPC. Accordingly, we sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence shall also run concurrently, as ordered by the trial court and affirmed by us. 113. As a result of the above discussion. We do not find any merit in these appeals. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Judge are confirmed.Appeals dismissed. *******