JUDGMENT 1. - The aforementioned three appeals are being decided by this common judgment as they have been preferred by accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 28/82 by which he convicted each accused appellant for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the following manner- Name of accused appellants convicted under section sentenced awarded 1. Ramu Ram 2. Ram Karan 3. Bhanwaria 366 IPC Two years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo, SI for one month. 376 IPC Five years RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, to further undergo, SI for one month. The above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. they arise in the following circumstances -On 2.7.1982 at about 5.00 PM. statement of PW1 Santosh (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) was recorded by PW9 Naraindas, ASI, Police Station Merta Road, in other words, prosecutrix stated before him that her husband used to serve at Jaipur and on that day she boarded the bus from village Pirotasni (her father-in-law's house) for going to her village Bharnokha (her parents house). She alighted from the Bus at Merta City at 10.00 AM. Thereafter, she went on foot to Merta Road Octroi Check Post with the hope that she would get some vehicle for going to her village Bharnokha. The prosecutrix has further stated that while she was sitting near the Octroi Check Post, accused appellant Bhanwaria approached and asked her with whom she had come there and whereupon, she replied that she had come alone. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that thereafter, another accused appellant Ram Karan approached her and pointed towards a Load-truck and told that the said truck would go to village Bharnokha and also requested her to board the truck, but she declined to do so. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that thereafter accused Ram Karan and Bhanwaria got her sitted in the truck and another accused Ramu Ram was also sitting in the Truck. The prosecutrix has further stated that thereafter all the three accused appellants took her in the Truck towards village Bankaliya was and stopped the Truck at some distance from stone Quarry. The prosecutrix has further stated that thereafter all the three accused appellants took her in the Truck towards village Bankaliya was and stopped the Truck at some distance from stone Quarry. From where she was taken to the Quarry where accused appellants Bhanwaria and Ramu Ram committed rape on her. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that thereafter, she ran away from that place and stood in front of a coming Truck and requested the driver of that Truck to drop her at Merta, but the driver of that Truck declined to take her in the Truck and told her that he would inform about this incident. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that all the three accused appellants again took her to the quarry and accused appellant Ram Karan also committed rape on her and thus, accused appellants committed rape on her twice and she made hue and cry and on hearing her cries, 4-5 persons, namely, PW2 Hanwantsingh, PW 3 Jagmalsingh, PW 4 Karnaram, PW5 Bhaiiwaroo and PW 7 Mangilal came there and she was saved by them and at that time, when these persons reached, accused appellant Bhanwaria was committing rape on her, while other accused appellants Ramu Ram and Ramkaran were sitting at some distance. It is further stated by the prosecutrix that all the three accused appellants were apprehended by these persons and they brought the accused appellants alongwith prosecutrix to the village Bankaliyawas. Then, PW 9 Naraindas on the instructions of PW 6 Guganram, SHO arrived at the village Bankaliyawas, where he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix.Upon the statement of prosecutrix Ex.P/1, FIR Ex.P/6 was chalked out at Police Station Merta Road and investigation was started.During investigation, the accused appellants Bhanwaria, Ramuram and Ramkaran were arrested through Ex.P/2, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 respectively on the spot by PW 9 Naraindas and underwear of these accused appellants were seized through Ex.P/9, Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/7 respectively.The prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh was got medically examined by PW 10 Dr. Tulcharam in respect of rape as well as ascertaining her age and her report is Ex.P/14. Tulcharam in respect of rape as well as ascertaining her age and her report is Ex.P/14. The accused appellants Ram Karan, Ramu Ram and Bhanwaria were also got medically examined and their reports are Ex.P/10, Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12 respectively and these reports have been admitted by the learned counsel for the accused appellants during trial.After usual investigation police submitted challan against the accused appellants for the offence under section 366 and 376 IPC before the Court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.On 20.11.1982 learned Sessions Judge Merta framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 3. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Merta through his judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 convicted the accused appellants for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia - 1. That in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh is reliable one as the same has been corroborated by medical evidence and medical evidence consists not only of the prosecutrix herself, but also of the accused appellants. 2. That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Merta, these three appeals have been filed by the accused appellants separately. 3. In these appeals, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellants- 1. That the statement of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh has been wrongly believed by the learned Sessions Judge as no injuries on her back, neck and buttocks etc. were found as they should have been found when she was dragged by the accused appellants. 2. That labourers, who were working in the stone quarry have not been produced and in absence of their statements, prosecution case should not have been believed. 3. were found as they should have been found when she was dragged by the accused appellants. 2. That labourers, who were working in the stone quarry have not been produced and in absence of their statements, prosecution case should not have been believed. 3. That clothes of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh as well as the accused appellants have not been produced in the court and in absence of this, the case of the prosecution suffers from basic infirmity. 4. That so far as the accused appellants namely, Ramuram and Ramkaran is concerned, smegma was found over the glance penis and thus, the presence of smegma rules out the act of sexual intercourse by them and thus, they should have been acquitted on this ground alone. Hence, it is prayed that these appeals be allowed and the accused appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. 6. To appreciate the contentions, it would be worthwhile to first examine the medical evidence of this case. 7. So far as the medical examination reports of accused appellants Ramkaran, Ramu Ram and Bhanwaria are concerned, they are Ex.P/10, Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12 and for proving them, doctor was not produced in the trial court as these reports have been admitted by their counsel.Medical examination of accused appellant Ram Karan 8. The medical examination report of accused appellant Ram Karan is Ex.P/10, which shows that there was a bruise over front of pinna of left ear size 11/2 cm x 1/2cm. Smegma was also present over glans penis.Medical examination of accused appellant Ramu Ram 9. The medical examination report of accused appellant Ramu Ram is Ex.P/11, which shows that there were multiple bruises over front of both knee joints and on inner side of left thigh. Smegma was also present over glans penis.Medical examination of accused appellant Bhanwaria 10. The medical examination report of accused appellant Bhanwaria is Ex.P/12, which shows that there were multiple bruises on front of both thighs. Smegma was not found present over glans penis. 11. Smegma was also present over glans penis.Medical examination of accused appellant Bhanwaria 10. The medical examination report of accused appellant Bhanwaria is Ex.P/12, which shows that there were multiple bruises on front of both thighs. Smegma was not found present over glans penis. 11. Thus, from the above medical examination reports of the accused appellants, it is very much clear that they received some injuries on their person and so far as two accused appellants, namely Ram Karan and Ramu Ram are concerned, smegma was also found present over glans penis.Medical examination of prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh 12. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh is Ex.P/14 and for proving that report, the prosecution has produced PW 10 Dr. Tulchharam, who has stated in his statement that the examined prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh on 3.8.1982 and found the following injuries on her person- 1. External injuries-(1) A redish bruise with tender swelling on the right breast upper of medial aspect 3/4" x 3/4". (2) Redish bruise 2"x 11/2" on the upper and medial aspect of left thigh. 2. Genital injuries-(1) Her vulva is swellen and congested with whitish spots of dried semen over it. (2) There is congestion and multiple linear scratches on the anterior and posterior of vagina. (3) Hymen is torn and congested. She can walk with difficulty due to genital injuries. The cloth worn by her is having multiple semen stain which is being preserved sealed and sent for chemical examination." For ascertaining her age, X-rays were taken and thereafter, he opined in the following manner - 1. That prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh was raped : and 2. That her age was between 17 to 19 years. He has proved the report Ex.P/14. 13. Before examining the statement of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh, something should be said about burden of proof in rape cases.Burden of proof 14. ln a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and her mother have falsely implicated the accused. ln a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and her mother have falsely implicated the accused. The evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted merely because an accused person has not been able to say as to why they have come forward to depose against him. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the Judge, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt or beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring the offence home to the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.Legal aspect of evidence of the prosecutrix 15. The main evidence in all such cases is that of the victim herself. In practice a conviction for rape almost entirely depends on the credibility of the woman, so far as the essential ingredients are concerned, the other evidence being merely corroborative. It is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of every material circumstance in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant, would in itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the complainant is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it.Medical examination of victim and of accused 16. Where the prosecutrix had received injuries on various parts of her body, it indicates that she offered resistance when she was subjected to sexual intercourse. Similarly, if any accused had injuries on his person caused by finger nails, the nail clippings of victim or in any manner, it also supports the case of the prosecution. 17. Keeping the above legal position in mind, the statement of the prosecutrix PW Santosh is being examined. 18. Similarly, if any accused had injuries on his person caused by finger nails, the nail clippings of victim or in any manner, it also supports the case of the prosecution. 17. Keeping the above legal position in mind, the statement of the prosecutrix PW Santosh is being examined. 18. The prosecutrix PW1 Santosh in his statement has clearly supported the version given by her in Ex.P/1 on 2.7.1982 before PW 9 Naraindas, on which FIR Ex.P/6 was chalked out and she has clearly described the part played by each accused appellant while committing rape on her and she has further stated that on hearing her cries, 4-5 persons, namely, PW 2 Hanwantsingh, PW 3 Jagmalsingh, PW 4 Karnaram. PW 5 Bhanwaroo and PW 7 Mangilal came there and they saved her and apprehended the accused appellants. She has been cross examined, but nothing has come out which affects her testimony on the point that she was not raped by the accused appellants. 19. PW 2 Hanwantsingh, PW 3 Jagmalsingh, PW 4 Karnaram, PW 5 Bhanwaroo and PW 7 Mangilal have clearly supported the statement of PW 1 Santosh prosecutrix on the point that on hearing her cries, they reached on the spot and found that at that time accused appellant Bhanwaria was committing rape on her and another accused appellants Ramu Ram and Ram Karan were sitting hereby and seeing them, accused appellants tried to run away, but they were apprehended by these prosecution witnesses and after apprehending them, these prosecution witnesses brought the accused appellants alongwith prosecutrix to the Bankaliawas Bus Stand, where PW S Naraindas, ASI. Police Station Merta Road came and accused appellants were handed over to PW 9 Naraindas. These prosecution witnesses from all point of view are reliable witnesses and they further corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh. 20. PW 9 Naraindas, who was ASI, Police Station Meda Road on the relevant date, has further stated that on 2.7.1982 he reached Bankaliawas Bus Stand on the instructions of PW 6 Guganram, SHO, where he recorded the statement Ex.P/1 of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh and the accused appellants, namely, Bhanwaria, Ramu Ram and Ram Karan were also produced before him by the villagers and he arrested them through arrest memos Ex.R/2, Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 respectively. 21. 21. Thus, from the statement of PW 9 Naraindas, the statements of PW 1 prosecutrix Santosh, PW 2 Hanwant Singh, PW 3 Jagmal Singh, PW 4 Kama Ram, PW 5 Bhanwaroo and PW 7 Mangilal further get corroboration that all accused appellants were apprehended on the spot. Apart from this, there is medical evidence in this case, which alsc supports the case of the prosecution as well as the statement of PW 1 prosecutrix Santosh on the point that she was raped by accused appellants. 22. The medical examinations of accused appellants further support the case of the prosecution that when the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh would have offered resistance. They would have received injuries. It may be stated here that generally in rape cases accused receives no injuries and only in rare cases, injuries are found on the person of the accused and this is one of the rare case where not only the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh, but accused appellants have also received injuries. Therefore, it is not a fit case where doubt can be created on the prosecution case. 23. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that as per the medical examination reports of accused appellants Ramkaran and Ramu Ram Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/11 respectively, smegma were found present over glans penis, therefore, the possibility that these two accused appellants have not committed rape should have been ruled out and they should have been acquitted, is concerned, it may be stated here incident took place on 2.7.1982 at about 10.00 AM and these two accused appellants, namely, Ramkaran and Ramu Ram were got medically examined on 3.7.1982 at about 9.45 AM, meaning thereby near about 24 hours. As per medical jurisprudence, smegma accumulates if no bath is taken for 24 hours. From this point of view, this argument loses its importance and, therefore, it is held that inspite of presence of smegma over glans penis of accused appellants Ramu Ram and Ram Karan, it would not affect the prosecution case. Hence, this argument stands rejected. 24. As per medical jurisprudence, smegma accumulates if no bath is taken for 24 hours. From this point of view, this argument loses its importance and, therefore, it is held that inspite of presence of smegma over glans penis of accused appellants Ramu Ram and Ram Karan, it would not affect the prosecution case. Hence, this argument stands rejected. 24. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that since labourers of the stone quarry were not produced, therefore, prosecution case should not be believed, appears to be absured one in the present case, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially when PW 2 Hanwant Singh, PW 3 Jagmal Singh, PW 4 Karanaram, PW 5 Bhanwaroo and PW 7 Mangilal, who reached on the spot after hearing the cries of PW 1 Santosh prosecutrix, clearly supported the case of the prosecution. 25. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellants that statement of the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh appears to be improbable and false one, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that no enmity between the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh and accused appellants has been established and furthermore, this case cannot be said to be false one because of the simple reason that not only the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh received injuries on her outer person as well as on private parts, but accused appellants also received injuries. Therefore, to say that it is a false case or false story has been developed by the prosecutrix PW 1 Santosh is nothing, but to add insult to the womanhood. 26. It may be stated here that rape is not only crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in decision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in decision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21.So far as the argument with regard to non-production of clothes of the prosecutrix as well as accused appellants in the Court is concerned, it may be stated here that the investigation conducted by the police was not proper and for this defective investigation, the case of the prosecutrix should not suffer especially in rape cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. ( AIR 1995 SC 2472 ) has held that loopholes in investigation left designedly to help accused at the cost of poor prosecutrix and acquittal of accused on these grounds not justified as it would be adding insult to injury. 27. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and ors. ( AIR 1996 SC 1393 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under- "Where the prosecutrix was raped, but the investigation agency failed to trace the car or its driver, the failure of the investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence of an investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the Statement of the prosecutrix." Hence the above argument stands rejected. 28. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants and the findings of the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused appellants for the offence under sections 366 and 376 IPC are liable to be confirmed. 29. Before parting with the files, it may be stated here that the learned Sessions Judge has shown leniency in awarding sentence to the accused appellants without assigning any reason. 29. Before parting with the files, it may be stated here that the learned Sessions Judge has shown leniency in awarding sentence to the accused appellants without assigning any reason. However, taking into consideration that incident took place on 2.7.1982 and now 19 years have elapsed, this Court does not want to interfere with the order of sentence.Accordingly, all the three appeals filed by accused appellants fail and they are dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 31.5.1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Merta.Since the accused appellants Ramu Ram, Ram Karan and Bhanwaria are on bail, they shall surrender before the trial court immediately and in case they do not surrender before the trial court, the trial court shall take necessary steps for arresting and sending them to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence.Appeal dismissed. *******