JUDGMENT Kamlesh Shanna, J. (Oral):- This case is a glaring example of brutality and perversity of a man who subjected his real maternal aunt (Mausi). aged about 60 years and mother of three grown up children to sexual intercourse. 2. The prosecutrix lodged F.I.R. No.86 of 2000 dated 19.12.2000 with Police Station. Jubbal. stating that during the previous night at about 6.00 PM. she was all alone in her house in village Daddi. when a boy entered her house and tried to drag her inside the room. On inquiry he gave his name as Gulabu but when he dragged her inside the room and laid her on the floor. She immediately recognised that it was Shiv Lal son of her real sister, who is the appellant. As per the prosecutrix. the appellant forcibly committed rape on her against her wish. She raised hue and cry but no body came to her rescue. After committing this heinous crime the appellant fled away. 3. In her statement in the Court the prosecutrix has reiterated her version given in the F.I.R. and has added that after the incident she went to the house of appellant to apprise her sister about the gruesome act of the appellant but finding her asleep she narrated the incident to the wife of the appellant who came along with the prosecutrix to her house but after some time the wife of other brother of the appellant took her back and the prosecutrix was forced to spend rest of the night all alone in her house. On the next morning, she went to Police Post, Sawra. and lodged F.I.R. Ex.PW-1/A. 4. During the investigation of the case, shirt Ex.P. 1 and Salwar Ex.P.2 of the prosecutrix were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 1/B. hi her cross-examination, she has stated that her father had divided his property in equal share between her and the mother of the appellant and she was living in the hose of her father. According to the prosecutrix. she was on visiting terms with the appellant prior to occurrence but the mother of the appellant had socially boycotted her due to this incident. She has denied that she has implicated the appellant due to inimical relations between her and the members of the family of the appellant. According to the prosecutrix. she was on visiting terms with the appellant prior to occurrence but the mother of the appellant had socially boycotted her due to this incident. She has denied that she has implicated the appellant due to inimical relations between her and the members of the family of the appellant. In her further cross examination, she has categorically stated that at the time of incident, she had lighted a lamp inside her room as there was no electricity connection in her house, but the appellant had put off the said lamp. As per the prosecutrix, she had told he police that she was washing the utensils in the Verandah when the appellant came and dragged her inside the room but this fact is not found recorded in the F.I.R. Similarly her statement that the appellant bolted the door from inside while committing rape on her and she went to the ground floor through the stais was also not found mentioned in the F.I.R. Her further statement is that the appellant went back at about 12.00 oclock in the night but on her further cross-examination, she has admitted that she was not able to tell the exact time of occurrence bt it was night time. The prosecutrix has also stated that she had suffered some injuries on her stomach as a result of rape forcibly committed on her. 5. After recording the F.I.R., the prosecutrix was taken to Civil Hospital. Jubbal where she was examined by Doctor Chander Shekhar. PW-2. at 11.30 a.M. on 19.12.2000. L\ his M.L.C. Ex.PW- 2/A. Doctor Chander Shekhar has observed that there was no history of any general disease past and present, no sort of any emotional illness as also no history of taking any intoxicating drugs. Further observations of the Doctor are as under :- Body surface No scratches, bruises or laceration. Mouth:- No scratches, bruises or laceration. Finger Nails:- Preserved for analysis and sent to Forensic Laboratory, Junga. Genitals :- Public hair not matted. Vulva:- Laceration present on right labia majora. Hymen:- Ruptured, Vagina:- Abrasion present and tenderness on examination felt. Cervix:- Normal. 6. Doctor Shekhar took the vaginal smear and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for analysis. Mouth:- No scratches, bruises or laceration. Finger Nails:- Preserved for analysis and sent to Forensic Laboratory, Junga. Genitals :- Public hair not matted. Vulva:- Laceration present on right labia majora. Hymen:- Ruptured, Vagina:- Abrasion present and tenderness on examination felt. Cervix:- Normal. 6. Doctor Shekhar took the vaginal smear and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for analysis. The report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PW-6/A was shown to Doctor Dinesh Sharma, PW-6 who has opined that human semen was detected in cervical smear and vaginal smear, from which it was affirmed that prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse between the past 24 hours. His opinion is Ex.PW-6/B on record In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the basis of his opinion Ex.PW-6/B was MLC Ex.PW- 2/A issued by Doctor Chander Shekhar and the report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PW-6/A which contained the findings that the human semen was found on the cervical smear and vaginal smear. 7. Clothes Exs. P. 1 and P.2 of the prosecutrix were recovered in the presence of Swarn Dass, PW-7 and Kedar Nath PW-8. respectively. Both these witnesses have admitted in cross-examination that there was litigation between the prosecutrix and the family of the appellant. But they have not specified what kind of litigation it was. 8. It was on the basis of this evidence that the Additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecutrix has been subjected to sexual intercourse and declared the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. He was awarded five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. He was also awarded one years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved- the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. 1.000/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved- the appellant has filed the present appeal. 9. Finding that instead of maximum sentence of seven years as prescribed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the Additional Sessions Judge has awarded sentence of five years without giving any reasons, notice to show cause for enhancement of sentence was given to the appellant by this Court who was produced in custody from Model Central Jail. Nahan on 9.1.2002 and was told that in the facts and circumstances on record, this Court proposed to enhance sentence awarded to him and he might instruct his counsel in this regard. 10. Thereafter the matter was heard. The learned counsel has .made his submissions in the appeal which are almost the same which were agitated before the Sessions court. 11. The first submission of the learned counsel that it is a case of mistaken identity of the appellant, is without any force. No doubt, the occurrence is of night time and it is admitted by the prosecutrix that there was no electricity concession in her house but she has categorically stated that she had lighted a lamp in her room and she had recognized the appellant immediately after he had dragged her inside the room and laid her on the floor to commit rape on her. The statement of the prosecutrix is natural and trust worthy that in the beginning she did ask who had entered her house but after she was laid on the floor and thereafter ravished for about two hours, she had recognized beyond any doubt that it was the appellant whom she knew very well being the son of her real sister who was also residing in the same village. There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix who would not falsely implicate the appellant sparing the real culprit. The statements of Swam Dass PW-7 and Kedar nath PW-8 in cross examination to the suggestions by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was litigation between the prosecutrix and the appellant are of not much consequence as they have not specified the nature of litigation. The statements of Swam Dass PW-7 and Kedar nath PW-8 in cross examination to the suggestions by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was litigation between the prosecutrix and the appellant are of not much consequence as they have not specified the nature of litigation. Moreover, no litigation between the parties could prompt the prosecutrix to falsely implicate the son of her real sister in such a heinous and gruesome offence involving her honour. From the facts that prosecutrix was 60 years of age and was having two grown up sons of the age of the appellant the chances of her leveling false allegations are ruled out. After the occurrence she went to the house of the appellant to report about the gruesome act of the appellant to her sister and narrated the same to the wife of the appellant, but with no results hence she reported the matter to the police next morning. In these facts and circumstances on record this Court finds the evidence of the prosecutrix truthful and trustworthy. 12. Referring to earlier judgments in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain. 1990 (1) SCC 550 and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh. 1996(2) SCC 384 the learned Judges of the Supreme court in their latter judgment in State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj & Anr. 2000 (1) SCC 247 have reiterated in para 6 the following observations in Gurmit Singhs case (SCC pp.395-97 Paras 8-9) "......The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her. but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable...." 13. So far the case in hand is concerned, the statement of the prosecutrix is further corroborated by the medical evidence as discussed hereinabove. In the absence of material on record that the prosecutrix was leading an unchaste life Doctor Dinesh Sharma has rightly opined on the report of Chemical Examiner that she was subjected to sexual intercourse between past 24 hours. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner. Ex.P.W/6/A human semen was detected in the cervical smear and vaginal smear of the prosecutrix who was widow aged 60 years having two grown up sons of the same age as the appellant. Doctor Chander Shekhar. who had examined the prosecutrix next day at 11.30 AM found abrasion present and felt tenderness on examination of vagina of the prosecutrix who had herself referred to such injuries on her abdomen. 14. Another submission made by learned counsel for the accused is that there were improvements as well as material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecutrix in the Court- as compared to her statement under Section. 154 Cr.P.C. Again this submission is without any force. It is correct that in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C.. she has given the time of occurrence as 6.00 P.M. whereas in her deposition in the Court, she has changed it to 10.00 P.M.. but she has also admitted further that she was not able to give the exact time of occurrence she could only state that it was night time. she has given the time of occurrence as 6.00 P.M. whereas in her deposition in the Court, she has changed it to 10.00 P.M.. but she has also admitted further that she was not able to give the exact time of occurrence she could only state that it was night time. There is also some discrepancy in her statement that what she was doing at the time of occurrence, but it is also of no effect as far as her statement that it was the appellant who had committed rape on her is concerned. 15. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances proved on record this Court has no hesitation to affirm the findings of the Additional Sessions Judge that the appellant is guilty of offence under Sections 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Coming to the question of sentence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, punishment prescribed is seven years, though for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, lesser punishment can be awarded. But there are no such reasons in the present case. Rather in view of pious relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix. he deserves the maximum punishment for committing such heinous, gruesome and shameful act with his maternal aunt (Mausi). who is like his mother. Therefore, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant under Section 376 is enhanced from five years to seven years and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge is modified to this extent only. 17. The ratio of judgment Joseph. S/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of kerala 2000 Criminal law Journal. 2467. is not applicable to the case in hand as it is on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case. Finding that there was no semen as well as injuries present on the body of the victim though she was 26 years of age. the Apex court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. the Apex court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. However, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5.000/- for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. His sentence under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge is maintained. -