A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the order of conviction and sentence dated 7-11-1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in S. T. No. 47/216 of 1996 sentencing each of the appellants to undergo R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000. 00, in default to undergo R. I. for one year under S. 376 (2) (g) IPC; R. I. for fifteen days under S. 341 IPC; and R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00, in default to undergo R. I. for one month more under S. 379 IPC, with direction that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE criminal action was set in motion on the basis of an FIR filed by one Bholanath Panigrahi (PW-9), father of the victim minor girl Nirmala (PW8), alleging that on 5-5-1996 Nirmal was returning from her maternal uncle's house in village Saraswatipur and she got down from bus at a place called Anji Chhak. Thereafter she proceeded towards village Bajana. While she was on Sahaspur road, the two appellants enquired from her about her destination and then suggested that she should go to her village through a field which would be that short-cut route to reach her village. On being instructed, it is alleged, PW8 walked through the said field. After Nirmala covered a distance of one kilometre, she was confronted by the two appellants who came on a bicycle. Appellant No. 2 Arman tied a napkin on the face of Nirmala, as a result of which she could not shout and showed a knife threatening her to kill. She was then bodily carried by the two appellants to a nearby KIA bush. There Appellant No. 1 Ahiraj caught hold of the hands of Nirmala and appellant No. 2 Arman undressing himself committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter appellant No. 2 Arman caught hold of the hands of PW8 and appellant No. 1 Ahiraj committed sexual intercourse with her. After committing rape, it was alleged that the appellants took away Rs. 520. 00 from PW. 8 brought by her from her maternal uncle, a pair of silver PAUNJI and a pair of gold earring and fled away towards Sahaspura village on their bicycle. After the incident, PW8 came to Jagata Bajana road crying all the way. After committing rape, it was alleged that the appellants took away Rs. 520. 00 from PW. 8 brought by her from her maternal uncle, a pair of silver PAUNJI and a pair of gold earring and fled away towards Sahaspura village on their bicycle. After the incident, PW8 came to Jagata Bajana road crying all the way. There she met one Gobardhan Panigrahi (PW6), a co-villager. She called him and hearing her shout, PW6 got down from his bicycle. PW8 narrated the entire incident to PW6 crying all the while. At that time, a boy named Mahiuddin (PW11) arrived there. Then one Babulal Patra, another co-villager also arrived there. Mahiuddin (PW11) disclosed that he knew the two appellants who had committed the alleged crime and disclosed their names. PWs 6 and 11 thereafter took P. W. 8 to her house she narrated the incident to her mother. At the relevant time, her father was absent in the house having gone on Election duty. Information being given, the maternal uncle of PW8 came to the village of PW8 and the incident was disclosed to him. He advised to wait till arrival of the father of the victim girl. PW9, father of the victim girl, returned from the Election duty to home on 8-5-1996 and after hearing the entire incident he lodged a written report at the police station. Police, after necessary investigation and medical examination of the victim girl filed charge sheet against the appellants. He advised to wait till arrival of the father of the victim girl. PW9, father of the victim girl, returned from the Election duty to home on 8-5-1996 and after hearing the entire incident he lodged a written report at the police station. Police, after necessary investigation and medical examination of the victim girl filed charge sheet against the appellants. ( 3 ) IN order to substantiate its case against the appellants, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses, of whom PW1 was the Judicial Magistrate who had conducted the Test Identification parade of the suspects; PW2 was a Police constable who was a witness to seizure of a Chadi and a half pant from the possession of appellant Ahiraj and appellant Arman respectively, marked M. O. I and M. O. II; PW 3 was the maternal uncle of the victim girl; PW4 was the lady doctor who had examined the victim girl on police requisition; PW5 was another doctor who had examined the appellants; PW6 was a post occurrence witness before whom the victim girl had narrated the incident; PW7 was the doctor who had conducted the ossification test of the victim girl to determine her age; PW 8 was the victim girl herself; PW 9 was the father of the victim girl (informant); PW 10 was the mother of the victim girl (PW8); PWs 11 and 12 were the post occurrence witnesses; and PW 13 was the Investigating Officer. ( 4 ) THE trial court relying on the statements of the victim girl (PW8), the post occurrence witnesses and other corroborative evidence accepted the prosecution case. It did not accept the argument advanced on behalf of the defence regarding the delay in conducting the T. I. Parade. The contention that as there was inordinate delay in filing the FIR the prosecution case was not to be accepted was rejected in view of the fact that the father of the victim girl was admittedly absent in the house having gone on Election duty. The trial court relied upon the decision reported in (1993)75 Cut LT 402 (Trinath Patel v. State ) wherein it was held that successive rape by one or more persons and the absence of injuries on the genitals and spermatozoa in the vaginal swab cannot negative a case of rape. The trial court relied upon the decision reported in (1993)75 Cut LT 402 (Trinath Patel v. State ) wherein it was held that successive rape by one or more persons and the absence of injuries on the genitals and spermatozoa in the vaginal swab cannot negative a case of rape. It was also held that the opinion advanced by the medical officer was neither conclusive nor beneficial and the court has to decide and reach its conclusion on the totality of circumstances and the probabilities of the occurrence. After scrutinizing the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial court observed that there was no reason to reject the prosecution evidence or disbelieve the same, inasmuch as the evidence of the victim girl was corroborated by the evidence of her father, mother, maternal aunt and the independent witnesses like PWs 6, 11 and 12. On an analysis of evidence, it was held by the trial court that the charge under S. 376 (2) (g) IPC was established against the appellants. It was also held that the offences under S. 341 IPC and 379 IPC had been well established. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the court below convicted the appellants and sentenced them as stated earlier. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants forcefully submitted that the entire prosecution story was a concocted one and had been developed from stage to stage. It was also submitted that the only independent witness who was stated to be the eye witness being PW11, had turned hostile and he had not supported the prosecution case. Apart from the evidence of PW11, there is no iota of independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the medical evidence also did not support the alleged incident of gang rape. It was further submitted that the appellants have already suffered R. I. for about 7 years and it is a fit case where they should be acquitted. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the State at the other hand supported the reasonings given by the Court and submitted that the evidence of the victim girl (PW-8) being believed, that was sufficient to convict the appellants who allegedly committed the heinous offence of rape on an innocent minor girl. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the State at the other hand supported the reasonings given by the Court and submitted that the evidence of the victim girl (PW-8) being believed, that was sufficient to convict the appellants who allegedly committed the heinous offence of rape on an innocent minor girl. It was also submitted that the evidence of the victim girl was amply corroborated by the evidence of PWs-6, 11 and 12 who were independent witnesses. They had also arrived at the scene of occurrence. The victim had narrated the incident before the said persons. Their statements are also corroborated by the evidence of the father, mother and other relatives of the victim girl before whom the victim had narrated her miseries. According to the learned counsel for the State, both the appellants were identified in the T. I. parade conducted in accordance with law. Thus, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Court below. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for both sides, this Court being the final Court of facts, I once again scrutinized the evidence in extenso. Admittedly, PW-8 was a minor girl. As the evidence shows, she got down from the bus and wanted to proceed to her village on a longer route. At that time, as the evidence reveals, the two appellants suggested her to go on a short-cut was through a paddy field and thereafter, following her on a bicycle intercepted her after one kilometre. According to PW-8, they forcibly took her to a nearby KIA bush and committed rape on her one after the other. This statement of the victim is corroborated by some of the witnesses who arrived at the spot after the occurrence. It is a fact that there are certain discrepancies in the evidence of the corroborating witnesses but the same are minor and do not touch the substantial part of the evidence. ( 8 ) RELYING upon a decision reported in 2001 (21) OCR (SC) 629 : (2001 Cri LJ 4721) (Dilip v. State of M. P.), it has been held that the prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made the basis for conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. In (2001) 6 SCC 71 (State of H. P. v. Gian Chand), on a review of a catena of decisions, it was held that if evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation. In the case of Surjan v. State of M. P. , (2001) 21 OCR (SC) 323, it has been held that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim can form the basis of conviction if such statement inspires confidence or is reliable. In the case at hand, nothing much could be elicited from the statement of the victim in cross-examination to disbelieve her version. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances on the touchstone of the ratio of the decision (supra), I feel that this case requires some special consideration. Admittedly the victim girl alleged that she was raped by two able-bodied persons. The only person (PW-11) who was stated to have witnessed the occurrence has become hostile. The lady doctor's evidence, though does not make the story unbelievable, leaves certain doubts and is not conclusive. Admittedly there was prior enmity between the community of the accused persons and the community of the victim. The reports submitted by the Chemical examiners also do not inspire confidence. At the other hand, the statement made by the prosecutrix is very specific and could not be shaken after elaborate cross-examination by the defence. It also inspires confidence. The said testimony is also corroborated to certain extent by post-occurrence witnesses. ( 10 ) IT appears that the appellants were arrested immediately after the alleged occurrence and they have already undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of about seven years in the meantime. It also inspires confidence. The said testimony is also corroborated to certain extent by post-occurrence witnesses. ( 10 ) IT appears that the appellants were arrested immediately after the alleged occurrence and they have already undergone rigorous imprisonment for a period of about seven years in the meantime. On a cumulative assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the evidence, both oral and documentary, I feel that this is one of such cases where ends of justice would be better served if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 376 (2) (g), IPC, passed by the trial Court is reduced to certain extent. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 376 (2) (g), IPC and under Section 341, IPC, I reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment from ten years to rigorous imprisonment for seven years but maintain the sentence of fine of Rs. 25,000. 00 (Twenty-five thousand) and the default sentence for the offence under Section 376 (2) (g), IPC. The sentence as regards the charge under Section 341, IPC is maintained. The evidence as regards offence under Section 379, IPC is lacking and therefore the appellants are acquitted of the said charge and their conviction and sentence thereunder are set aside. The substantive sentences under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 341, IPC are to run concurrently. The fine amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 (Twenty-five thousand) on realization be paid to the victim PW-8 as compensation. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Order accordingly.