Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 500 (PNJ)

Devinder v. State of Haryana

2003-04-04

VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Vide this judgment I shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 313-SB of 1989, Devinder and others v. State of Haryana and Criminal Revision No. 358 of 1990 Smt. Sakunt v. Devinder and others, as both are arising out of one and the same judgment. 2. Devinder son of Khilli, Sunder son of Heera and Charan Singh son of Deepi all residents of village Bhamrola Jogi, Police Station Hathin, District Faridabad have been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide impugned judgment dated 20.7.1989 under section 376 Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year each. 3. It is stated that Sunder son of Kanshi Ram has since died. This fact is confirmed by Mr. R.S. Chahar, learned counsel for the complainant. Consequently, appeal qua Sunder son of Kanshi Ram stands abated. 4. The brief diary of the prosecution case is that on 26.11.88, PW1 the prosecutrix (victim of rape is a married lady whose name is not being disclosed) and her cousin brother Chhelu were busy in irrigating their fields with the water being drawn from the tubewell with the aid of machinery belonging to Devinder appellant. Her husband Shamser Singh PW2 was away to village Chhetai (U.P.). At about 8 PM, she was over-powered by Devinder, Sunder and Charan Singh. She was forced to lie on the ground and her mouth was gagged by them. All the three persons thereafter committed sexual violence on her turn by turn. Charan Singh appellant threatened to kill her with the weapon he was having with him. The prosecutrix resisted and as a consequence of this her bangles had broken. Chhelu who was looking after the fields was attracted at the spot and he saw Devinder and Sunder over there whereas Charan had fled away from the spot. The prosecutrix accompanied by her cousin brother Chhelu came back to her house and when her husband Shamser Singh returned to the village, she narrated the whole occurrence to him and ultimately on 28.11.88, she alongwith her husband went to the police station Hathin and lodged the FIR Ex.PA. 5. The prosecutrix accompanied by her cousin brother Chhelu came back to her house and when her husband Shamser Singh returned to the village, she narrated the whole occurrence to him and ultimately on 28.11.88, she alongwith her husband went to the police station Hathin and lodged the FIR Ex.PA. 5. ASI Ranjit Singh PW9 who took up the investigation after lodging of the FIR went to the place of occurrence on 28.11.88, prepared the visual plan Ex. PJ and took into possession the pieces of broken bangles vide memo Ex. PK. The clothes of the prosecutrix (petticoat) was also taken into possession. Prosecutrix was got medico-legally examined by PW3 Lady Dr. Partibha Arya on 28.11.88. 6. Devinder and Sunder (since expired) were arrested on 8.12.88. They were medically examined by Dr. Jagirmal PW7 whereas Charan Singh was arrested on 13.12.88 and he was also examined by the same doctor on the same day. As per medical report all the appellants were found fit to perform the act of sexual intercourse. The petticoat which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, revealed the presence of human semen on it. 7. After completion of the investigation, all the three appellants were challaned in this case. 8. On committal proceedings, the appellants were charged under section 376 Indian Penal Code. 9. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. The brief description of their evidence is as under :- 10. Prosecutrix has been examined as PW1 who has stated that on the date of occurrence she and her cousin brother Chhelu were irrigating fields and the water was being drawn with the aid of Engine belonging to Devinder appellant and his father Khilli. She has further deposed that her husband Shamser Singh was away to village Chhetai (U.P.) on that night and when she was present in her fields the present two appellants and Sunder (since dead) overpowered her at about 8 PM and forced her to lie on the ground. She has then deposed that her mouth was gagged by Devinder whereas Sunder caught hold of her legs and Charan Singh caught hold her arms. First of all Devinder raped her. Thereafter, Sunder committed rape on her and while Sunder was committing sexual intercourse with her, her legs were caught hold by Devinder. She has then deposed that her mouth was gagged by Devinder whereas Sunder caught hold of her legs and Charan Singh caught hold her arms. First of all Devinder raped her. Thereafter, Sunder committed rape on her and while Sunder was committing sexual intercourse with her, her legs were caught hold by Devinder. She has then stated that Charan appellant had also committed rape on her and at that time Sunder had caught hold of her arms. Her bangles were broken while she was struggling with the appellants. Charan Singh appellant had threatened her to kill with a Tabbal (weapon). She has further stated that when her cousin brother Chhelu reached the spot, Devinder and Sunder (since dead) were there whereas Charan Singh has made good his escape. She then narrated the whole of the occurrence to her husband on his return to the house and thereafter she went to the police station on 28.11.88 for lodging the report with the police. 11. PW2 is Shamser Singh, husband of the prosecutrix. His statement is to the effect that when he returned home on the night of 26.11.88, her wife (prosecutrix) had told him that she was raped by Devinder, Sunder and Charan. He has further deposed that a Panchayat was held in village 27.11.88 but there as no concrete result and consequently on 28.11.88, he alongwith his wife went to police station Hathin and lodged the report. His statement further is to the effect that the petticoat of his wife taken into possession by the investigating officer. 12. Lady Dr. Partibha Arya has been examined as PW3. Her statement is to the effect that on 28.11.88 at 2.45 PM, she had medico-legally examined the prosecutrix and found the following injuries :- "1. There was no mark of injury of her face, mouth, lips, neck, breast, lower part of abdomen, inner part of thighs and external genitalia. 2. There was an abrasion present over her left fore-arm. Its size was 1.2 x 0.1 cm. On its interior surface, there were 3 or 4 scratch marks. 3. There were two bruise marks about 4 cm x 2.5 cm. each on lateral side of right thigh in its middle. 4. The external orifice admitted two fingers easily without any pain. No tenderness or bleeding was present. Foul smell of discharge was coming out through orifice. Uterus was firm and mobile." 13. 3. There were two bruise marks about 4 cm x 2.5 cm. each on lateral side of right thigh in its middle. 4. The external orifice admitted two fingers easily without any pain. No tenderness or bleeding was present. Foul smell of discharge was coming out through orifice. Uterus was firm and mobile." 13. She was further deposed that she had handed over to the police the sealed vials containing vaginal swabs and pubic hair. 14. PW4 is ASI Bhoop Singh. His statement is to the effect that he had handed over the copy of the special report to Constable Mahabir Singh for sending it to the higher authorities. 15. Shri A.K. Tyagi, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal has been examined as PW5. His statement is to the effect that on 29.11.88, on the request of the police, he had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix Ex. PC/2. 16. SI Gordhan Singh has been examined as PW6. He had partly investigated the case. He has arrested Devinder appellant and Sunder (since dead) on 8.12.88 and got them medically examined. Charan Singh was also arrested by him on 13.12.88 and he was also got medically examined by him. 17. Rozdar Khan Patwari has been examined as PW7. He has prepared a scaled site plan Ex. PF of the place of occurrence. 18. Dr. Jagirmal Medical Officer has been examined as PW8. He on 8.12.88 had examined Devinder and Sunder and found them fit to perform the act of sexual intercourse. So is his opinion regarding Charan Singh who was examined by him on 13.12.88. 19. PW9 is ASI Ranjit Singh. He is the investigating officer of the case. There is no need of discussing his investigation as the same has already been touched by me in the preceding paras. 20. Besides this affidavits of certain witnesses of formal character have been produced by the prosecution. 21. Both the appellants have pleaded false implication in this case and have stated that infact the prosecutrix was having illicit relations with Chander of the village and they had been objecting against this affairs which was to her annoyance and for this reason the prosecutrix has concocted a false story in order to implicate them. It is further alleged that the Sarpanch of the village was also inimical towards them. In defence the certified copy of the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Ex. It is further alleged that the Sarpanch of the village was also inimical towards them. In defence the certified copy of the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 Ex. DA was tendered. 22. On a consideration of entire evidence, both the appellants and their co- accused Sunder (since dead) were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 23. I have heard Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajnish Dhanda, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Mr. R.S. Chahar, learned counsel for the complainant. With their assistance I have also through the entire records. 24. Mr. Walia, learned counsel for the appellants seeking acquittal of both the appellants has raised the following contentions :- 1. Presence of Chhelu is doubtful and therefore the prosecution story should be disbelieved; 2. Non-examination of Chhelu is also fatal; 3. Delay of two days in lodging the FIR; 4. Statement of Shamser Singh, the husband of the prosecutrix demolishes the case of the prosecution; 5. Injuries present on prosecutrix can be self-suffered; 6. Place of occurrence is doubtful. 25. Developing the first argument, Mr. Walia has submitted that presence of Chhelu is highly doubtful. He has further submitted that even otherwise the statement of the prosecutrix is scanned minutely, it would show that either Chhelu, her cousin brother was not present at the time of occurrence or the prosecutrix is telling a total lie. The learned counsel has taken me through the statement of prosecutrix in which she has stated that three persons had committed rape on her for about 40/45 minutes. Mr. Walia develops his argument by saying that had Chhelu been present in the nearby fields alongwith the prosecutrix, it was not possible that he would have not been attracted at the spot to save the prosecutrix. This rather shows that Chhelu has been imported by the complainant side in order to lend corroboration to the false case set up by the prosecutrix. In the same breath Mr. Walia contends that non- examination of Chhelu goes deep into the roots of the prosecution case and creates a dent in it. 26. The other argument advanced by Mr. Walia is that there is considerable delay in lodging the first information report with the police. In the same breath Mr. Walia contends that non- examination of Chhelu goes deep into the roots of the prosecution case and creates a dent in it. 26. The other argument advanced by Mr. Walia is that there is considerable delay in lodging the first information report with the police. He contends that it has come in the statement of prosecrutix that she alongwith her husband had gone to the police station on 27.11.88 in the morning and remained there upto 2 PM. If this is the situation, then the FIR should have been lodged by the complainant on 27.11.88 itself and not on 28.11.88 as now is the position. The learned counsel, thus, contends that this delay in the present case has been consumed by the complainant party to coin up story of their choice in order to implicate the appellants falsely for certain ulterior motives. 27. The third argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the statement of Shamser Singh, the husband of the prosecutrix demolishes the case of the prosecution as he has categorically stated that there was suspicion in the mind of his wife (prosecurtix) that the present two appellants and Sunder had committed rape on her and as such the charge is not established. The learned counsel, thus, submits that this material weakness of the prosecution case breaks the prosecution wall totally. 28. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel is that as per the injuries indicated in the MLR it can be safely said that these injuries on the person of prosecutrix were not possible while she was being subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and rather they have been manufactured/self- suffered subsequently. 29. The last argument by Mr. Walia is that the place of occurrence where the alleged rape was committed is doubtful as no lease document or any oral evidence has been produced by the prosecution to show that the complainant side was actually having possession of the said agricultural land. 30. Learned counsel on the basis of above said arguments has prayed for acquittal of both the appellants. 31. In the alternative, on the point of quantum of sentence, Mr. Walia has prayed for the reduction in sentence on the ground that both the appellants were married at the time of commission of offence. 30. Learned counsel on the basis of above said arguments has prayed for acquittal of both the appellants. 31. In the alternative, on the point of quantum of sentence, Mr. Walia has prayed for the reduction in sentence on the ground that both the appellants were married at the time of commission of offence. Their children have grown up by now and that the appellants have already suffered the rigor of protracted trial. 32. On the other hand, Mr. Rajnish Dhanda, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Mr. R.S. Chahar, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that both the appellants have no escape in this case as both of them alongwith their third companion Sunder (since dead) have committed gang rape on the prosecutrix taking undue advantage of the situation. It is then contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix which is corroborated by the medical evidence and even if certain minor flaws have occurred in the case of prosecution, those would not be enough to throw the prosecution case in its entirety. Both the counsel, thus, pray for the confirmation of the conviction and the sentences. Mr. Chahar has also prayed for the enhancement of the sentence in support of his revision petition. 33-34. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt to both the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. My reasoning for the same is set out as under :- So far as the presence of Chhelu is concerned, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has no force in it. The case of the prosecution is that Shamser Singh husband of prosecutrix was not in the village and Chhelu her cousin brother had gone with her to the fields for the purpose of irrigation. The fact that Chhelu did not intervene to save the prosecutrix would not be ground to reject the case of the prosecution. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that her cousin brother Chhelu was busy in irrigating the fields when she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse. The fact that Chhelu did not intervene to save the prosecutrix would not be ground to reject the case of the prosecution. The prosecutrix has categorically stated that her cousin brother Chhelu was busy in irrigating the fields when she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse. I have also seen the severe cross-examination conducted on the prosecutrix in which a specific question was put from the side of the defence in order to doubt the presence of Chhelu and the prosecutrix has stated that Chhelu was residing with them for the last about two months before the occurrence and he had come to their village for assisting them in the cultivation of the land. It has also come in the statement of prosecutrix that village of Chhelu (Manpur) is just at a distance of 5 or 6 kos. The prosecutrix is also originally the resident of village Manpur. There is no reason to doubt the presence of Chhelu alongwith the prosecutrix on the date of occurrence. The other criticism canvassed on Chhelu was that the he has not been examined by the prosecution although he was a very material witness to corroborate the story of the prosecution. I am afraid if this argument can also hold water. There is doubt that Chhelu is a material witness but his non-examination, in my view, would not be fatal to the prosecution case. Facts and circumstances of each case have to be considered. We cannot draw any adverse inference if the case projected by the prosecutrix is otherwise acceptable. Adverse inference would be permissible only if the available evidence suffers from serious infirmity or is un-acceptable in the absence of other evidence and in the instant case, there is no reason to discredit the testimony of the prosecutrix. 35. The delay of about two days in lodging the First Information Report to the police is also well explained by the prosecution. 35. The delay of about two days in lodging the First Information Report to the police is also well explained by the prosecution. No doubt the prosecturix has said in her statement that they had gone to the police station on the next day of occurrence in the morning and stayed there for few hours but this stray statement cannot be seen with any suspicion in the light of the statement of Shamser Singh PW2, the husband of the prosecutrix who has categorically stated that Panchayat had intervened in this affair but it did not come out with any positive result on 27.11.88 and therefore he alongwith prosecutrix had gone to the police station on 28.11.88 to lodge the report. In my view the explanation that the delay was caused due to interference of the Panchayat as to whether to take the matter to the Court or to the police or not is reasonable one. After all the respect of a married woman was at a stake. The members would certainly decide whether to take the matter to the Court or not. There is nothing uncommon in it. In the present case Shamser Singh the husband of the prosecutrix first of all called for the interference of the Panchayat and he had been discussing the incident in that intervening period and ultimately when nothing was settled, the matter was reported to the police. The sequence of the events as projected by the prosecution seems quite natural and it provides satisfactory explanation for the delay. For the sake of repetition I must say that the delay in this case is well explained. 36. The other argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that Shamser Singh PW3, the husband of the prosecutrix demolished the case of the prosecution, is also of no consequence. Shamser Singh is a rustic villager. To my mind he in routine has stated that when he came back to his house in the night on 26.11.88, his wife had told him that she has suspected the present appellants of having committed rape on her. This statement in no manner dents the categoric statement of the prosecutrix which is giving us a complete picture as to what has happened with her at the hands of the present two appellants and Sunder (since dead). This statement in no manner dents the categoric statement of the prosecutrix which is giving us a complete picture as to what has happened with her at the hands of the present two appellants and Sunder (since dead). She has rather gone to the extent of explaining as to who had made her immobile and helpless when the other was forcibly subjecting her to sexual intercourse. In my view there cannot be any suspicion on the point of identity in this case as all the three accused are residents of village Bhamroal Jogi, the place of prosecutrix. This is also the prosecution case that the water was being drawn with the aid of engine belonging to Devinder appellant and his father Khilli. Devinder appellant is the ignition point in this case who had gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix initially. If the statement of Shamser Singh the husband of the prosecutrix is seen in the flashback of the categoric statement of the prosecutrix, there remains no room for doubt so far as the involvement of the present two appellants and Sunder is concerned. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants on this count also falls on the ground. 37. So far as injuries on the person of prosecutrix are concerned, I am of the view that all the injuries correlate to the occurrence. I have seen the statement of Dr. Partibha Arya PW3 once again very minutely. I have also seen the MLR Ex. P8 prepared by her. No doubt she has not given the duration of the injuries but this cannot be termed as a weakness in the prosecution case. There are abrasions over the left forearm of the prosecutrix. There are bruise marks as well on the lateral side of the right thigh in the middle. 38. Let us come to the scene of occurrence once again. The statement of prosecutrix in this regard is to be rescanned. For reference the some part of it is reproduced as under :- " xxx xxx xxx They overpowered me. It was at about 8 PM. I was forced to lie on the ground. My mouth was gagged by Devinder accused. Sunder accused caught hold of my legs. Charan Singh accused caught hold of my arms. First of all Devinder accused raped me. Thereafter, Sunder accused committed rape on me. Thereafter, Sunder accused committed rape on me. It was at about 8 PM. I was forced to lie on the ground. My mouth was gagged by Devinder accused. Sunder accused caught hold of my legs. Charan Singh accused caught hold of my arms. First of all Devinder accused raped me. Thereafter, Sunder accused committed rape on me. Thereafter, Sunder accused committed rape on me. While I was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by Sunder accused, my legs were caught hold of by Devinder accused. Thereafter, Charan Singh accused also committed rape on me. Sunder accused had caught hold of my arms when I was sexually assaulted by Charan Singh accused. xxxx xxx xxx." 39. In fact the prosecutrix was made motionless at the time of rape. The abrasion on her left forearm and certain bruise marks on the lateral side of the right thigh in the middle are indicative of the fact that these injuries are the result of little bit resistance the prosecutrix could show while she was being subjected to forced sexual intercourse by three persons. Even otherwise the absence of mark of external injuries do not negate the prosecution case as observed in State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa, AIR 2000 (SC) 1470. 40. The last argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the place of occurrence is doubtful is again of no avail. Even if no documentary proof has been produced by the prosecution to show that the land was taken on lease by the complainant side for the purpose of irrigating, in my considered view, this could not be a ground to doubt the place of occurrence. Immediately after lodging the report, the police had gone to the place of occurrence, the scaled plan was prepared there. Even the bangles which had been broken during the course of struggle with the accused were also taken into possession from the scene. This fact has also come in the statement of the prosecutrix that the owner of the said field is Khurka Gadriya and they had already irrigated about 2 killas of land before the incident. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the place of occurrence. 41. In my view the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix proves the culpability of both the appellants and their co-accused Sunder (since dead) beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the place of occurrence. 41. In my view the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt to the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix proves the culpability of both the appellants and their co-accused Sunder (since dead) beyond any reasonable doubt. The evidence of the victim of sexual offence is entitled to a great weight. I have very carefully scanned the entire evidence of the prosecutrix and the conclusion drawn by me after testing the same in a very fine toothed comb is that her testimony does not suffer from any infirmity. In my view section 114-A of Evidence Act shall at once come into play in the present case. The Court in this case would certainly presume that the victim did not consent. My view is fortified by the observation of the Apex Court rendered in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 533 (SC). Even otherwise, the Apex Court in the said judgment has observed as under :- "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 molestations, 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 testimony of the victim in such cases are vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Courts should find no difficultly 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 women who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ? 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 women 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 charges levelled 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 at 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 women 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 causalty. 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....... The Court, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such case with utmost sensitivity. 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....... The Court, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such case with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. 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 molestations." 42. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the conviction of the appellants recorded by the learned trial court is to be maintained. I order accordingly. 43. So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, I am of the view that the appellants do not deserve any leniency. Both the appellants are married as is clear from the trial court record. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before me that by now children of both the appellants would have grown up and sending the appellants to jail once again after the lapse of 15 years would certainly have bad reflection on the minds of the children. After considering all the pros and cons of both the sides, I am of the view that the appellants are not entitled to any concession in the quantum of sentence. It is a gang rape. The minimum sentence provided in the statute book is ten years. No doubt, for special reasons to be recorded, the Court can reduce the sentence but in the instant case I do not find any mitigating circumstance in favour of any of the appellants. It is a gang rape. The minimum sentence provided in the statute book is ten years. No doubt, for special reasons to be recorded, the Court can reduce the sentence but in the instant case I do not find any mitigating circumstance in favour of any of the appellants. The present appellants in the company of their co-accused Sunder (since dead) took an undue advantage of the situation and committed rape with the prosecutrix. Another glaring fact which pricks the judicial conscious in this case is that prosecutrix was taking the meal to the fields for Devinder appellant also as is clear from her statement. The prosecutrix could not dream of the fact that when she would reach with the meals at about 8 PM in her fields, she would be overpowered by three persons who would make her helpless to satisfy their wolfish appetite of sexual lust. It cannot be said that the appellants were of tender age and without visualising the aftermath they have committed the present offence. The appellants were well in know of the facts that being married persons they were attacking another married lady without even caring for their own family. 44. A rapist not only violates the victims privacy but also her personal integrity and such person does not deserve any sympathy of law or society. The honour of a woman has to be protected. This is the general sense of the society. 45. In my view, the present case does not call for any special reason in favour of the appellants for the purpose of reducing the sentence from the minimum provided by the Act. I, consequently confirm the sentence part as well. 46. Resultantly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Both the appellants shall be taken in custody forthwith to serve out their remaining part of substantive sentence. 47. The Criminal Revision No. 358 of 1990 is also disposed of accordingly. 48. Let the intimation of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court and the jail authorities at once. Appeal dismissed.