JUDGMENT - GAIKWAD P.B., J.:---The accused Nos. 1 and 2 being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dated 14-2-2003 convicting the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 376, 354, 328 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and further directing accused No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to P.W. 1 Sunita Ashok Mane and Rs. 1,00,000/- to P.W. 2. Sangita d/o. Ashok Mane, filed present appeal. 2. The factual matrix of the present case is some what unique and unusual. It is case of the prosecution that Ashok Mane father of the P.W. 1 and 2 was residing in a rented premises at Bhoom, District Osmanabad, owned by one Dilip Doke, along with his family members including accused No. 2 Saroja, P.W. 1 Sunita, P.W. 2 Sangita, P.W. 5 Kamal and two sons namely Dada and Vishnu, some where in the year 1996. The present accused No. 1 who is medical practitioner was also having his dispensary in front of the house of Dilip Doke at Bhoom. Saroja accused No. 2 is real sister of the P.W. 1 2 and elder daughter of the P.W. 5. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1, who was practising at Bhoom as Medical practitioner having his Hospital in front of the house of Dilip Doke, developed illicit intimacy with Saroja i.e. accused No. 2-P.W. 5 and her husband Ashok Mane to avoid further complications settled marriage of Saroja with the accused No. 1 somewhere in the year 1996. The accused No. 1 thereafter started construction of his hospital near S.T. stand Bhoom and started residing near S.T. stand along with accused No. 2. He constructed a building wherein on ground floor he started dispensary while first floor is being used for residence. When the marriage of the accused No. 2 was performed with the accused No. 1 in the year 1996, P.W. No. 1 Sunita was hardly aged about 13 to 14 years and she was taking education in 7th standard while Sangita P.W. 2 was taking education in 4th standard. On account of relations between the parties the accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and P.W. 5 Kamal and the family members of the P.W. 5 also used to visit the house of accused. On account of relations between the parties the accused Nos. 1 and 2 used to visit the house of the prosecutrix and P.W. 5 Kamal and the family members of the P.W. 5 also used to visit the house of accused. The distance between the residence of P.W. 5 is hardly a walking distance and one may reach within 10 to 15 minutes from the said house to the dispensary. 3. It is further alleged that P.W. 1 Sangita was not feeling well and therefore she had been to the Hospital of the accused No. 1, the accused No. 1 examined her however at that time he pressed her breast and as somebody came in the hospital he gave prescriptions to the Sunita. Sunita thereafter went to attend the school and has not disclosed in respect of the said incident to her mother or father or other family members. It is further alleged that on account of ill-health she again thereafter went to the Hospital of the accused No. 1, at that time accused No. 1 has given some injection due to which she become unconscious for about whole day and at night time when she gained conscious made inquiry with the accused No. 2 i.e. her elder sister and she disclosed that there is nothing to worry and further disclosed that they have snapped naked photographs of Sunita. Even she also disclosed that the accused No. 1 committed rape on her and they further insisted that she should not disclose in respect of the said fact to anybody otherwise they will show naked photographs, the accused No. 1 even insisted Sunita to stay at his house. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 had shown his name as husband of the P.W. 1 Sunita and obtained phone connection and also opened bank account in the bank. The accused No. 1 used to perform sexual intercourse with Sunita, and in order to facilitate commission of the acts it is alleged that accused No. 1 gave some drugs to the P.W. 1 Sunita and further disclosed that on account of said drugs she will not be in a position to conceive a child. Due to these medicines given to P.W. 1 there is change in her voice. 4. Due to these medicines given to P.W. 1 there is change in her voice. 4. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1 committed rape on Sunita from time to time by extending threats and the accused No. 2 who is elder sister of the prosecutrix Sunita has abetted the commission of the rape. It is further alleged that taking undue advantage of the helpless condition of the prosecutrix accused No. 1 continued to commit rape and some 8 months prior to the incident the prosecutrix and her mother were taken to Paranda, signature of the prosecutrix and thumb impression of her mother were taken on some papers by accused No. 1. 5. So far as P.W. 2 Sangita is concerned who is younger sister of the accused No. 2 and P.W. 1, in 1996 was taking education in 4th standard. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were having small child aged about 3 years approximately and the accused used to call P.W. 2 to their house or dispensary to look after the child. It is further alleged that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 insisted Sangita to stay at their house at night time. She accordingly stayed during the night time accused No. 1 said P.W. 2 that her breast are small and therefore, he will give some treatment so as to develop her breast. He accordingly pressed her breast. The P.W. 2 disclosed this particular aspect to the accused No. 2 and at that time the accused No. 2 started laughing saying that sister of the wife is half wife and she also pressed her breast. It is further alleged that thereafter accused No. 1 gave injection with a view to develop breast and as a result there was pus formation. She thereafter got burning sensation. She thereafter again approached the accused making grievance in that respect. Thereafter, some treatment was given and thereafter both the breasts were completely destroyed. Sangita P.W. 2 disclosed in respect of incident to P.W. 5. Ultimately, P.W. 1 Sunita on 6-2-2002 filed complaint before the Police Station in respect of the incident, on the basis of the said complaint Crime No. 7/2002 is registered for the offence under sections 376, 354, 328 of Indian Penal Code. 6. During the course of investigation P.S.I. succeeded arresting accused No. 2 on 6-2-2002 itself, however, accused No. 1 was absconding. 6. During the course of investigation P.S.I. succeeded arresting accused No. 2 on 6-2-2002 itself, however, accused No. 1 was absconding. On the next day i.e. on 7-2-2002 P.S.I. along with accused No. 2 visited the house belonging to the accused i.e. dispensary and their residential place and during house search accused No. 2 produced 7 naked photographs of P.W. 1 along with a camera, letter pad and other articles. The same being attached, panchanama to that effect is prepared which is proved at Exhibit 60. He then recorded statements of certain witnesses. On the same day P.W. 1 Sunita and P.W. 2 Sangita were referred to the Medical Officer Osmanabad, Solapur, Aurangabad, Pune and lastly to Mumbai. The P.S.I. succeeded in arresting accused No. 1 on 9-2-2002 and the accused No. 1 while he was in custody of Police on 15-2-2002 made disclosure statement and showed his willingness to show place located at Kusumnagar locality where he used to commit rape on the prosecutrix P.W. 1. He then lead panchas at Kusumnagar locality, accused No. 1 then produced a pillow, quilt and one Chadar i.e. article Nos. 6, 7 and 8. Even from the said place certain medicines are also attached. The Medical Officer from Primary Health Center Bhoom was also with the Police at that time, the articles Nos. 6 to 17 were accordingly attached. The panchanama i.e. disclosure statement and attachment of those articles at the instance of the accused No. 1 got proved at Exhibit 61. P.S.I. after receipt of the medical certificates and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Bhoom on 7-5-2002. The Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Bhoom by his order below Exh. 1 on 10-5-2002 committed case to the Court of Sessions as offence under section 376 being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 7. The Session case was accordingly made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, who accordingly framed charge as per Exhibit-23 on 3-10-2002 for the offence under sections 376, 354, 328 so far as regard accused No. 1 is concerned while under section 109 read with section 376 and section 109 read with 354 of Indian Penal Code as against the accused No. 2 and section 506 read with 34, 292 read with 34 and 328 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, against accused Nos. 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 8. The defence of the accused No. 1 is that the parents of Sunita performed her marriage with the accused No. 1 at Pimpalwadi, thereafter insisted for an amount from the accused and as he fed up with said demand he gave divorce to the Sunita. It is contended that false complaint being filed involving both the accused. The stand as taken by the accused No. 2 is same. 9. The prosecution to connect the accused with the above said crime examined near about 12 witnesses. P.W. 1 Sunita Ashok Mane, her evidence is at Exhibit-30. Through her evidence complaint filed by her, on the basis of which crime is registered, is got proved. Same is at Exhibit-31. P.W. 2 is Sangita Ashok Mane, her evidence is at Exhibit-32. P.W. 3 is Dr. Vaishali Bramhe, her evidence is at Exhibit-33 and through her evidence reports Exhibit 34, 35 are got proved. P.W. 4 is Madhuri Madhukar Deshmukh, another Doctor attached to the Civil Hospital, Osmanabad, her evidence is at Exhibit-36 and through her evidence certain documents are got proved i.e. requisition letter, X-ray report Exhibits-37 and 38, medical certificate about examination of Sunita, Exhibit-39 and Exhibit-40. A requisition letter given by the Medical Officer to P.S.I. Bhoom is at Exhibit 41. Then certificate about examination of Sangita P.W. 2 Exhibits-42 to 48, as it will be seen that genuineness and correctness of the above documents from Exhibits 42 to 48 is not disputed on behalf of the defence. P.W. 5-Kamal Mane, is mother of the prosecutrix and accused No. 2, her evidence is at Exhibit-50. P.W. 6 is Vithal Jadhavar A.S.I., with whom attached articles were sent to C.A. Then P.W. 7 is Sudha Dalbhanjan, Sub-Registrar attached to the office of Sub-Registrar, Paranda in the year 2001, her evidence is at Exhibit-58, while P.W. 8 is Somnath Datkhile, a panch witness through his evidence spot panchanama Exhibit-60 and attachment of the articles No. 1 to 5 are got proved, through his evidence memorandum and discloser statement made by the accused No. 1 is got proved which is at Exhibit 61 while panchanama as regards attachment of the articles Nos. 6 to 17 is at Exhibit 61/1. 6 to 17 is at Exhibit 61/1. P.W. 9 is Umadevi Barate, Medical Officer attached to the Government hospital, and her evidence is at Exhibit-69. She examined Sangita P.W. 2, through her evidence again certain documents i.e. Exh. 43 is got proved. P.W. 10 is Kamlakar Yelambar, P.S.I. who investigated the crime. P.W. Nos. 11 and 12 are again Medical Officers. C.A. reports are at Exhibits 70 and 71. 10. The Additional Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record, referred above, concluded that the accused No. 1 committed offence under sections 376, 354 and 328 of Indian Penal Code. While so far as the accused No. 2 is concerned the Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the accused No. 2 committed offence under section 109 read with sections 376, 354 of I.P.C. accordingly convicted the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 376 of I.P.C. and directed him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and also convicted for the offence punishable under section 354 of I.P.C. directing her to suffer R.I. for one year and also convicted for the offence punishable under section 328 directing him to suffer R.I. for 5 years. As regards accused No. 2 she is convicted for the offence punishable under section 109 read with section 376 of I.P.C. directing her to suffer R.I. for 7 years, also convicted for the offence under section 109 read with section 354 and directed her to suffer R.I. for one year. So far as both the accused are concerned they are convicted for the offence under section 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code directing to suffer R.I. for six months. Direction is also given to the accused No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the prosecutrix No. 1 and Rs. 1,00,000/- to P.W. 2 Sangita. On failure to pay compensation to suffer R.I. for one year, said order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 14-2-2003 is being challenged by filing present appeal by accused Nos. 1 and 2. 11. In the appeal I heard Shri A.B. Kale for the appellant and Shri K.S. Patil A.P.P. for the State, at length. 12. It is submitted by Shri A.B. Kale Advocate that the Additional Sessions Judge practically failed to consider the evidence on record as according to him from the evidence it is sufficiently clear that consent on the part of P.W. 1 can be inferred. 12. It is submitted by Shri A.B. Kale Advocate that the Additional Sessions Judge practically failed to consider the evidence on record as according to him from the evidence it is sufficiently clear that consent on the part of P.W. 1 can be inferred. Further, according to him, certain documents are filed on record by the accused No. 1 after recording his statement under section 313 i.e. documents pertaining to proceedings initiated by the P.W. 1 for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Paranda, a divorce deed registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Paranda. He further made clear that the prosecutrix was residing with accused No. 1 as his wife at Kusumnagar, a telephone connection was also taken in her name, present accused No. 1 is shown as her husband, even bank account was opened in the bank showing the name of the accused No. 1 as husband of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 however, the Court below practically lost sight of these aspects and wrongly concluded that the accused No. 1 committed rape on the prosecutrix P.W. 1. So far as regards accused No. 2 is concerned practically she has no concern with the said offence. She being falsely involved in the said crime. Even considering the relations of the present accused No. 2 with the prosecutrix P.W. 1 2 the allegations in the complaint are improbable, unacceptable and inspite of this the Court below has relied the said evidence. Secondly according to him the evidence of Doctor examined on behalf of the prosecutrix is not satisfactory. The evidence of the prosecutrix has not been corroborated by any satisfactory evidence. The above complaint being out come of dispute between the accused No. 1 and the brother of the complainant namely Dada against whom the accused No. 1 filed complaint on 16-1-2002 at Police Station, as he along with some 10 other persons had been to the dispensary and extended threats to the accused No. 1. Thirdly, according to him, the Court below has wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under section 354. As in fact there is no material on record so as to conclude safely or to spell out an offence under sections 354 and 328. Thirdly, according to him, the Court below has wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under section 354. As in fact there is no material on record so as to conclude safely or to spell out an offence under sections 354 and 328. Even, so far as offence under section 506 is concerned there is no satisfactory evidence about the extending threats and lastly according to him the Court below has also not properly scanned the evidence. According to him the order of compensation is also not proper and justified. Shri Kale placed reliance on certain authorities in support of his contentions, i.e. (Jintu Das v. State of Assam)1, 2003 Cri.L.J. 1411, (M. Jignesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh)2, 2003 Cri.L.J. 739 (M.C. Prasannan v. State)3, 1999 Cri.L.J. 998, (Anmol Shridhar Gharde v. State of Maharashtra)4, 1999(5) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)209 and (Mohan v. State of Rajasthan)5, 2003 Cri.L.J. 1891. Relying on the ratio laid down in the above authorities, according to him, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not satisfactory, and wrongly convicted the appellants. A request is accordingly made to set aside the order of conviction and sentence. 13. On the other hand it is submitted by Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the State that the Additional Sessions Judge has properly scanned and scrutinised the evidence and rightly convicted the present appellant for the offence under sections 376, 354, 328. He further submits that the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge is in conformity and is in consonance with the evidence on record. According to him the facts of the present case are unique in the sense that the accused No. 1 has practically spoiled the life of three daughters of P.W. 5, as initially in the year 1996 he developed illicit intimacy with the accused No. 2 and succeeded in performing marriage with her thereafter, spoiled life of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 1 was hardly aged about 15 to 16 years of age at the time of incident and P.W. 2, 10 to 12 years of age as P.W. 1 was taking education in 7th standard while P.W. 2 was taking education in 4th standard in 1996. He further submits that in the present case the Medical certificate issued in respect of injury sustained by the P.W. 2 Sangita i.e. Exhibits 42 to 48 have not been disputed on behalf of the defence. He further submits that in the present case the Medical certificate issued in respect of injury sustained by the P.W. 2 Sangita i.e. Exhibits 42 to 48 have not been disputed on behalf of the defence. Thirdly, so far as age of the prosecutrix 1 and 2 is concerned, same is no where challenged or disputed on behalf of the defence. As regards evidence of P.W. 1, 2 and 5 is concerned, according to him, the said evidence being trustworthy, convincing, satisfactory, acceptable, cogent and there was no reason for those witnesses to involve the accused falsely in such a crime when the accused No. 2 is elder sister of the P.W. 1 and 2 and elder daughter of the P.W. 5 and when the accused No. 1 is son-in-law of the P.W. 5. Lastly, according to him there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants. So far as regards compensation is concerned he further submits that practically the life of P.W. 1 2 being spoiled by the accused and, therefore, the order directing the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation is again proper and justified and, therefore a request is made to dismiss the appeal. 14. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties it is desirable to give reference to certain authorities so as to consider the legal position as regards corroboration where it is necessary. Firstly, a reference in this respect is necessary to (Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)6, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 753. Wherein it is observed to the following effect: Penal Code sections 375 and 376-Rape-Evidence-Testimony of prosecutrix-Corroboration-Necessity and extent of. It is observed to the following effect. "Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?" It is further observed in the said authority to the following effect. "On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. "On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness account of an independent witness my often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the courts in the Western World. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence as a general rule there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case." 15. It is also necessary to make it clear that, a girl or a woman is extremely reluctant to disclose the incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and to her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these and similar factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. 16. A reference is also necessary to one another authority i.e. in the case of (Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan)7, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 54 wherein it is observed to the following effect. 16. A reference is also necessary to one another authority i.e. in the case of (Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan)7, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 54 wherein it is observed to the following effect. "The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge. The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the Judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand." 17. A reference is also necessary to one another authority i.e. in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain)8, 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 630 Wherein it is observed to the following effect. "A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under section 118 of Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in case of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no Rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to section 114 which requires it to look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration...................... The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness. The degree of proof required must not be higher than is expected of an injured witness. Ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix must carry the same weight as is attached to an injured person who is a victim of violence, unless there are special circumstances which call for greater caution, in which case it would be safe to act on her testimony if there is independent evidence lending assurance to her accusation. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood, it would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime................ The standard of proof to be expected by the Court in such cases must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that ordinarily a woman, more so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity." 18. A reference is also necessary to one another authority i.e. in the case of (Bodhisatwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty)9, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 922, wherein it is observed to the following effect: "Rape is not only a 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 derision 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." It is further observed in the said authority to the following effect: "Despite introduction of section 114-A in Evidence Act which enables a Court to raise a presumption that the woman who was the victim of rape had not consented and that the offence was committed against her will. The situation, has hardly improved. The situation, has hardly improved. Conviction rates for rape are still lower than any other major crime and the women continue to argue even today that in rape cases the victimised woman, rather than the rapists, were put on trial. A larger number of women still fail to report rapes to the police because they fear embarrassing and insensitive treatment by the Doctors, the law enforcement personnel and/or the cross-examining defence attorneys. The fear has to be allayed from the minds of women so that if and when this crime is committed, the victim may promptly report the matter to the police and on a charge-sheet being submitted, the trial may proceed speedily without causing any embarrassment to the prosecutrix who may come in the witness box without fear psychosis." 19. A reference is also necessary to one another authority i.e. in the case of (State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh)10, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1393, wherein it is observed to the following effect. Section 376. Testimony of prosecutrix-Reliability-Investigating agency not conducting investigation properly or was negligent-Cannot be a ground to discredit testimony of prosecutrix. In the said authority it is further observed to the following effect. "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." So far as regard delay is concerned it is observed to the following effect: "In sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to get 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. Even if there is some delay in lodging FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter." So far as evidentiary value of the evidence of the prosecutrix is concerned it is observed to the following effect: "The testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences 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 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. 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 person's 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." 20. Considering the ration laid down in the above authorities it is necessary to consider the factual aspects in the present case and further to see whether the conclusions arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the present appellants is justified, proper, the same is in conformity with the evidence on record. 21. Before considering the factual aspects in the present case, to my mind, a reference is necessary to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 375 reads as under : Section 375 : A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the cases referred hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:- First.--Against her will. Secondly.--Without her consent. Thirdly.--With her consent, when her consent, has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly.--With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly.--With her consent, when at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication of the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly.--With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. 22. It is now necessary to scan and scrutinise the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution so as to see whether the order of conviction is justified or not. As I have already referred above, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sunita Prosecutrix. 22. It is now necessary to scan and scrutinise the evidence on record adduced by the prosecution so as to see whether the order of conviction is justified or not. As I have already referred above, the prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sunita Prosecutrix. Her evidence is at Exhibit 30 and the report or the complaint given by her, on the basis of which crime is registered proved at Exhibit 31. On close scrutiny of her evidence it is seen that she has given all the details in respect of the incident, manner in which it took place and also role played by both the accused in the said incident. The fact that the accused No. 1 was initially residing in front of the house of Dilip Dhoke at Bhoom, where the prosecutrix, her mother, father and other family members were residing as tenant, is not disputed in any way. It is further clear from the evidence of the prosecutrix that the accused No. 1 was a medical practitioner and he developed illicit intimacy with the accused No. 2 Saroja somewhere in the year 1996 and father and mother of the prosecutrix, to avoid further complications and reputation of the family being at stake, performed marriage of Saroja i.e. accused No. 2 with the accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 thereafter constructed his hospital and residence near S.T. Stand Bhoom and thereafter shifted to the said place. The first floor of the said building being used for residence where the accused No. 1 and 2 used to reside while the ground floor being used for Hospital. The Prosecutrix further made clear in respect of the incident as she had gone to the Hospital on account of her ill health and at that time while examining prosecutrix the accused No. 1 pressed her breast even kissed her cheeks. However, she has not disclosed anything in that respect to her family members considering the relations and on account of reputation as her marriage is yet to be performed. However, she has not disclosed anything in that respect to her family members considering the relations and on account of reputation as her marriage is yet to be performed. Thereafter, again when prosecutrix was ill Saroja took her to the hospital and on that day injection was given to the prosecutrix and she became unconscious for whole day and when she gained conscious she asked her sister accused No. 2 as to what had happened and at that time she disclosed that there is nothing to worry and further disclosed that the accused No. 1 committed rape on her, snapped her naked photos and accused further extended threats not to disclose anything in that respect to anybody and if she disclosed in that respect naked photographs will be used to defame her. By extending such threats the accused No. 1 continued committing rape on her from time to time. Lastly it is contended that 15 days prior to filing of the report the accused committed rape on prosecutrix. Thus on close scrutiny of her evidence there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence. There is no reason for her to depose falsely against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are close relatives. The accused No. 2 is real sister and accused No. 1 is husband of the accused No. 2. Even she has also stated about the part played by the accused No. 2 as she abetted the commission of rape by the accused No. 1 on her. Even she used to say that sister of the wife is half wife and whatever complaints being made in respect of the act on the part of the accused No. 1 she used to laugh. Considering the evidence on record, evidence of the prosecutrix I find same being convicting, consistent, cogent, even same is also trustworthy and acceptable. The said evidence creates confidence and I find that the Court below has rightly relied the same. 23. There are other several circumstances on record from which there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix as it will be seen that so far as age of the prosecutrix is concerned she has given her age as 20 years when her statement was recorded and this fact is not disputed. 23. There are other several circumstances on record from which there is sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix as it will be seen that so far as age of the prosecutrix is concerned she has given her age as 20 years when her statement was recorded and this fact is not disputed. The alleged acts of rape continued during the period from 1996 onwards till filing of the complaint and this itself goes to show that during the minority of the prosecutrix the accused No. 1 committed rape on her. Another circumstances that Sunita was examined by the Medical Officer, P.W. 4 Madhuri Madhukar Deshmukh, on 7-2-2002, certificate is at Exhibit 40 and she has also made clear on examination of Sunita that Hymen found old ruptured, vagina admits two fingers. Thus the evidence of the prosecutrix is again corroborated by the evidence of her mother P.W. 5 Kamal Ashok Mane and also from the evidence of P.W. 2. 24. Another circumstance on record in respect of which a reference is necessary that during the course of investigation articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 were attached at the instance of the accused No. 1 in pursuance of the discloser statement made by him. The panchanama and, memorandum to that effect is at Exhibit 61 and 61/1, those articles were sent to C.A., C.A. report is at Exhibit 70 and the report discloses that quilt and towel found few blood stains and also found moderate number of semen stains and this corroborates the version of the prosecutrix. Even the evidence of the prosecutrix is again consistent with the First Information Report Exhibit 31 in material particulars and, therefore, I find that there is no infirmity in her evidence and the Additional Sessions Judge has rightly placed reliance on the said evidence. 25. In the present case though the facts of the prosecution case are unique equally defence is also unique in the sense that in the present case the fact that the accused No. 1 is having sexual intercourse with the P.W. 1 is not disputed but the justification which is tried to be given by the accused that, parents of the prosecutrix had performed her marriage forcibly with the accused No. 1. Second contention that he has given divorce to the P.W. 1 and third contention so far as marriage is concerned he placed reliance on the proceedings initiated before Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Paranda, copy of which is filed by the accused No. 1 on record. One is unable to understand as to why and in what way proceedings being initiated at Paranda as from the facts on record it is clear that the prosecutrix and present accused No. 1 resided at Bhoom, village Pimpalgaon where place of residence of the applicant is shown is from Barshi Taluka. It is further seen that calculated attempt being made by the accused No. 1 apprehending further complications to create certain documents and for the said purpose initially he has taken a phone connection in the name of prosecutrix P.W. No. 1 showing his name as husband of the prosecutrix. Second attempt that he opened a bank account in the name of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 showing his name as husband, third attempt which he made by filing maintenance proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Paranda, alleged to be filed on 6th June, 2001 and settlement between said proceedings within 10 days i.e. 16-6-2001. One does not know as to why proceedings being filed before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Paranda. These aspects are within the special knowledge of the accused No. 1 himself and in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act it is for him to prove this particular aspect. But in the present case the accused has not adduced any evidence so far as marriage with prosecutrix is concerned even no specific date is given. However, in cross-examination to the P.W. 5 there is suggestion that somewhere in the month of October, 1999 marriage of the prosecutrix was performed with the accused as in fact when the accused No. 1 has already performed marriage with the accused No. 2 there was no question of performing marriage with the prosecutrix P.W. 1. Thus it is apparently clear that the accused has set up a false plea so as to get himself protected from further complications and this particular false plea is an additional circumstance involving the accused in the above said crime. 26. Thus it is apparently clear that the accused has set up a false plea so as to get himself protected from further complications and this particular false plea is an additional circumstance involving the accused in the above said crime. 26. Another material aspect will be in the present case as it is contended that from the circumstances on record it can be inferred that there is a consent on behalf of the prosecutrix and I find that the Additional Sessions Judge has in detail considered this aspect at length and he has discussed as to what is difference between consent and submission. So far as regard consent is concerned active participation by the prosecutrix is necessary, however, the circumstances in the present case disclose that the accused by extending threats compelled prosecutrix P.W. 1 to submit herself to fulfil the lust and thus, I find that the submissions on behalf of the present appellant by Shri Kale Advocate that there is a scope to infer consent on the part of the prosecutrix is totally unacceptable, unreliable and untrustworthy. A reference in this respect is necessary to one authority i.e. in the case of (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Ram)11, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. Page 2798, wherein it is observed to the following effect: “Submission of body under the fear of terror cannot be construed as a consented sexual act. Consent for the purpose of section 375 required exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between the resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances.” 27. Considering the factual aspect in the present case, it can be safely said that there is no scope to infer consent on the part of the prosecutrix, however, there is a positive evidence which shows that the accused by extending threats compelled the prosecutrix to submit herself to fulfil the lust of the accused No. 1 and, therefore, I find that the Court below has rightly discarded defence as set up by the present appellants. 28. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, her evidence is recorded at Exhibit 32. When her statement was recorded she has given her age as 15 years. 28. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, her evidence is recorded at Exhibit 32. When her statement was recorded she has given her age as 15 years. On behalf of the defence position so far as age of P.W. 2 is concerned is also not disputed. She has also given all the details in respect of the incident and part played by both the accused-present appellants in the said incident. According to her accused No. 2 Saroja used to call her to look after their small child. She also made clear that on one occasion she halted at the house of the elder sister Saroja, during the night she slept with small child on a cot. The accused No. 1 came there, awakened her and insisted to sleep on bed along with the accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 thereafter started handling her breast and also taken kiss of her cheeks. She then awakened accused No. 2 and disclosed in respect of the said incident and at that time accused No. 2 informed that as she being sister of wife of the accused No. 1 and therefore equally she is half wife and insisted to allow the accused No. 1 to do the same thing and thereafter she laughed, even accused No. 2 also started pressing her breast. Thereafter, the accused No. 1 insisted that her breast are of small size and the accused No. 1 stated that in order to develop the breast he will give medicines. It is further in her evidence that the accused No. 1 injected some injection in both of her breasts, the accused No. 2 was present at that time. There was some swelling on her both breasts. She accordingly disclosed in that respect to the accused No. 1. Both the accused took her in hospital, again gave injection in her breast. It is further noticed that there was pus formation in both the breasts on account of injection given by the accused No. 1. She then disclosed in respect of the above incident to her mother. The evidence of the P.W. 5 mother of the P.W. 2 is again consistent with the evidence of the P.W. 2. She took treatment for about 6 months. She then disclosed in respect of the above incident to her mother. The evidence of the P.W. 5 mother of the P.W. 2 is again consistent with the evidence of the P.W. 2. She took treatment for about 6 months. A reference in this respect is necessary to the Medical Officer who examined Sangita P.W. 2 and the certificate is on record at Exhibit 43 which shows that: i) right breast-nipple is destroyed, scarring (white) around nipple areola present ii) Left breast-Nipple is destroyed, scarring (white) around nipple and areola present. The prosecution has also examined Medical Officer, P.W. 9 who examined Sangita P.W. 2 and evidence of the Medical Officer is again consistent. The evidence of the Medical Officer further makes it clear that both the nipples of the victim Sangita are destroyed totally and ultimately loss of function of the breast, as she would not be able to breast feed her child. If the evidence of the P.W. 2 if read together with Exhibit 43, and evidence of P.W. 9 it is safe to conclude that the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the present appellant for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 328 so far as accused No. 1 is concerned is definitely justified. 29. So far as regards offence under section 506 is concerned there is sufficient evidence on record that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 snapped naked photographs of P.W. 1, those photographs being used in extending threats and committing offence. Considering the ingredients of section 506 and considering the factual aspects in the present case I find that the Court below is again justified in convicting the both the accused for the offence under section 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. So far as accused No. 2 punishment for the offence under section 109 read with 376, 109 read with 354 is concerned on close scrutiny of evidence on record, I find that the accused No. 2 wife of the accused No. 1 and sister of the P.W. 1 2 and daughter of the P.W. 5 has also took active part in the said offence, abetted commission of the said offence committed by the accused No. 1 i.e. in respect of offence under sections 376 and 354. The Court below has also dealt with this particular aspect in great length. The Court below has also dealt with this particular aspect in great length. On reassessment of the evidence on record I find that the order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, convicting the accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under sections 376, 354 and 328 is definitely justified and proper. So far as accused No. 2 is concerned the Court below is again justified in convicting for the offence under section 109 read with sections 376, 109 read with section 354. Even the Court below has also rightly convicted both the accused for the offence under section 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. I find no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the Court below. Even I find that the said conclusion is in conformity and in consonance with the evidence on record. I thus find the appeal is without merit and order of conviction therefore needs to be maintained. 30. So far as the sentence awarded by the Court below is concerned it is seen that the Court below has in fact taken lenient view and awarded minimum sentence. Considering the facts of the present case and manner in which the incident took place, considering the fact that the accused No. 1 has taken undue advantage of the helpless condition of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 her sister P.W. 2, and that too on account of his relation with these witnesses practically he has spoiled life of the P.W. 1 and 2. Thus, I find that there is no scope even to modify the order of sentence, or to take lenient view. 31. As regards awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the P.W. 1 and Rs. 1,00,000/- for P.W. 2. I find that in view of the section 357(3) of Cri.P.C. Additional Sessions Judge is again justified in awarding said compensation. Considering factual aspects, circumstances under which the offence is committed, I find even there is no scope to modify the order passed by the Court below awarding compensation of the P.W. 1 and 2. The appeal therefore, needs to be dismissed, as same being without merit. 32. In the result appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----