L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE sole accused in SC. No. 270 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, ranga Reddy District, is the appellant herein. He was tried for offences under Sees. 376 (g) and 342 IPC. The trial Court found him guilty of both the offences. For the offence under section 376 (g), he was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of rs. l,000/- (as amended), in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for 6 months. For the offence under Section 342, no separate punishment was ordered. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is briefly narrated as under:- p. W. 3 is the daughter of P. W. 1 and p. W. 2 is her stepmother. They were residing in Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, hyderabad. They were acquainted with one mr. Chandramouli (P. W. 4) whose house is in the same colony. ON 18-5-1995 in the afternoon, P. W. 1 sent P. W. 3 to Kirana shop to purchase rice and himself left for secunderabad. When P. W. 3 was proceeding to the shop, two persons who were in the flat of P. W. 4, viz. , accused and another person, called her to help them in preparing a curry. When P. W. 3 entered the house, the accused and another person bolted the door, gagged her mouth with cloth, tied her legs and hands and raped her till 4. 00 p. m. They threatened p. W. 3 with dire consequences if she reveals the incident to any one. P. W. 3 went to her house and was lying on the bed and weeping. P. W. 2 asked her to tell the reason, but she pretended fever. She did not reveal anything. It is only after about 5 days that she revealed the incident. Soon thereafter, P. W. 1 submitted a complaint to the PS Kukatpally, p. W. 3 was sent for medical examination to gandhi Hospital. ( 3 ) THE prosecution recorded the statements of P. Ws. 1 to 3 as well as P. W. 4, who is the resident of the house where the incident took place. P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the doctors, who examined P. W. 3. P. Ws. 7 and 8 are the Police officials related with the investigation. The prosecution examined p. Ws. 1 to 3 as well as P. W. 4, who is the resident of the house where the incident took place. P. Ws. 5 and 6 are the doctors, who examined P. W. 3. P. Ws. 7 and 8 are the Police officials related with the investigation. The prosecution examined p. Ws. 1 to 8 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-8. For the defence, Exs. D-1 to D-4 are marked. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence before it, the trial Court punished the accused as indicated above. ( 4 ) SRI S. R. Sanku, learned counsel for the appellant-accused, submits that there are several deficiencies in the case of the prosecution, which remained unexplained. He submits that there was an abnormal delay of about 5 days in submitting the complaint. He also points out to certain discrepancies in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as regards presence of P. W. 4 in the house when the incident is said to have taken place. The learned counsel points out that while P. W. 1 stated in his evidence that P. W. 4 was in his house, the version of P. W. 3 was totally different. He also submits that the very framing of charge was contrary to law. Though in the charge-sheet it was stated that the accused and P. W. 4 were alleged to have committed the offence, only the accused was tried without amending the charge at all. He further submits that though it was alleged that the accused and another person committed the rape, the 2nd person was neither apprehended nor prosecuted. He states that there was nothing in the medical evidence to implicate the accused. The conviction as well as the sentence against the petitioner cannot be sustained at all. Relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in kuldeep L. Mahato v. state of Bihar1 and Dilip v. State of M. P. 2, he submits that absence of injuries upon the victim or the accused is a factor to doubt the veracity of the case of the prosecution and that discrepancy in such evidence should result in acquittal of the accused. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that having regard to the very nature of the offence, instant submission of complaint cannot be expected and the delay in this regard cannot be fatal in cases of offences under Section 376 IPC. He submits that the prosecution has drivenhome the case against the accused by examining p. W. 4 and the evidence of P. W. 3, the victim, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence. As regards the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that having regard to the fact that P. W. 1 did not have any direct knowledge of the incident; he has only revealed what is said to have passed on to him by P. W. 2, much does not turn upon the same. So far as regards the charge is concerned, he submits that there was some uncertainly as to who the 2nd person, that has committed rape on P. W. 3, was;particularly,when he was not apprehended. The mention of name of P. W. 4 was rather a mistake and the same did not cause prejudice to the accused in any way. ( 6 ) THE first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused is about the delay in submission of the complaint by p. W. 1. The incident is said to have took place on 18-5-1995 and the complaint was submitted on 23-5-1995. Normally, such a delay between the date of incident and submission of complaint in respect of other offences would be fatal. However, the offences under Section 376 IPC are viewed from totally different angle altogether. Victim of any offence will lend to complain of the occurrence at the earliest possible time to see that the offender is apprehended soon and that the evidence is kept intact. However, the physical and mental condition of a victim of offence under Section 376 will be in such a shattered condition that many a time the victim prefers death to the spoiled life. However, the physical and mental condition of a victim of offence under Section 376 will be in such a shattered condition that many a time the victim prefers death to the spoiled life. The victim will be in such a horrible mental condition that, on the one hand, she will be afraid of the stigma that she has to carry through out her life, if the heinous crime perpetrated on her is known to others; on the other hand, she has to decide whether to permit the perpetrator to go scout free in the process or to bring him to justice. The age, background and education of the victim play important roles on these aspects. P. W. 3 was found, on medical examination, to be a girl of 14 years (Ex. P-5 ). Her studies are up to 4th class or so. She hails from a ruralback ground. Her mother is residing at a different place. P. W. 2 is her stepmother. Under these circumstances, to expect her to complain about the incident or reveal the same to others instantly is rather to be unrealistic. It was on repeated pestering by P. Ws. 1 and 2 for several days that she has revealed the wrong done to her by the accused. Therefore, the delay in reporting the matter to Police cannot be said to be fatal. ( 7 ) ONE of the reasons for insisting on instant submission of complaint is to ensure that the accused does not have an opportunity to meditate upon, give a twist to the incident and to supply all the links to connect the accused with the crime. The possibility for such man oeuvers is more in respect of incidents involving personal rivalries between the complainant and the accused. Even in respect of offences under Section 376 ipc, such instances are not lacking. However, in the present case, nothing was elicited from or suggested to the victim or her parents to indicate that they had any grouse or grudge against the accused. ( 8 ) P. W. 3, in her evidence, has categorically stated that the accused and another person, who were in the house of P. W. 4, called her to assist them in preparing curry. She did not suspect their brutal tendency and innocently went to the house. ( 8 ) P. W. 3, in her evidence, has categorically stated that the accused and another person, who were in the house of P. W. 4, called her to assist them in preparing curry. She did not suspect their brutal tendency and innocently went to the house. The accused and another person have bolted the door, gagged her mouth, tied her, legs and hands and committed rape on her. Nothing is unnatural in her evidence from her deposition. Rather, out of desperation, some suggestions attributing illegal relations between P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 were made. An attempt was also made to assassinate her character. The following pattern of questioning indicates the desperation on the part of the defence:"no blood came out, when I was raped. It is not true to suggest that, since I have been in that habit, no blood came out. " ( 9 ) IF in fact the accused did not commit the offence, the question put to her extract the answer, extracted above were totally unwarranted. Their desperation did not stop with putting such questions to the victim. The lady Doctor, who examined P. W. 3 and was examined as P. W. 5, was also not spared. This Court feels rather embarrassed to extract the answers elicited through P. W. 5. They were totally irrelevant, bereft of context and the only purpose on the part of the defence appears to be only to demoralise the women witnesses. Such an attempt on the part of the accused or their counsel deserves to be deprecated seriously. ( 10 ) ON account of such irresponsible behaviour, the entire Criminal Justice System will tend to be reduced to mockery. While the 1st suffering by the victims takes place in the hands of the accused at the scene of offence where none is expected to be present, the 2nd suffering takes place right in the Court, in front of the Presiding Officer and the others present in the Court. The presiding Officer was expected to be cautious and vigilant in screening the questions, on the touchstone of relevancy. The Court cannot be converted into a place where an Advocate has a license to humiliate any one in the name of cross-examination, irrespective of the fact whether the questions to be put by him are relevant or not. The presiding Officer was expected to be cautious and vigilant in screening the questions, on the touchstone of relevancy. The Court cannot be converted into a place where an Advocate has a license to humiliate any one in the name of cross-examination, irrespective of the fact whether the questions to be put by him are relevant or not. A time has come to evolve a mechanism to draw an adverse presumption against a party who undertakes indiscrimate character assassination of the victims in such offences and for the Bar council to evolve procedure to contain such disturbing tendencies in the profession. Otherwise, it will not be too late that the legal profession will be known only for the earning, with or without any concern for the scruples, decency and values. ( 11 ) ONE of the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was about the inconsistency as to the versions relating to the presence or otherwise of P. W. 4 at the scene of offence. It is true that in his evidence p. W. 1 stated that P. W. 4 was present in his house at the time of incident, whereas P. W. 3 said that he was not there. It should not be forgotten that P. W. 1 did not have any direct knowledge of the entire incident. He learnt it only through P. W. 2, who in turn, got the information from P. W. 3. The existence of corroborative evidence as regards offence under Section 376 has got its own limitations. The cases are mostly decided on the basis of the version of the victim herself or medical evidence, where it exists. It is only when the defence is able to demolish the version presented by the victim that an accused can be acquitted. As long as the version presented by the victim is consistent and there do not exists any material contradictions, the mere discrepancy in the evidence of other witnesses, who deposed on the basis of information given to them, cannot result in watering down the case of the prosecution. ( 12 ) THE trial Court framed the charge to the effect that the appellant and chandramouli (P. W. 4) have called P. W. 3 to the room to prepare curry and that both of them have committed rape on her forcibly by bolting the door. ( 12 ) THE trial Court framed the charge to the effect that the appellant and chandramouli (P. W. 4) have called P. W. 3 to the room to prepare curry and that both of them have committed rape on her forcibly by bolting the door. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that P. W. 4 was not tried at all and, on the other hand, was examined as Prosecution Witness and in that view of the matter, the whole charge is defective. ( 13 ) AS observed earlier, the incident took place in the flat of P. W. 4. The accused and another person were said to be in the house of P. W. 4. The other person was mistaken for p. W. 4 at the time of framing of the charge. P. W. 3 did not allege that P. W. 4 was either present in the house or committed rape on her. The inclusion of the name of P. W. 4 in the charge was an account of mistake as to the identity of the said person, who is alleged to have committed rape on P. W. 3. P. W. 4 has categorically stated that the appellant and another person were in his flat on that day and he went out in the afternoon, it was not even suggested to P. W. 4 that appellant was not in his house at all on that day. The fact that the other accused was not apprehended and that the name of P. W. 4 was mentioned in the charge hardly makes any difference as long as the charge against the appellant is established. ( 14 ) IT is also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that no injuries were noticed on the body of P. W. 3 or that of the appellant and the same can be taken as a factor to doubt the correctness of the version of the prosecution. According to him, in the incident of rape, there are bound to be certain injuries or marks thereof on the victim and, in some cases, on the accused also. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in dilip s case (2 supra ). According to him, in the incident of rape, there are bound to be certain injuries or marks thereof on the victim and, in some cases, on the accused also. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in dilip s case (2 supra ). ( 15 ) IN the judgment referred to above, the absence of injuries on the body of the private parts of the victim was referred to as a matter of fact. It was not held that absence of such injuries would be a factor by itself to disbelieve the version of the victim. Further, it has come in the evidence that the appellant and another person have not only jagged the mouth of P. W. 3 with cloth, but had also tied her legs and hands. She was hardly 14 years of age. She did not anticipate such cruel behaviour from the appellant. She cannot be expected to be ready to quarrel or make an attempt to get herself relieved. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The plea that p. W. 3 could have raised hue and cry, more so, when the incident is alleged to have taken place in a busy locality and in the midst of several flats deserves to be rejected for the same reason. ( 16 ) HENCE, this Court is not persuaded to take a different view form the one taken by the trial court as regards the complicity of the appellant. It, however, needs to be observed that the prosecution could not establish that p. W. 3 was raped by another person. Therefore, it cannot be said that she had been gang raped. The charge against the appellant has to be treated as the one under section 376 (1) of IPC and accordingly the conviction of the appellant shall stand modified to the one under Section 376 (1) of ipc. ( 17 ) COMING to the sentence, this Court is aware of the fact that minimum sentence for the offence under Section 376 (1) IPC is seven years. However, under proviso to section 376 (1) of IPC, it is permissible for the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 7 years for special reasons to be mentioned. However, under proviso to section 376 (1) of IPC, it is permissible for the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than 7 years for special reasons to be mentioned. ( 18 ) IT needs to be seen that the factors, such as, delay of 5 days in submission of the complaint, discrepancy of the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 3 as regards presence of P. W. 4 and failure of the prosecution to apprehend the other victim, (sicperson) though maynot have a bearing on the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Sec. 376 (1) ipc; would certainly have a bearing on the sentence to be imposed against him. ( 19 ) TAKING the totality of the circumstances into account, this Court feels that is a fit case where the sentence on theappellant/accused is modified to be the one for Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of rs. 5,000/-; in default to undergo SI for three months. The sentence is accordingly modified and the appeal is partly allowed.