JUDGEMENT 1. The appellant/A-2 aggrieved by the conviction under Section 376(2)(g), I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year, imposed in S. C. No. 83/2001 on the file of Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Vijayawada, had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 2. It is brought to the notice of the Court that A-3 died and hence the case stood abated as against A-3. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that A-1 did not prefer any Appeal. 3. Sri Srirama Krishna, the learned counsel provided by Legal Aid to the appellant/A-2 would contend that except the evidence of P. W.-1 there is no other evidence available on record and the medical evidence also is doubtful about the commission of the offence of rape. The learned counsel also had pointed out several infirmities in the medical evidence and the improbability in the version of PW-1. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 and had commented that only on strong suspicion the appellant/A-2 was implicated in the present case. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mohd. Osman Shaheed, had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and also had taken this Court through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-14, DW-1 and DW-2 and Exs. P-1 to P-24 and MOs. 1 to 30 and would contend that serious offence was perpetrated on an unmarried girl aged about 21 years while she was in a distressed mood and hence it is not a case where lenience at least to be shown and hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judge to be confirmed. Strong reliance had been placed on Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1252 : (1980 Cri LJ 926). 5. Heard both the counsel. 6. The learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada had taken the matter as P. R. C. No. 53/2001 which was committed to the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijaya-wada wherein the same was numbered as S. C. No. 83/2001 and made over to the Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Vijaya-wada who had recorded the evidence of P. W.-1 to P. W.-14, DW-1 and DW-2, marked Exs. P-1 to P-24 and M.Os. P-1 to P-24 and M.Os. 1 to 13 and ultimately recorded conviction as against A-1 and A-2 and as already referred to supra A-2 alone had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 7. The case of the prosecution is that A-1 to A-3 were close friends and associates and no doubt A-3 died. It is also the version of the prosecution that A-1 is a bad element even as per the history sheet which is being maintained by L and O, Satyanarayanapuram Police Station. A-2 also is an ex-convict in railway cases. It is also the version of the prosecution that the de facto-complainant/PW-1 is a resident of Mandapet, East Goda-vari District, unmarried and studied up to 10th Class. One week prior to 13-1-2001 she left the house without the knowledge of her parents as she was chastised by her parents when she refused to marry a person proposed by them and went to Bapatla, Guntur District. On 12-1-2001 at about 7.30 p.m., PW-1 came to Vijayawada Railway Station and when she was waiting on Platform No. 1, PW-3 a Railway employee approached her and arranged food and later they both went to second show movie in the rickshaw of A-2 and at about 1 a.m. on the intervening night of 12/13-1-2001 PW-1 and PW-3 returned to Railway Platform No. 1 and they slept in a railway bogie separately and at about 4 a.m. on 13-1-2001 A-1 went to PW-1 and PW-3 and threatened them with dire consequences and forcibly took away PW-1 to the premises of Jack and Jill School near Railway Court, opposite to D. R. M. Office, Vijayawada. A-2 and A-3 were waiting at the spot. Then A-1 raped PW-1 against her will and consent and later A-2 and A-3 committed rape on her against her will and consent one after another. When she raised cries, LW-2 and PW-2 apprehended A-2. On seeing it A-1 and A-3 ran away and when LW-2 and PW-2 were bringing A-2 and PW-1 to Satyanarayanapuram Police Station, A-2 had resorted to self-infliction of injuries on his left hand and neck with a blade with intent to threaten them and LW-2 and PW-2 handed over A-2 along with PW-1 to Satyanarayanapuram Police Station at 7 a.m. On the report given by PW-1, PW-11 registered the crime and PW-13, S. I. of Police had taken up investigation. PW-13 had complied with the other formalities of investigation i.e., visiting the scene of offence, preparing the scene of observation report and also photographing of the scene of offence and preparing a rough sketch and sending PW-1 for medical examination to the hospital at 1 p.m. PW-13 also seized the clothes of PW-1 i.e., MO-1 to MO-3 under cover of mediators report and ultimately charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation. 8. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-14 and Exs. P-1 to P-24 and MOs. 1 to 13 were marked. DW-1 and DW-2 also were examined. PW-1, the victim deposed that she studied up to 10th class and in the month of January 2001 she came out of the parents house as she was chastised by her parents and that on 12-1-2001 at 7.30 p.m. while she was on Platform No. 1 of Vijaya-wada Railway Station, PW-2 came to her and introduced himself as a railway employee and provided her some food and they both went to movie in a rickshaw and after witnessing movie they both came to Railway Station and slept separately in a stationed bogie. PW-1 also deposed that A-1 came there and told that she will not be happy with old person i.e., PW-3, and insisted her to accompany him and so saying he forcibly took her to Jack and Jill School. PW-1 further deposed that meanwhile A-2 and A-3 also came there and at the instructions of A-1, A-2 and A-3 stood outside the room. PW-1 further deposed that A-1 removed his clothes and also committed rape on her. She also clearly deposed about A-2 and A-3 committing rape. She further deposed that she was lying naked when A-1 and A-3 had perpetrated the crime against her. She also further deposed that she raised alarm and nobody came to her rescue. PW-2 and PW-3 came to Police Station and A-2 was present and she was brought to the Police Station in the same rickshaw and Ex. P-1 report was given by her and she also deposed about A-2 inflicting injuries on his left hand protesting to go over to the Police Station. PW-1 also deposed about the police sending her to Hospital where she was examined and MO-1 to MO-3 were seized by police and she identified the accused in the identification parade conducted in this regard and at that time she gave statement Ex. PW-1 also deposed about the police sending her to Hospital where she was examined and MO-1 to MO-3 were seized by police and she identified the accused in the identification parade conducted in this regard and at that time she gave statement Ex. P-2. 9. PW-2 deposed that in the early hours of 13-1-2001 PW-1 came outside Jack and Jill School while raising cries and an auto driver LW-2 came there and questioned PW-1 and A-2 also came there and that he knows A-1 and A-2 and PW-1. He had taken PW-1 in rickshaw of A-2 to Police Station. A-2 had injuries on his left hand and neck and PW-1 complained about the commission of the offence to police. 10. P. W.-3 deposed that on 12-1-2001 at 6.20 p.m. he came to Platform No. 1 with food. PW-1 came and stood in front of her and on his enquiry she stated that she had not taken food and then he offered food and after some time they went to a movie in a rickshaw and at 1 a.m. they returned to Railway Station after witnessing a second show movie and they both slept on different benches. In the early hours at 4 a.m., A-1 to A-3 came to the bench of PW-1 and PW-1 raised hue and cry and when he questioned A-1, A-1 inflicted injury on his dorsem of left forearm. Then he pushed A-2 and meanwhile A-3 with a wooden plank beat him on his head as a result of which he fell down and in the early hours he learnt that A-1 to A-3 committed rape on PW-1. 11. PW-4 is the father of PW-1 who had deposed about PW-1 leaving the house and the other aspects. PW-5 is the photographer who had deposed about taking photos, Ex. P-4, at the scene of offence. PW-6 deposed that he examined A-2 on 13-1-2001 brought by P. C. 1211 and on examination he found red coloured incised wound on the right side of neck 4 x ½ c.m. skin deep and red coloured incised wound on the anterior aspect of forearm 4 x 1 c.m. skin deep and issued Ex. P-6 certificate. PW-7 deposed that on 13-10-2001 he examined PW-3 and found no external injuries and tenderness on the left side of the chest present and issued Ex. P-7 certificate. P-6 certificate. PW-7 deposed that on 13-10-2001 he examined PW-3 and found no external injuries and tenderness on the left side of the chest present and issued Ex. P-7 certificate. PW-8 deposed that on 13-1-2001 she examined PW-1 and found her inner side of the pyjama stained with blood and on local examination hymen was not intact, menstrual bleeding present, vagina patulous admitting two fingers easily, menstrual bleeding from cervical canal present and issued Ex. P-8 wound certificate and as per the chemical analysis report, semen and spermatozoa were not detected on items 1 to 17 and she was of the opinion that the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out and she issued Ex. P-9 final opinion. No doubt on the strength of evidence of PW-8, submissions at length were made that even otherwise if evidence of PW-1 read along with medical evidence is carefully scrutinized, it is doubtful whether the act of sexual intercourse had been completed or there was only an attempt in the said direction. 12. PW-9 deposed that he examined A-1 on 14-1-2001 and opined that there is nothing to suggest that A-1 is incapable of doing sexual act and PW-11 is the certificate. PW-9 also examined A-2 and opined that there is nothing to suggest that A-2 is incapable of doing the sexual act and issued Ex. P-12. He also examined A-3 and issued Ex. P-13 certificate. 13. PW-10 deposed that she conducted identification parade of the accused under Ex. P-17 proceedings after recording the statement of PW-1 under Ex. P-15. PW-1 identified A-1 to A-3 as the persons who committed rape against her will. PW-11 deposed that on 13-10-2001 he received Ex. P-1 from PW-1 and registered Ex. P-18 F. I. R. and A-2 also was brought by PW-1. PW-12 deposed that on 19-1-2001 he forwarded A-2 for the purpose of medical examination. PW-13, the Inspector of Police deposed that on 13-1-2001 at 7.30 p.m. he had taken up the investigation and by then A-2 had injury on his neck and chest which were self-inflicted by him with a blade and basing on the statement of PW-1, he recorded the confession statement of A-2 under Ex. P-19 and at about 9 a.m. he along with PW-1 to PW-3 and LW-2 went to Jack and Jill School and prepared scene of observation report Ex. P-20 and prepared rough sketch Ex. P-19 and at about 9 a.m. he along with PW-1 to PW-3 and LW-2 went to Jack and Jill School and prepared scene of observation report Ex. P-20 and prepared rough sketch Ex. P-24 and sent PW-1 for medical examination and sent message to the parents of PW-1 and on the same day at 5 p.m. he arrested A-1 under Ex. P-21 and sent him for medical examination. This witness also deposed about seizure of M. Os. 1 to 3 under Ex. P-22 in the presence of PW-7 and PW-8 and seizure of MOs. 4 to 7 from A-2 under Ex. P-19 and seizure of MOs. 8 and 9 from A-1 under Ex. P-21 and also about the arrest of A-3 and seizure of MOs. 10 to 13 under cover of mediators report Ex. P-23 and filing memo before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate with a request to record Section 164, Cr. P. C. statement of PW-1 and also to conduct test identification parade of victim under Ex. P-14. This witness also deposed that he forwarded MOs. 1 to 13 to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. On the strength of the evidence of PW-13 submissions at length were made by the learned counsel for the appellant that except the medical evidence of PW-8 no other evidence is available on record and for reasons best known the other evidence was not placed on record and hence benefit of doubt to be given to the appellant/A-2. 14. PW-14 simply deposed that on 22-3-2001 after receipt of report from Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. P-10, and after receipt of wound certificate he filed charge-sheet. 15. As already referred supra, on behalf of defence, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined. DW-1 deposed that he is an auto driver at Vijayawada Railway Station and he knows A-1 and A-2 only and A-1 is an auto driver and A-2 is a rickshaw puller and on 13-1-2001 at 4 a.m. police came to their auto stand at Jack and Jill School and took A-1 and A-2 and meanwhile he was engaged by a passenger and he went away. DW-2 deposed that he is an auto driver and on 13-1-2001 night A-1 and A-2 were at Jack and Jill School at Railway station and at about 3.30 a.m. he was engaged by a passenger and when he returned to Railway Station at 7 a.m. he learnt about the incident and he does not know the truth or otherwise of the incident. 16. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 it is clear that these witnesses are not of much help to the defence. Most probably DW-1 was examined to show that innocent persons A-1 and A-2 were taken away from the Vijayawada Railway Station at odd hours. In the decision referred (1) supra, it was held : "We must bear in mind human psychology and behavioural probability when assessing the testimonial potency of the victim's version. What girl would foist a rape charge on a stranger unless a remarkable set of facts or clearest motives were made out? The inherent bashfulness, the innocent naivete and the feminine tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression are factors which are relevant to improbabilities the hypothesis of false implication. The injury on the person of the victim, especially her private parts, has corroborative value. Her complaint to her parents and the presence of blood on her clothes are also testimony which warrants credence. More than all, it baffles belief in human nature that a girl sleeping with her mother and other children in the open will come by blood on her garments and injury in her private parts unless she has been subjected to the torture of rape. And if rape has been committed, as counsel more or less conceded, why, of all persons in the world, should the victim hunt up the petitioner and point at him the accusing finger? To forsake these vital considerations and go by obsolescent demands for substantial corroboration is to sacrifice commonsense in favour of an artificial concoction called 'Judicial' probability. Indeed, the Court loses its credibility if it rebels against realism. The law Court is not an unnatural world." 17. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 does not in any way help the version of the defence which no doubt is one of denial. Indeed, the Court loses its credibility if it rebels against realism. The law Court is not an unnatural world." 17. It is pertinent to note that the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 does not in any way help the version of the defence which no doubt is one of denial. The learned Judge recorded reasons in detail and ultimately came to the conclusion that the guilt of A-1 and A-2 had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This a case where not only the evidence of PW-1/victim is available, but immediately A-2 was apprehended and the other accused also had been apprehended subsequent thereto. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of PW-3 also is available on record. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 would corroborate the evidence of PW-1 on all material particulars. The medical evidence, the evidence of PW-8, also is to the effect that the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out and Ex. P-9 is the final opinion. Consent in the case had been specifically denied by PW-1/victim in her deposition. It is needless to say that the presumption under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would be attracted apart from the evidence of PW-1 which is well corroborated by PW-2, PW-3 and also the medical evidence PW-8. Apart from this aspect of the matter, PW-13, the Investigating Officer, deposed about all the details. PW-10 conducted identification parade under Exs. P-17 proceedings and recorded the statement of PW-1 under Ex. P-15. PW-10 further deposed that PW-1 identified A-1 to A-3 as persons who committed rape against her. It is a case where on an unmarried girl who came away from her house for certain reasons referred to supra and when was at the Vijayawada Railway Station taking advantage of her helpless position and most probably observing her position at the relevant point of time, the accused had proceeded with the commission of the offence against her with which they had been charged with. In the light of the clear evidence available on record, coupled with the presumption available under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there cannot be any doubt or controversy that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant/A-2 beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-12, DW-1 and DW-2, Exs. P-1 to P-24 and also M. Os. The evidence of PW-1 to PW-12, DW-1 and DW-2, Exs. P-1 to P-24 and also M. Os. 1 to 13 and the evidence of the Investigating Officers PW-13 and PW-14 had been dealt with in detail by the learned Judge and findings had been recorded and hence the said findings are hereby confirmed and the conviction recorded as against the appellant/A-2 also is hereby confirmed, but however taking into consideration the nature of the offence committed by the appellant/A-2, he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years instead of undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and paying a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default suffering Simple Imprisonment for one year, as directed by the Court below, for the offence under Section 376(2)(g), I. P. C. Except the modification of sentence which had been imposed by the learned Judge in relation to appellant/A-2, in all other particulars, the findings of the learned Judge are hereby confirmed. 18. The Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the aforesaid modification of sentence. Order accordingly.