JUDGMENT 1. Since both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 15.12.1999 in one sessions case No.53/1998, the same are being decided by a common judgment. 2. The appellants two in number, were put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Behror, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.53/1998 for having committed rape upon the prosecutrix. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge vide its judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 found the charge established against the appellants and accordingly convicted them for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each. In default thereof to further undergo three months imprisonment. 3. As per the FIR Ex.P4 registered on the oral report of Satyapal, his sister a dumb and deaf by birth, was revised by the appellant when she was going to his field with food for her mother. It was alleged that on 25.7.1998 at about 2.00 P.M. his sister was on way to the field along with food for her mother. While on way, the appellants caught her near the field of Sadhu and committed rape on her. After the incident, Raghuveer Singh met her on way while she was weeping and going to her mother. She disclosed the incident to Raghuveer by signs who asked her to go to her mother. Thereafter her mother brought her back to the village and thereafter complainant Satyapal submitted the report. 4. Having registered a case for offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code the police proceeded with investigation. During investigation, site plan of the place of incident (Ex.P.2) was prepared; places of broken glass bangles were recovered through memo Ex.P.1; medical of the prosecutrix (Ex.P.6) was got conducted, accused Deshraj was arrested on 30.7.1998 and arrest memo Ex.P.11 was prepared; similarly accused appellant Ishwar was also arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P.12. Accused persons were subjected to medical examination for potency. Test identification parade of accused appellants was held at Sub-Jail Behror on 28th August, 1998 and according to the test identification memo Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16, the prosecutrix correctly identified both the appellants; petticoat of the prosecutrix was seized. The petticoat and two slides were sent for chemical examination. Accused persons were subjected to medical examination for potency. Test identification parade of accused appellants was held at Sub-Jail Behror on 28th August, 1998 and according to the test identification memo Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16, the prosecutrix correctly identified both the appellants; petticoat of the prosecutrix was seized. The petticoat and two slides were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in court of concerned Magistrate, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. On the basis of material and evidence collected during investigation, the learned trial court framed charge against the appellants for offence under Section 376 IPC, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and got exhibited numerous documents. After the prosecution evidence was completed the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence three witnesses were examined. 6. At the conclusion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the learned trial Judge found that charges established beyond doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. 7. Being aggrieved of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, the appellants have filed the above mentioned appeals. 8. Before adverting to the merits of the case and considering the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, I think it appropriate to discuss the evidence on record. 9. PW.1 Raghuveer though has been declared hostile, but in his examination in chief this witness has stated that Ishwar committed rape on Billu, a girl of their village, who came to him weeping and smeared with soil. PW.2 Lala Ram is the witness of site plan Ex.P2 and recovery of some pieces of broken glass bangles through recovery memo Ex.P.1. He has proved preparation of site plan Ex.P.2 and also recovery of some pieces of broken glass bangles. PW.3 Bhagwati is the mother of the prosecutrix. In her examination in chief this witness has stated that the prosecutrix, her daughter is deaf and was married in village Madhana. She had two daughters and one son. She deposed that since her son's wife was pregnant and her delivery was shortly due, she had called her daughter from her in law's 20 days prior to the incident. In her examination in chief this witness has stated that the prosecutrix, her daughter is deaf and was married in village Madhana. She had two daughters and one son. She deposed that since her son's wife was pregnant and her delivery was shortly due, she had called her daughter from her in law's 20 days prior to the incident. On the day of the occurrence, both mother and daughter went to their field in the morning for agricultural work. At about 11.00 A.M. the witness sent her to bring food for her. While she was returning to the field with meals at about 2.00 P.M., Ishwar and Deshraj met her on way near the field of Cotton plants belonging to Sadhu, who caught hold of her, dragged her to the field of cotton plants, made her to lay on the ground and committed rape. They sat on the prosecutrix and after removing her Ghaghra committed the offence. The witness has stated that the prosecutrix tried to escape from the clutches of the accused but could not succeed. She has stated that the accused put the Odhani of prosecutrix in her mouth and in that process the prosecutrix sustained injury on her lower lip and blood oozed out of the same. It was stated that the accused pressed the hands of the prosecutrix due to which the bangles of her hands were broken. Her nose pin lost there. When the accused left the prosecutrix she came weeping to her and narrated the tale of woe about rape by signs. The witness stated further that when she and the prosecutrix were coming to their house, Raghuveer Havaldar met them and he told the witness that he had seen Deshraj and Ishwar committing rape upon the prosecutrix. In her cross-examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that the name of Deshraj was not disclosed to her by Raghuveer, who met them in the way and that there was any enmity with Deshraj regarding flow of water. 10. PW.4 Satyapal is the brother of the prosecutrix. In his examination in chief this witness has stated that at about 4.30 P.M. when he returned from factory, his mother and sister started weeping badly. When he asked his mother as to what had happened, she narrated the fact of committing rape upon the prosecutrix by Deshraj and Ishwar Singh. 10. PW.4 Satyapal is the brother of the prosecutrix. In his examination in chief this witness has stated that at about 4.30 P.M. when he returned from factory, his mother and sister started weeping badly. When he asked his mother as to what had happened, she narrated the fact of committing rape upon the prosecutrix by Deshraj and Ishwar Singh. The witness has stated that the prosecutrix also disclosed by signs as to how she was ravished. As per the statement of this witness the prosecutrix told the witness that the accused pushed her on the ground, caught hold of her hands, closed her mouth by putting a part of her Odhni and then committed rape. As per this witness the prosecutrix disclosed that the appellants were the rapists. She also disclosed the manner in which her bangles were broken. She also disclosed that one person was having moustaches. The witness has stated that there were stains on front and back side of the Ghaghra of the prosecutrix. As per the statement of this witness, he, his mother and Lalaram proceeded with the prosecutrix, who pointed towards the house of Deshraj and disclosed that the man having moustaches lifted her Ghaghra. When they reached at the house of Ishwar, his father met who advised them to compromise the matter and also tendered apology. In the last the witness has stated that he went to Raghuveer Havaldar, who narrated entire story to him. Thereafter he, his mother and Lala Ram went to the place of occurrence and found some damaged cotton plants and also broken pieces of glass bangles. In his cross-examination the witness has denied that there was any dispute with Deshraj regarding flow of water. 11. PW.8 prosecutrix in her statement has disclosed the sequence of events of offence by signs and has also been able to reply by signs, the questions put to her by the defence counsel. She has categorically stated that when she was going to the field both the appellants caught hold her, made her to fall on earth and committed rape. 12. PW.12 Shri Ganesh Kumar, who at the relevant time was posted as Judicial Magistrate Behror on the request of the police conducted the test identification parade on 28.8.1998 at Sub-Jail Behror. As per the statement of this witness six other persons of similar physique were mixed with the appellants. 12. PW.12 Shri Ganesh Kumar, who at the relevant time was posted as Judicial Magistrate Behror on the request of the police conducted the test identification parade on 28.8.1998 at Sub-Jail Behror. As per the statement of this witness six other persons of similar physique were mixed with the appellants. The prosecutrix immediately identified both the appellants by touching them. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the statement of the prosecutrix who happens to be deaf and dumb recorded without the assistance of an Expert or a person familiar with the mode of her conveying ideas to others in day to day life, could not have been used or acted upon to base the conviction of the appellants. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on Mala Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 RCC 317 . 14. To appreciate the above argument, it would be profitable to make reference of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks about the evidence of dumb witnesses that a witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible, as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral evidence. Thus, a reference to Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act would show that there is no mandate of law that before recording statement of dumb witness the court should take assistance of an expert in recording statement of such witness. The most natural and effluent mode of communication by a dumb person is the signs and the court recording statement must keep a record of signs and not the interpretations of signs. In this view of matter, I am of the opinion that the statement of all deaf and dumb witness recorded on the basis of replies given by signs can be acted upon as oral evidence. 15. Having scanned the evidence of prosecutrix, it must be held that the prosecutrix understood the questions put to her by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel by signs or gesture and in turn she replied the questions by signs which had a definite meaning. 15. Having scanned the evidence of prosecutrix, it must be held that the prosecutrix understood the questions put to her by learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel by signs or gesture and in turn she replied the questions by signs which had a definite meaning. The prosecutrix has been cross-examined at a length and she replied each and every question by signs and the trial court correctly recorded her statement. Therefore, there is no reason to discard her testimony solely on the basis of non-assistance by an expert in recording her statement. 16. Testimony of prosecutrix could be appreciated on the basis of broad probabilities like testimony of any other witness and conviction can be based solely on such testimony provided the evidence of prosecutrix inspired confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. It is reasonable to assume that no woman would implicate a person in sexual offence as honour and prestige of that woman also would be at stake. Corroboration is a not a sine qua non for conviction in rape cases. 17. That apart, PW.3 Bhagwati, mother of the prosecutrix and PW.4 Satyapal, real brother of the prosecutrix, can be said to be well conversant with the signs of prosecutrix, have supported the version of the prosecutrix. Evidently, thus, the conviction of the appellants is not based only on the sole testimony of prosecutrix her testimony stands fully corroborated and supported by the testimony of both these witnesses. Even the prosecutrix has correctly identified the appellants in test identification parade and in court as rapists. Evidence of prosecutrix taken as a whole strikes the judicial mind of the court as probable. 18. The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that medical officer, who examined the person of the prosecutrix did not find any injury either on her private parts or on her body, therefore, as per the counsel for the appellants, the medical evidence does not conclusively suggest that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual assault and that she was ravished. 19. I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments. The evidence on record indicates that the prosecutrix is a married lady and mother of three children and, therefore, accustomed to sexual intercourse. When she was going to her fields, the appellants finding her alone caught hold of her, made her to fall on the ground and committed rape. 19. I have given my anxious consideration to the above arguments. The evidence on record indicates that the prosecutrix is a married lady and mother of three children and, therefore, accustomed to sexual intercourse. When she was going to her fields, the appellants finding her alone caught hold of her, made her to fall on the ground and committed rape. The prosecutrix in such a situation may not put resistance against the perpetrators of the crime who were able bodied youth bustling with energy and who were determined to fulfill their lust. Therefore, absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not necessarily an evidence of falsity of the allegation on the part of the prosecutrix. The presence of injuries on the person of prosecutrix is not sine qua non to prove the charge of rape. The testimony of the prosecutrix, her mother, independent witness Raghuveer and her brother Satpal as well as the site plan lend support to the narration of the incident by prosecutrix. Raghuveer though has been declared hostile but to this extent he supported the prosecution story that he saw Ishwar running from the place of incident and he also saw the victim lady crying and her clothes smeared with soil. Just after the incident, the victim lady went to her mother and by signs and gesture narrated the incident to her mother and when her brother came to the house she also narrated the incident to her brother. Thereafter, she along with her brother lodged report of the incident. At the place of incident pieces of broken glass bangles of the prosecutrix were found and collected by the investigating officer vide Ex.P.1. The investigating officer also found some plants of cotton in broken and damaged condition. The categorical deposition of the prosecutrix that she was forcefully subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellants without her consent has to be believed as there is no other material available to draw any interference as to her consent or to conclude that the testimony of the prosecutrix is unnatural or improbable. In my considered view, the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix also shows that she was very much resistant to the sexual onslaught on her. She came to her mother immediately and told the entire incident by signs as to how the was ravished by the appellants. 20. In my considered view, the subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix also shows that she was very much resistant to the sexual onslaught on her. She came to her mother immediately and told the entire incident by signs as to how the was ravished by the appellants. 20. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. They have also examined DW1 Prabhati Lal, DW2 Ram Kishore and DW.3 Sultan. DW2, Ram Kishore has been examined to prove alibi of Deshraj. Suffice it to say that even the appellant Deshraj in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed that he was not in the village or at the place of incident on the date and time of incident. No such suggestion was made to the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the defence of alibi appears to be afterthought. The witnesses examined in defence have tried to show enmity on some petty matter with the family of prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was a married lady and had come about 20 days prior to the incident to her parents to look after her brother's wife who was pregnant and to deliver a child. Therefore, there was no occasion for her to implicate the appellants in a false rape case. In view of this, the defence that the appellants were falsely implicated has no legs to stand. 21. Concluded thus, the conviction of the appellants does not call for interference. In my considered view the trial court has appreciated the evidence in due perspective while arriving at a conclusion of guilt. 22. In the result, both the appeals failed and are hereby dismissed. Their conviction under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed are maintained.Appeal dismissed. *******