Judgment Hari Shankar Prasad, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.6.1999 and Order of sentence dated 3.7.1999 passed in Sessions Case No. 7/99/6/99 whereby and where- under the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda held the appellants guilty under Section 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for ten years each. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that Ranjita Murmu, the informant, gave a fardbeyan on 11.9.1998 at 15.45 hrs. before S.I. A.N. Singh, Officer-in-charge of Lalmatia police station to the effect that on 8.9.1998 (Tuesday) she had gone to village Ghorichak to witness fair along with girls of her village and after watching fair, she was returing with the girls, namely, Chhanji Soren, Talamai Hembram, Didi Saren and Paku Soren. At about 6.30 PM as soon as she reached with them near village Hatbandha Pokhar, then Babahab Soren, Marang Soren, Talakora Soren and Ramesh Soren who were sitting there, caught her and lifted her and threatened the other girls not to disclose the matter in the village to anyone; otherwise they will be done away with. She raised alarm, then a handkerchief was thrust in her mouth and thereafter Baburam Hansda, Setlal Hansda, Ganga Soren, Chunda Soren, Mannu Soren, Juru Soren, Dimbu Soren, Gulthu Soren Chhanji Soren, Betu Tudu, Ram Tudu and Kirani Marandi arrived there. First of all, Babahab threw her on the ground and committed rape on her forcibly while two persons caught her hands. Thereafter everyone one by one committed rape on her and she fell unconscious, then all considering her to be dead left her and fled away. Next day, her mother came there after searching her here and there and reached there and took her home in senseless condition where she was unable to speak anything. When she regained sense, then she narrated about the occurrence to her mother and sister. She never used to talk to any boy of her village whereupon Babahab Soren, Talakaura Soren, Marang Saren and Ramesh Soren used to threaten her from before that one day they will teach her lesson. One of them even gave a letter to her which she had torn. On this piece of fardbeyan, a case under Sections 366A and 376 (g) IPC was registered and I.O. after investigation submitted charge sheet. One of them even gave a letter to her which she had torn. On this piece of fardbeyan, a case under Sections 366A and 376 (g) IPC was registered and I.O. after investigation submitted charge sheet. Cognizance in the case was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda recorded the evidence of witnesses-both oral and documentary-and came to a finding and held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 3. Prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses in this case. PW1 is Paku Soren, PW2 is Sanodi Soren, PW3 is Sore Ram Hansda, PW4 is Babuji Hansda, PW5 is Bitimai Soren. PWs 1,2,3,4 and.5 have been declared hostile. PW6 is Dr. Bindevi Jha, PW7 is Ranjita Murmu, she is informant of the case. PW8 is Tala Tudu, PW9 is Sanji Soren @ Chhanji, PW 10 is Talamai Murmu, PW11 is Talamai Hansda, PW12 is Baba Kumar Soren, he is I.O. of the case and PW 13 is Shambhunath Tiwari, who is another I.O. 4. PW6 is the doctor who has examined the victim girl (PW7). She has stated that on 12.9.1998 she was deputed at Godda Sadar Hospital and a board was constituted consisting of Dr. Prabha Rani Prasad, Dr. Lilly Singh and herself and Ranjita Murmu (PW7) was examined on 12.9.1998 at 9.00 AM and following things were found. 1. Her height was 4'x9', wt-38 K.G. Teeth upper Jaw 8+7 and lower jaw 8-16 permanent. Axillary hair absent. Breast firm spherical with pointed nipple. 2. External injuries-Several irregular longitudinal scratches with dark brown crust formation on the back centrally placed in bulk and spreaded over an area 4" transversely and 3" longitudinally. A diagram is shown. Nature-simple. Age of injuries-within 4 to 5 days. 3. The victim complained of pain in lower abdomen and her private part for that she was admitted in hospital vide indoor Registration no. 1331 dated 11.9.98 at 8.45 PM and treatment was given. 4. Internal examination : Wearing a valval pad of marking clothes with fresh blood stain on it. Pubic hair very scanty black hairs. 5. Internal Injuries. i) 1/8" tear in posterior commissar near couchette. ii) Two healed tears at 10 O'clock and 3 O' clock position on hymen. Blood oozing through vaginal onfica? (6) Vaeginal orifice admit 2 fingers veterain and verted hypo plasic survice small usually porous. Pubic hair very scanty black hairs. 5. Internal Injuries. i) 1/8" tear in posterior commissar near couchette. ii) Two healed tears at 10 O'clock and 3 O' clock position on hymen. Blood oozing through vaginal onfica? (6) Vaeginal orifice admit 2 fingers veterain and verted hypo plasic survice small usually porous. (7) Specular Examination : Blood coming through mansherubia-M.H. last month period 12.9.98 acording to statement. (8) Microscopic examination. Spermatozoa not found R.B.C. 3+++, epithelial cell++ M/1- One black mole two inches lateral from left corner of mouth. (9) Possibility of sexual intercourse can not be ruled out because hymen was found torn. 5. PW7 is the most important witness. She is the informant of the case as well as victim girl. According to this witness, on Tuesday at about 6.30 PM she was coming from Ghorichak Mela with. girls, namely, Chhanji Saren, Pakku Soren, Didi Soren, Talamai Hembram, Marangmai• Hansda and Chhanji Marandi, Sanati Soren and Bitimay Soren. When she reached near Hetbandha Pokhar, Babahab Saren, Ramesh Soren and Marang Soren dragged her and threatened the other girls. Thereafter Babu Ram Hansda, Setlal Hansda, Ganga Soren, Dhimba Soren, Beta Tudu, Ram Tudu, Chhanji Soren, Ram Kunda Soren, Gultha Soren, Kirani Soren and Munu Soren also went there. They took her below Hetbandha Hill. According to this witness, after commission of rape by them she became senseless and in the night she was left in that place. In the next morning, she regained sense and her mother and sister came and took her to the house, then she went to police station and gave her statement. She says that she was surrounded by three persons and they threatened the other girls. According to this witness, she became senseless after 10 to 12 persons committed rape on her. They committed rape on her upto 12-30 AM. They were all 16 in numbers. 6. PWs 8 and 9 have been declared hostile. 7. PW 10 is the sister of the informant. According to this witness, her sister (PW7) had gone to see Ghorichak Mela along with other girls. Bitimai Soren informed her in the night at about 7.30 PM that her sister Ranjita Murmu (PW7) had been kidnapped by 16 boys. She has also stated that Bitimai had disclosed the names of some persons. According to this witness, her sister (PW7) had gone to see Ghorichak Mela along with other girls. Bitimai Soren informed her in the night at about 7.30 PM that her sister Ranjita Murmu (PW7) had been kidnapped by 16 boys. She has also stated that Bitimai had disclosed the names of some persons. She along with her mother and Bitimai Soren went in search of her sister, but she did not get trace of her sister and in the next morning, she along with her mother and Bitimai Soren went towards hill and found her sister lying by the side of Hetbandha hill. She was in semi-conscious state and she was unable to talk. She took her to the house and thereafter her sister narrated the occurrence and thereafter she was taken to the police station because she was unable to walk. She says that her sister had disclosed names of persons who had committed rape on her. 8. PW 11 is mother of the victim girl (PW7) and she has also supported the occurrence. 9. PW 12 is I.O. of the case. He says that statement of PW7 was recorded by Amod Narain Singh on 11.9.1998 and informant and Talamai Murmu had signed on it. Fardbeyan is Ext.-3. He took up investigation and he recorded the statement of Ranjita Murmu and sent her for treatment. Thereafter he recorded statement of Talamai Murmu and then he went to the place of occurrence as pointed by the informant. 10. PW 13 is another I.O. of the case. According to this witness, he was given charge of the case on 25.10.1998 and on 5.11.1998 he received injury report. He recorded statements of some of the witnesses. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants was of the view that it is quite impossible that as many as 16 persons will commit rape on a girl and that will not cause serious injury on her body as well as on her private part. It was further pointed out that the girls, who had gone with the victim girl (PW7), did not support the occurrence and further that all those who have supported the case, are interested ones. Another plea that has been taken is that the FI R was lodged after a lot of delay. Further that not a single independent witness has supported the case. 12. Another plea that has been taken is that the FI R was lodged after a lot of delay. Further that not a single independent witness has supported the case. 12. Out of 13 witnesses, PWs 12 and 13 besides PW6 being official witness, and PWs 8 and 9 besides PWs 1,2,3,4 and 5 have not supported the prosecution case and, thus, as many as 7 witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. But PW7 has specifically named the persons who have committed rape on her one by one. Further, a team of doctors was constituted in which PW6 was also a member and view of the doctors that rape by so many persons is not possible and if rape has been committed by so many persons, in the situation some injuries must have been found on the body as well as on the private part of the victim girl (PW7), but the doctor (PW6) has found her hymen torn and she is of the view that possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. So, the evidence of PW7 is also supported by the medical evidence and besides that, PWs 10 and 11 have also supported the very fact that they had gone in search of PW7 when she did not return in the evening and next day, they found her (PW7) lying senseless on the hill. In a case of rape evidence of prosecutrix, if reliable, is sufficient to convict the accused persons, but when evidence of victim girl is supported by the medical evidence, then it becomes almost clear that rape has been committed. In the instant case, no such plea of false implication on any such ground, either on enmity or land dispute, has been brought on record; but merely because this PW7 was not on talking terms with the boys of her village and they considered her to be an arrogant girl and some of them wanted to teach lesson to her of being arrogant and that is why this occurrence has taken place and no other girls who were returning with this PW7 have come out to support the case because there must have some differences over this matter. Hence, in any view of the matter, prosecution as against the appellants stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Hence, in any view of the matter, prosecution as against the appellants stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each and they are said to be lodged in jail right from second half of 1998 and till now, they are in custody and, thus, they have remained in custody in between five and six years and all of them are aged below 22 years. Although, nature of crime is serious one not because of the fact that rape has been committed on a girl, but because of the fact that so many persons in a group committed rape on a girl who was aged below 17 years. Still considering the fact that they have remained in custody in between five to six years and also the fact that they are aged below 22 years, the period of sentence of ten years R.I. is reduced to eight year~ R.I. With the modification in the period of sentence, this appeal is dismissed.