Judgment BRAHME P.S., J.: - The appellants-accused were convicted by the Special Judge at Achalpur in Special Case No. 11 of 1994 by the judgment and order dated 27th October, 1999 for the offences under sections 342, 376(2)(a) and 376(2)(g) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. They have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence. 2. Prosecution against the appellants-accused and one Shriram Patil (since deceased), who was then incharge Police Sub-Inspector at Police Station, Chikhaldara, arises out of wrongful confinement of prosecutrix Mumbai (P.W. 7) and commission of rape on her by them on the night intervening 17th and 18th August, 1991 in Police Outpost at Kathumbh and on the night between 18th and 19th August, 1991 in the premises of Police Station, Chikhaldara appellant Ramdas s/o Mahadeo Shrirao (appellant No. 1), appellant Suresh s/o. Namdeo Mahulkar (appellant No. 2) and appellant Ramdas Gadekar (appellant No. 5) were, at the relevant time, attached to Police Station, Chikhaldara working under P.S.I. Shriram Patil-appellant (since deceased). Appellant Tunebazkhan s/o . Darazkhan (appellant No. 3) was resident of Kathumbh and was well acquainted with the police staff attached to the Police Station, Chikhaldara including Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur. One person named Shaligram, who is resident of village Toranwadi. Tq. Chikhaldara, had dispute with Sukhdeo (P.W. 8), the husband of prosecutrix Mumbai, over an agricultural land and for that, Shaligram had lodged report at Police Station, Chikhaldara. Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur, accompanied by Shaligram, in pursuance of the report filed at the Police Station by the later, visited the house of Munnibai to inquire with Sukhdeo. Having come to her place, Shaligram and Mohansing Thakur inquired with prosecutrix Munnibai as to where her husband was and when she told them that her husband had gone to the field, Shaligram said to Mohansing Thakur that Munnibai was getting talkative and that she should be silenced. Police H.C. Mohansing was, at that time, in drunken state. After having entered the house of Munnibai, he went near Munnibai and caught hold of her land and tried to grapple with her. Munnibai raised shouts and on gearing her shouts, her father-in-law Tanu Darshimbhe (P.W. 1) rushed inside the house to rescue Munnibai. Police H.C. Mohansing was, at that time, in drunken state. After having entered the house of Munnibai, he went near Munnibai and caught hold of her land and tried to grapple with her. Munnibai raised shouts and on gearing her shouts, her father-in-law Tanu Darshimbhe (P.W. 1) rushed inside the house to rescue Munnibai. As Mohansing resisted and was not prepared to leave the house, Tanu tied him with a rope in the house, while Shaligram ran away from the house. Shaligram went to Police Station, Chikhaldara reporting therein that Mohansing Thakur was confined in the house. 3. Witness Tanu, on that night, made efforts to see the Forest Officers to make report on wireless to the concerned Police Station about the outracious act of grappling and outraging modesty of his daughter-in-law Munnibai. But none helped him. As against that, Shaligram having informed police that Mohansing Thakur was confined in the house, police came to his rescue and thus, he was released from the house. He then went to the Police Station and lodged the report and the offence was registered against the prosecutrix Munnibai, Tanu, Sukhdeo and Shamli (P.W. 2), the mother-in-law of Munnibai and the Police Officers including P.S.I. Patil, on the next day evening, visited the house of Munnibai. The other Police Officers who accompanied P.S.I. Patil were Police Constables Ramdas (appellant No. 1), Police Constable Suresh Mahulkar (appellant No. 2) and Police Constable Ramchandra Gadekar (appellant No. 4). Appellant No. 3 not clear Tunebazkhan had also accompanied them to the house of Munnibai. As soon as police party ended by P.S.I. Patil reached the house of Munnibai, Shamli-mother -in-law of Munnibai, sensing fear of apprehension by the police, ran away taking with her one year old sucking child of Munnibai. Victim Munnibai alone was in the house and the Police Officers barged into the house and caught hold of Munnibai literally by litting her in the jeep and brought to police outpost, Kathumbh without paying heed to her request to release her to find out her sucking child. The Police Officer did not budge. One of the officers is alleged to have slapped her. It is alleged that after she was locked in one of the rooms of police outpost Kathumbh at that night, the police one by one committed rape on her. The Police Officer did not budge. One of the officers is alleged to have slapped her. It is alleged that after she was locked in one of the rooms of police outpost Kathumbh at that night, the police one by one committed rape on her. The appellant Tunebazkhan was threatening her to keep quiet when other police were having were sexual intercourse with her against her consent. 4. On the next day morning, Sukhdeo-husband of prosecutrix, in his bid to search Munnibai, came to the police outpost at Kathumbh. But before he could come to her rescue, the Police Officers best him and he was also continued and at night, both Munnibai and Sukhdeo were removed to Police Station, Chikhaldara and were kept in the lock up. On the next day morning, both were taken to Achalpur Court and were produced before the Court. They were released on bail. Tanu (P.W. 1) with some villages, with the assistance of an Advocate, arranged for releasing them on bail. So from Achalpur, the victim Munnibai and her husband Sukhdeo came along with Tanu to their village. It was revealed to Tanu on their way by Sukhdeo that, on the earlier night, the Police Officers committed rape on Munnibai at Police Station, Chikhaldara. It is claimed by Munnibai that when she was brought to Achalpur Court with her husband from Police Station, Chikhaldara, she disclosed to her husband that on the earlier night Police Officers, in presence of appellant Tunebazkhan, committed rape on her. In the meantime, Tanu and his wife Shamli came to be arrested by police in pursuance of the report lodged by Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur vide Crime No. 37 of 1991. Due to fear, neither Tanu not Munnibai and her husband dated to make report to police about the atrocious act of assault and outraging modesty and committing rape on Munnibai. 5. After sometime, one Mishrilal s/o. Jiwanlal Zarkhande (P.W. 3) r/o. village Bamadehi, Tq. Chikhaldara, who was then working as Press Reporter for Daily "LOKMAT", learned from the villagers about the atrocities by the Police Officers including Police Head Constable Thakur and also about report lodged by Mohansing Thakur against Munnibai and others. He went to village Toranwadi and met Tanu and others. Chikhaldara, who was then working as Press Reporter for Daily "LOKMAT", learned from the villagers about the atrocities by the Police Officers including Police Head Constable Thakur and also about report lodged by Mohansing Thakur against Munnibai and others. He went to village Toranwadi and met Tanu and others. They disclosed him what was happened to them and how they were subjected to cruelty even to the extent of outraging modesty and committing rape on Munnibai by the Police Officers. Witness Mishrilal came to Amravati and met his district representative and told him the entire incident that had occurred resulting into barbaric atrocious activities of Police Officers vis-a-vis members of tribal community. As requested, one day tanu, his wife Shalini and Munnibai went to Amravati and as narrated by Munnibai, witness Mishrilal prepared the written report which was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Amravati on 30-8-1991. That report was forwarded to Police Station, Gadge Nagar where the offence vide Crime No. of 1991 came to be registered vide F.I.R. (Exh. 65) which was drawn on the basis of the report (Exh. 52) P.S.I. Abhade, who was predecessor of P.S.I. Tawar, registered the offence at Crime No. 0 of 1991 under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and victim Munnibai and her husband were referred to the Medical Officer for examination and treatment P.S.I. Tawar during the course of conducting investigation seized the articles under seizure memo dt. 30-8-1991 vide Exh. 110. He also seized the clothes of prosecutrix Munnibai under seizure memo Exh. 112. He then brought prosecutrix Munnibai to Police Station, Chikhaldara and handed over papers of investigation including the report on the basis of which, the offence vide Crime No. 37 of 1991 was registered. He also lodged F.I.R. Exh. 113. He then collected all the papers from Police Station, Chikhaldara and handed over them to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur, Sub-Division to Mr. Pande (P.W. 20), who carried out further investigation in the matter. 6. He arrested appellants Suresh, Ramdas and Tunebazkhan and got them examined by the Medical Officer, seized their clothes and certain articles discovered by them. After having recorded the statements of witnesses including prosecutrix Munnibai, he arranged for holding identification parade by Special Judicial Magistrate Sahebrao Kharode (P.W. 9), who held identification parade on 18-9-1991 at central prison, Amravati, where the prosecutrix Munnibai identified appellants Police Constables Ramdas and Suresh. After having recorded the statements of witnesses including prosecutrix Munnibai, he arranged for holding identification parade by Special Judicial Magistrate Sahebrao Kharode (P.W. 9), who held identification parade on 18-9-1991 at central prison, Amravati, where the prosecutrix Munnibai identified appellants Police Constables Ramdas and Suresh. Appellant Ramchandra Gadekar was found absconding and therefore, after completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants Ramdas, Suresh and Tunebazkhan, in that P.S.I. Patil was also added so accused, who later on died. Appellant Ramchandra Gadekar, who was absconding till the time the charge-sheet was filed, on 24-12-1991 surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur on 4-1-1992. After he was remanded to police custody, he was referred for examination to the hospital. Police Officer arranged for the search of the house of accused Ramchandra on 1-1-1992, during which P.S.I. Katake seized one note book and on 2-1-1992 a pant of appellant Ramchandra was seized from his house. The property seized was sent to the Chemical Analyser, Police Officer Pande (P.W. 20) on 14-1-1992 arranged for identification parade of appellant-accused Ramchandra, which was conducted by Special Judicial Magistrate Kharode (P.W. 9) in the premises of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate where the victim Munnibai identified appellant Ramchandra as the person who committed rape on her at police outpost, Kathumbh. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed against appellant Ramchandra and the case was committed the Court of Special Judge, Achalpur. When the matter was pending trial, appellant Shriram Patil died and therefore, by an order 4-1-1994, the Special Judge directed that the prosecution against said accused P.S.I. Patil (deceased) shall stand abated. 7. Before the Special Judge when the appellants appeared, the charge (Exh. 38) was framed by the learned Special Judge and it was read over and explained to the appellants, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The appellants contended that they have been falsely implicated because of prosecution against the prosecutrix and others at the instance of Police Constable Mohansing Thakur. 8. At the trial, prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses including Tanu (P.W. 1) and Shamli (P.W. 2) parents-in-law of prosecutrix Munnibai (P.W. 7), Sukhdeo (P.W. 8), Mishrilal Zarkhande (P.W. 3), Raghunath Yeole (P.W. 5)- who acted as a panch witness and in whose presence witness Sahebrao Kharode, the Special Judicial Magistrate conducted identification parade to identify accused Ramchandra, Ramdas and Suresh by Munnibai, Dr. Asha Thakur (P.W. 12) who was Medical Officer attached to the general hospital, Amravati who examined the prosecutrix Munnibai and issued certificate Exh. 84, Dr. Raj Agrawal (P.W. 13) who was the Medical Officer at general hospital, Amravati who examined witnesses Tanu and Sukhdeo and issued injury certificates vide Exhs. 93 and 94, Police Officer P.S.I. Tawan (P.W. 18) and Investigating Officer Pande (P.W. 20 ). Prosecution also relied upon certain contemporious documents such as discovery statement, spot panchanama, memorandum of proceedings of identification parade conducted by the Special Judicial Magistrate Sahebrao Kharode. The learned Special Judge, accepting the evidence of prosecution and her father-in-law Tanu, husband Sukhdeo and mother-in-law Shamli coupled with the report (Exh. 52) and the factum of identification of appellants by the prosecutrix Munnibai, which inspired confidence found that the prosecutrix was, after having brought her to the Police Outpost, Kathumbh was detained on the night between 17th and 18th August, 1991 and the Police Officers namely appellants Ramchandra, Ramdar and Suresh, with the assistance of appellant Tunebazkhan, who constantly gave threats to the prosecutrix, committed rape on her against her consent and in the helpless situation she was placed and also rape was committed on her at Police Station, Chikhaldara on the next day night between 18th and 19th August, 1991. The trial Court, accordingly, found the appellants guilty for the offences under sections 342, 376(2)(a) and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, sentenced them as stated earlier, Hence, this appeal. 9. With the existence of Mr. Dharmadhakari, learned Counsel for the appellants-accused and Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, I have gone through the judgment and evidence on the record including the deposition of witnesses, that was relevant for the parties on considering the merits of prosecution case. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, I feel it necessary to take note of the few facts which gave rise to prosecution against the appellants. 10. One Shaligram, who is resident of village Toranwadi, had dispute with Sukhdeo over an agricultural land and for that, he had lodged report at Police Station, Chikhaldara and to make inquiry into that, Police Head Constable Mohansing, who was attached to the Police Station, Chikhaldara, had come to the house of Sukhdeo accompanied by Shaligram. 10. One Shaligram, who is resident of village Toranwadi, had dispute with Sukhdeo over an agricultural land and for that, he had lodged report at Police Station, Chikhaldara and to make inquiry into that, Police Head Constable Mohansing, who was attached to the Police Station, Chikhaldara, had come to the house of Sukhdeo accompanied by Shaligram. It is borne out on the evidence on record and it is also not disputed that as Sukhdeo was not at house, Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur alongwith Shaligram in the evening of that day, entered the house and went towards Munnibai, who disclosed that her husband Sukhdeo had gone to the field. It appears that as Shaligram and Mohansing were not satisfied with what was replied, Shaligram told Mohansing Thakur that Munnibai was becoming talkative and that she should be silenced, Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur being under the influence of liquor at that time, at once approached near the victim Munnabai and caught hold her hand and tried to grapple with her thereby outraging her modesty. Victim Munnabai reacted sharply to the advances of Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur by raising shouts and it was Tanu who was outside the house, who on learning her shouts, came inside the house and tried to release Munnibai from the clutches of Mohansing and to drive him out of the house. At that time, sensing something untoward, Shaligram ran away. It is a matter of record that as Mohansing was not prepared to leave his house, Tanu tied him by rope in the house and he went to make report to the Police Station on that night. At that time, sensing something untoward, Shaligram ran away. It is a matter of record that as Mohansing was not prepared to leave his house, Tanu tied him by rope in the house and he went to make report to the Police Station on that night. He tried, by contacting Police Officer, to send wireless message to the Police Station or Outpost informing the incident that has taken place in which the Police Officer Mohansing tried to outrage modesty of Mumbai by entering in their house under the pretext of making inquiry into the report lodged by Shaligram against Sukhdeo, Shaligram, who ran away from there, went to the Police Station and reported that Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur was confined in the house by Tanu, in pursuance of that report by Shaligram, Police got released Mohansing Thakur, who after arriving at the Police Station lodged report and it was on the evening of 17th August, 1999 that the team of Police Officers headed by P.S.I. Patil appellant (since deceased) came to the house of Tanu. 11. It is a matter of record that, on the relevant day except prosecutrix Munnibai none was at home. Shamli mother-in-law of Munnibai, who was at home, sensing that Police Officers have come, ran away taking with her Munnibai's one year old child. The Police Officers with whom appellant Tunebazkhan had accompanied, forced victim Munnibai to sit in the jeep and brought her at Police Outpost, Kathumbh, where she was locked in the room for whole night. It is alleged by prosecution that on that night the Police Officer, who had brought the victim Munnibai from her house, committed sexual assault on her in the Outpost. In that also, according to the prosecution, actual sexual assault and rape was committed by appellants Ramdas, Ramchandra and Suresh while appellant Tunebazkhan was constantly putting her under threats not to raise shouts. The allegations of sexual assault and rape committed by the appellants on the prosecutrix in the Police Station are controverted by the appellants. But, at the same time, the allegation that the appellants were the Police Officers accompanied by the appellant Tunebazkhan, who brought Munnabai from her house to Police Outpost on that right and kept her in the room on that night has not been controverted by the defence. But, at the same time, the allegation that the appellants were the Police Officers accompanied by the appellant Tunebazkhan, who brought Munnabai from her house to Police Outpost on that right and kept her in the room on that night has not been controverted by the defence. It is further a matter of record that, on the next day in the morning Sukhdeo, husband of prosecutrix came to the outpost and he was also confined and then both of them were brought to Police Station, Chikhaldaran and kept on that night in the Outpost and on the next day, they were produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur, Presence of Police Officers at the Police Outpost on that night and at the Police Station, Chikhaldara on the other day night where prosecutrix Munnibai and her husband Sukhdeo were locked, has been brought out by the prosecution through the evidence on record. Though the police have come out with the defence of denial, from the tenor of cross-examination of witnesses, it is found that presence of Police Officers Ramdas, Suresh and Ramchandra has been not specifically controverted. Rather their presence is admitted at both places on those nights. Admittedly, in the written (Exh. 52) which was prepared by witness Mishrilal at Amravati, though at a belated stage, in which the factum of commission of rape on the prosecutrix at Outpost, Kuthumbh has been specifically mentioned, names of Police Officers who committed rape have not been disclosed. The prosecutrix in her evidence before the Court has disclosed their names. Amongst the appellants, the appellant Tunebazkhan was known to the prosecutrix and her husband and her father-in-law. That is evident from the evidence of witnesses including Tanu. But the fact remains that the Police Officers namely the appellants Ramchandra, Ramesh and Suresh were not known to the prosecutrix and she has candidly stated before the Court that prior to the incident she was not knowing these appellants, much less their names. That is why their names have not been disclosed in the report (Exh. 52). It is a matter of record that the First Information Report (Exh. 65) was drawn on the basis of this report (Exh. 52) and therefore, even in that First Information Report, the names of the appellants are not disclosed. 12. It is surprising to note that in the F.I.R. (Exh. 52). It is a matter of record that the First Information Report (Exh. 65) was drawn on the basis of this report (Exh. 52) and therefore, even in that First Information Report, the names of the appellants are not disclosed. 12. It is surprising to note that in the F.I.R. (Exh. 65) in Column No. 4, which was meant for the names and address of the accused the names given are: 1) Shaligram, 2) Constable Thakur r/o. Police Station, Chikhaldara and two others. There is much controversy raised by Mr. Dhamadhikari, learned Counsel for the defence in respect of absence of names of the appellants in the report (Exh. 52), as well as F.I.R. (Exh. 65) as also about inclusion of names of Shaligram and Police Constable Maheshsing Thakur. I will consider the submission made by Mr. Dharmadhikari, Adv., regarding the said controversy in later stage of the judgment while dealing with his submissions. At this juncture, I have to state with emphasis that absence of names of the appellants does not bring about any infirmity in the claim of the prosecution. I and aware that the prosecutrix had, in her evidence, stated that she was knowing the names of the appellants. It is to be said that having regard to the entire evidence of prosecutrix and the prosecution case itself, her statement in that regard in incorrect. It was obviously by mistake that she has stated that and perhaps that has come in her evidence which came to be recorded after about seven years of occurrence that names of the appellants were known to her and she was identified them in the identification parade. If really she was knowing the names of the appellants, in probability, she would have disclosed their names when the report (Exh. 52), was prepared. If we read the text of the report (Exh. 52), it is crystal clear that so far as the culprits who committed rape on her are concerned, the reference is clinclingly to the fact that the Police Officers who had come to her house committed rape on her. That is how, in her evidence before the Court she has given the names of the Police Officers committed rape on her at the Outpost, Kathumbh. That is how, in her evidence before the Court she has given the names of the Police Officers committed rape on her at the Outpost, Kathumbh. By no stretch of imagination, it can be spelt out that she was knowing the appellants and their names when they committed rape on her in the Outpost. In this context, inclusion of the names of Shaligram and Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur in the First Information Report (Exh. 65) in Column No. 4, as stated earlier, does not make the matter suspicious or doubtful. It is obvious that their reference was in connection with what was done to the prosecutrix at the house when Shaligram had accompanied Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur, inclusion of their names in the F.I.R (Exh. 65) obviously nowhere relates to commission of rape on the prosecutrix at the Outpost Kathumbh. That is crystal clear as neither Shaligram nor Mohansing Thakur has been made accused in the prosecution that was initiated on the basis of F.I.R. (Exh. 65). It is nowhere claimed by the prosecutrix Munnibai that Shaligram and Police H.C. Mohansing were in the Police Outpost Kathumbh along with the Police Officers when she was brought from her house. Nonetheless the fact remains that basically she has claimed and stated also in her evidence and also in the report (Exh. 52) that Shaligram and Mohansing had come to her house on the earlier day in the evening in search of house of Sukhdeo, against whom Shaligram had lodged the report and at that time, it was Mohansing who misbehaved with her and also outraged her modesty. The allegations in that regard are certainly made in the report (Exh. 52) as well as F.I.R. (Exh. 65). That explains inclusion of name of Shaligram and Police Constable Thakur in the F.I.R. (Exh. 65). 13. It is a matter of record that separate offence has been registered vide Crime No. 38 of 1991 at Police Station, Chikhaldara against Shaligram and Mohansing Thakur. That has come in the evidence of Investigation Officer Mr. Pande (P.W. 20). He has stated in his evidence that during the course of investigation in Police Station, Chikhaldara in Crime No. 37 of 1991, it was revealed that Constable Thakur has committed an offence of outraging modesty of Munnibai and therefore, he registered separate offence against him vide Crime No. 38 of 1991. Pande (P.W. 20). He has stated in his evidence that during the course of investigation in Police Station, Chikhaldara in Crime No. 37 of 1991, it was revealed that Constable Thakur has committed an offence of outraging modesty of Munnibai and therefore, he registered separate offence against him vide Crime No. 38 of 1991. It is, therefore, clear that as it was incorporated about the incident that took place when Shaligram and Mohansing Thakur visited the house of Tanu in the night when Munnibai was in the house, in the report (Exh. 52), which was lodged at Police Station, Gadge Nagar and the First Information Report (Exh. 65) was drawn on the basis of that report and in fact, that report in included in the First Information Report (Exh. 65), the names of Shaligram and Police Constable Mohansing Thakur appears in the F.I.R. in Column No. 4. The sum and substance of the discussion is that identity of the appellants Ramdas, Ramchandra and Suresh as the culprits who committed rape on Munnibai was on the basis of disclosure made by the prosecutrix that the Police Officers who visited their house and brought her to the Police Outpost committed rape on her, it was not on the basis of names of the appellants, which were later on disclosed after they were arrested. 14. Involvement of the appellants-accused in commission of rape on the prosecutrix is established by the prosecution on the basis of the evidence of prosecutrix Munnibai. The trial Court has accepted her evidence as her evidence was found to be truthful. As stated earlier, the Special Judicial Magistrate Sahebrao Kharode, as required by the Investigation Officer, conducted identification parade for accused Ramdas and Suresh at Central Prison, Amravati and in the premises of Court at Achalpur for accused Ramchandra Gadekar and in his evidence, he has emphatically stated that the appellants were identified by the victim as the persons who committed rape on her. The trial Court has accepted his evidence. The evidence as to identification of the appellants is again corroborated by the evidence of witness Raghunath Yeola (P.W. 5) who acted as one of the panchas and in whose presence, witness Munnibai identified, in the first instance, the appellants Ramdas and Suresh and later on, appellant Ramchandra, at the time of identification parade which was held in the Court premises at Achalpur. The evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate Sahebrao Kharode and that of witness Raghunath Yeola as to identification parade complied with that of evidence of Munnibai are being lent assurance by the memorandum for identification (Exh. 58) with chart (Exh. 59), as also memorandum Exhs. 69 and 79. So, accepting that evidence rightly, the trial Court found that the appellants were the culprits who committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix. The learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution and other witnesses making doubtful involvement of the appellants in commission of rape on her. I, therefore, propose to deal with the submissions of the learned Counsel one by one. 15. As regards the identification, Mr. Dharmadhikari, Adv., for the appellants-accused submitted that in the first place there is inordinate delay in holding the identification parade since after the arrest of the appellants and the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in holding the identification parade. It is submitted that the evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification parade as well as witness Raghunath, in whose presence the identification parade was held in respect of the appellant Ramchandra, does not inspire confidence and that the material on the record brought by the defence in the cross-examination certainly goes to show that witness Munnibai had an opportunity to see the appellant Ramchandra in particular when identification parade was held in the premises of the Court at Achalpur after appellant Ramchandra was brought by the police. The witnesses have stated in their cross-examination that witness Munnibai was very much present in the Court premises at the time when the appellant was brought by police. It was candid admission of the prosecutrix that she had not seen the appellants prior to the incident of commission of rape nor she was knowing them. Therefore, the claim of identification of the appellants by the prosecutrix when the identification parade was held as late as after four months atleast in respect of appellant Ramchandra, inherently destroys the claim of the prosecutrix to have identified the appellants. 16. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellants accused placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in 1995(Supp. 4) S.C.C. 448, (Satrughana @ Satrughana Parida and others v. State of Orissa)1, In that case, there was about 1½ months' delay in holding identification parade. That delay was not explained. 16. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellants accused placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in 1995(Supp. 4) S.C.C. 448, (Satrughana @ Satrughana Parida and others v. State of Orissa)1, In that case, there was about 1½ months' delay in holding identification parade. That delay was not explained. There was nothing on the record to show that while taking the accused to and producing them before the Court, the identify of the accused was not revealed and the witnesses had at no earlier stage revealed any special identifying features and therefore, it was held that exclusive reliance could not be placed on such identification. It is needless to say that because of these circumstances and the factual position in that case, Apex Court found that unexplained delay in holding identification parade has adversely affected the value of evidence of identification. However, the factual position in the case before hand is not similar, though, to some extent, there was delay in holding identification parade. Apart from that, as pointed out by Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P., the appellant Ramchandra was absconding when the charge-sheet was filed and he surrendered on 24-12-1991 and after the period of remand was over, identification parade for the same was held on 21-1-1992. The evidence of Special Judicial Magistrate Mr. Khorade and panch witness Raghunath (P.W. 5) was found much convincing as to factum of identification of appellants. It is not disputed that the factum of identification has been categorically noted in the memorandum and chart prepared by the Special Judicial Magistrate. In other words, what actually occurred as to identification by witness Munnibai has been reflected in the memorandum as well as the chart which was prepared by the Special Judicial Magistrate when the identification parade was held. Defence could not make out any irregularity in holding identification parade by witness Kharode. 16. Much has been made about the fact that the identification parade for the appellant Ramchandra was held in the Court premises at Achalpur where the appellant was brought handcuffed by the Police. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the defence that witness Raghunath has stated that, in the Court premises when he was there, he saw the prosecutrix Munnibai. The appellant Ramchandra was brought by the police premises. He was handcuffed. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the defence that witness Raghunath has stated that, in the Court premises when he was there, he saw the prosecutrix Munnibai. The appellant Ramchandra was brought by the police premises. He was handcuffed. Therefore, it was vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the defence that prosecutrix Munnibai had ample opportunity to see the appellant accused Ramchandra in the Court premises before the test identification parade was held in the Court premises, It is very difficult to accept this submission having regard to the statement of witness Raghunath in his cross-examination by the defence. Though he has stated of having seen prosecutrix Munnibai in the Court premises and having talked to her in the Court premises, the people who were there in he Court premises were seeing that appellant Ramchandra Gadekar was brought and many persons collected in the premises followed appellant Ramchandra Gadekar. But, he stated that he did not know if Munnibai was also amongst them, it has come in the evidence of the Special Judicial Magistrate Kharode and this witness Raghunath that the identification parade was held in one room in the Court premises and witness Munnibai was called to identify appellant Ramchandra Gadekar in the room, after appellant Ramchandra was made to stand amongst some persons in the row. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the prosecutrix Munnibai was present in the room when appellant Ramchandra was brought by the police. Even as regards the other appellants Ramdas and Suresh, there is nothing on the record to show that the prosecutrix Munnibai had any opportunity to see the appellants before the identification parade was held. Therefore, in the first place, the investigating agency cannot be blamed for delay in holding the identification parade, so far as appellant Ramchandra is concerned, for the reason that admittedly he was absconding. Appellant Ramdas was arrested on 31-8-1991, while appellant Suresh was arrested on 1-1-1991 and the identification parade was held on 18-9-1991. So, there is absolutely no delay. What is pertinent to note is that no question has been put by the defence to both the witness Raghunath and Kharode, Special Judicial Magistrate regarding delay in holding identification parade. Mr. Appellant Ramdas was arrested on 31-8-1991, while appellant Suresh was arrested on 1-1-1991 and the identification parade was held on 18-9-1991. So, there is absolutely no delay. What is pertinent to note is that no question has been put by the defence to both the witness Raghunath and Kharode, Special Judicial Magistrate regarding delay in holding identification parade. Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P. was, therefore, right in his submission that validity of identification parade cannot be challenged on the ground of medullary in the manner of holding it or on the ground of undone delay in holding it when the Magistrate who held parade and the Police Officer who conducted the investigation, have not been cross-examined in that behalf. 18. To support his above submission, learned A.P.P. placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2478, (Bharat Singh v. State of U.P.)2, wherein it is held that the evidence of the Magistrate who held identification parade was not challenged nor he was cross-examined in regard to the manner in which parade was held, therefore, the defence cannot question validity of identification parade on the ground of irregularly in the manner of holding it or on the ground of undue delay in holding it. In the case before hand, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Mandape, A.P.P., defence has not cross-examined the Special Judicial Magistrate in regard to the manner in which the parade was held or the delay, if there was any, in holding the identification parade. 19. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in 2000(5) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)549 : 1999(8) S.C.C. 428 , (Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra)3, in that case, there was delay in holding identification parade. However, prosecution failed to explain satisfactorily the delay. The Apex Court found that the explanation of non-availability of Magistrate in Bombay for over five weeks unsatisfactory. It was also found that the identification parade was not held properly. The Apex Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused in such circumstances. I do not think that the decision of the Apex Court is of any assistance for the appellants. That apart, in the case before hand, as stated earlier, defence could not make out a case that the identification parade was not held properly. The Apex Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused in such circumstances. I do not think that the decision of the Apex Court is of any assistance for the appellants. That apart, in the case before hand, as stated earlier, defence could not make out a case that the identification parade was not held properly. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the submissions or the learned Counsel for the defence that the test identification parade in the case before hand is vitiated on account of not having been conducted properly and also on account of unexplained delay. 20. The learned Counsel for the appellants accused also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in 1997(8) S.C.C. 495 , (Shabad Pulla Reddy and other v. State of A.P.)4, wherein it is held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses who identified the accused in the same parade was unreliable as the identification parade was held about 3 to 4 months after arrest of the accused persons and no explanation was offered for the inordinate delay. In the case before hand, the prosecutrix who identified the appellants in T.I. Parade inspires confidence. The defence could not bring out any infirmity in her evidence or any circumstance as to the factum of identification of the appellants by the witness, it is not revealed in her evidence that she had opportunity to see the appellants before they were brought for identification. Therefore, this decision of the Apex Court is of no assistance to the appellants having regard to the facts and circumstances. 21. Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P. placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in 1996(8) S.C.C. 514 , (Ramanand Ramnath v. State Of M.P.)5, wherein it was found that when the appellant was arrested on 29-8-1981 and test identification parade was held on 14-9-1981, there was no unusual delay in holding identification parade. The position in the case before hand is more or less the same. So for as accused Ramdas and Suresh are concerned, identification parade was held on 18-9-1991, though appellant Ramadas was arrested on 31-8-1991 and appellant Suresh was arrested on 1-9-1991. The delay in holding identification parade could not be said to be unusual. The position in the case before hand is more or less the same. So for as accused Ramdas and Suresh are concerned, identification parade was held on 18-9-1991, though appellant Ramadas was arrested on 31-8-1991 and appellant Suresh was arrested on 1-9-1991. The delay in holding identification parade could not be said to be unusual. That apart, when on the evidence on record no irregularity has been pointed out and that witness Mumbai had no opportunity to see the appellants before identification, the trial Court was right in accepting the evidence of identification of appellants, it was certainty not a case of witness Mumbai identifying the appellants for the first time before the Court at the time of trial. 22 Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellants, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 476, (Surjan and others v. State of M.P.)6, submitted that the version of prosecutrix Mumbai on the factum of rape alleged to have been committed on her by the appellants is not sufficient to held the appellants guilty for the offence of commission of rape. The Apex Court, in this case, observed that solitary testimony of the prosecutrix can be relied on only when it inspires confidence. But on facts it was found that the prosecutrix though she was raped by six persons, did not disclose to any one for 2-3 days. Delay of 10 days in lodging F.I.R. remained unexplained. The report of medical examination was not brought on the record. Therefore, under such circumstances, the Apex Court held that uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix could not be relied upon. The Apex Court observed that while saying so, they are not laying down a proposition of law that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix is not sufficient for entertaining conviction for an offence under section 376 of I.P.C. But then, the evidence of solitary witness who inspires confidence in the judicial mind be of such a nature that the Court must be able to certify that the testimony is only reliable. Therefore, it is needless to say that all depends on the evidential value of the version of prosecutrix who is subjected to sexual intercourse. Therefore, it is needless to say that all depends on the evidential value of the version of prosecutrix who is subjected to sexual intercourse. If on the facts of the case the version of the prosecutrix is found reliable and inspiring confidence, no corroboration is required to her testimony to hold the accused guilty for the offence of committing rape. 23. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that there is inordinate delay of about 12 days in reporting the matter to the police or Court and the prosecutrix had an opportunity to disclose the fact of occurrence of commission of rape on her by the Police Officers at Police Outpost, Kathumbh when she was produced before the Court at Achalpur on the next day. The learned Counsel pointed out that in the report (Exh. 52) which was drawn at the instance of witness Mishrilal (P.W. 3) and also the F.I.R. (Exh. 65) which was drawn on the text of report (Exh. 52), the names of the appellants who are alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix are not disclosed. Disclosure to parents-in-law about occurrence after the prosecutrix was released on bail along with her husband has been falsified through the evidence of Tanu and Shamli. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there is absolutely no medical evidence supporting the claim of prosecutrix on the factum of rape. Admittedly, there was prosecution against prosecutrix Mumbai and other inmates including Tanu, Sukhdeo and Shamli on account of the report lodged by Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur for the being wrongfully confused in the house. It is submitted that these factors and infirmities impairs the credibility of testimony of the prosecutrix and consequently, her evidence does not inspire confidence. 24. Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P. submitted that the prosecution witnesses including prosecutrix Munnibai have disclosed before the Court that because of fear and the appellants being the Police Officers, no report could be lodged against them immediately after the occurrence. Absence of medical evidence by itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix for the reason that the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Asha Thakre (P.W. 12) on 30-8-1991 i.e. after almost 12 days of occurrence, in her evidence, Dr. Absence of medical evidence by itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of the prosecutrix for the reason that the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Asha Thakre (P.W. 12) on 30-8-1991 i.e. after almost 12 days of occurrence, in her evidence, Dr. Asha Thakre has stated that if a lady patient is examined about 12 to 13 day after alleged rape on her, she may not exhibit signs or symptoms of sexual assault and in that event, it is not possible to give definite opinion as to where the patient examined was subjected to sexual violation or not. This opinion given by the Medical Officer Dr. Asha Thakre has not been challenged by the defence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is justification to accept the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Asha Thakre (P.W. 12) regarding absence of positive evidence indicating that the prosecutrix Mumbai was subjected to sexual assault as she was examined after about 12 days of occurrence. 25. In this context, Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P. has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 630 : A.I.R. 1990 S.C 658, (State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain)7, in which case rape was committed by the Police Officer. The Apex Court, while explaining the standard of proof expected by the Court, observed as under: - "A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of 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 the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases 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. 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. Is 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 corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessary depend on the facts and circumstance of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy, if the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. Therefore, ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack understanding must be accepted. 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". The Apex Court further observed as under : "To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of that 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. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. 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. Ours is a conservative society where it concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive society as in some of the Western and European Countries. Our standard of decency and morality in public life is not the same as in those countries. It is, however, unfortunate that respect for womanhood in our country is on the decline and cases of molestation and rape are steadily growing. An Indian woman is now required to suffer indignities in different forms, from lewd remarks to eveleasing, from molestation to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be promoted and protected only if the Courts deal strictly with those who violate the societal norms. 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 a person other than the prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise that ordinarily a woman, mere so a young girl, will not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge concerning her chastity". The Apex Court further observed as under : " But when such a crime is committed by a person in authority, e.g. A Police Officer, the Court's approach should not be the same as in other case involving a private citizen. By our criminal laws wide powers are conferred on Police Officers investigating cognizable offences. The infrastructure of our criminal investigation system recognises and indeed protect the right of a woman to decent and dignified treatment at the hands of the investigating agency. Therefore, Police Officer committing rape on a young girl in her late teens, there is no room for sympathy or pity. The punishment must in such cases be exemplary." The Apex Court further observed that : " If a Police Officer misuses this authority and power while dealing with a young helpless girl aged about 19 or 20 years, her conduct and behaviour must be judged in the backdrop of the situation in which she was placed. The punishment must in such cases be exemplary." The Apex Court further observed that : " If a Police Officer misuses this authority and power while dealing with a young helpless girl aged about 19 or 20 years, her conduct and behaviour must be judged in the backdrop of the situation in which she was placed. The purpose and setting, the person and his position, the misuse or abuse of office and the despair of the victim which led to her surrender are all relevant factors which must be present in the mind of the Court while evaluating the conduct-evidence of the prosecutrix. A person in authority, such as a Police Officer, carries with him the awe of office which is bound to condition the behaviour of his victim. The Court must not be oblivious of the emotional turmoil and the psychological injury that a prosecutrix suffers on being molested or raped. She suffers a tremendous sense of shame and the fear of being shunned by society and her near relatives, including her husband, instead of treating her with compassion and understanding as one who is an injured victim of a crime, she is, more often than not, treated as a sinner and shunned. It must, therefore, be realised that a woman who is subjected to sex-violence would always be slow and hesitant about disclosing her plight. The Court must, therefore, evaluate her evidence in the above background." 26. Now bearing in mind the observations of the Apex Court, if we scrutinise the version of the prosecutrix, we find that the explanation of fear given by her in her evidence before the Court for not disclosing about commission of rape on her by Police Officer till witness Mishrilal obtained report from her is truthful and justified having regard to the situation in which she was places, helpless as she was Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellants has no doubt pointed out that prosecutrix Munnibai is coming from the family of tribal community who had daring and audacity to confine Police Officer Mohansing Thakur in the house. The learned Counsel, on the basis of that, submitted that the explanation for delay is not befitting the conduct and nature of prosecutrix and her intimates. In that context, Mr. The learned Counsel, on the basis of that, submitted that the explanation for delay is not befitting the conduct and nature of prosecutrix and her intimates. In that context, Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P. rightly pointed out that the prosecutrix and her father-in-law Tanu were placed in such a situation that there was no alternative than to confine Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur in the house. He was almost on the verge of outraging modesty of the prosecutrix Munnibai in the house and he was not prepared to leave the house. It is a matter of record that witness Tanu, as has been stated by him in his evidence, tried hard to report the matter to the police at the night itself by contacting the Forest Officers in the village by sending wireless message to the police about the atrocitious act committed by Mohansing Thakur on entering the house and also of the fact of his wrongful confinement in the house while rescuing Munnibai from his clutches. There is absolutely no reason to discard that version of witness Tanu. It is further a matter of record that in respect of that incident of ontraging modesty of Munnibai, on the basis of the report lodged by Munnibai, offence has been registered against Mohansing Thakur vide Crime No. 38 of 1991. If at all Munnibai wanted to implicate Police Officers, name of Police Head Constable Mohansing Thakur would have been included in the report (Exh. 52) by her as the person who committed rape on her. It is pertinent to note that in the report (Exh. 52), there is certainly allegations against Shaligram and Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur of having visited the house of prosecutrix on that night on the pretext of making inquiry of Sukhdeo, the husband of Munnibai on the basis of the report lodged by Shaligram and having ontraged her modesty in the house. If the incident of outraging modesty by Mohansing Thakur is taken into consideration, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix had strong a motive to implicate the appellants because offence has been registered against witnesses Tanu, Shamli, Sukhdeo and Munnibai on the report of Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur, does not stand to the reasons. If the incident of outraging modesty by Mohansing Thakur is taken into consideration, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecutrix had strong a motive to implicate the appellants because offence has been registered against witnesses Tanu, Shamli, Sukhdeo and Munnibai on the report of Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur, does not stand to the reasons. Had there been no incident of outraging modesty of Munnibai, there was some substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution witnesses had a strong motive to implicate the appellants falsely on the charge of committing rape on Munnibai because Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur had lodged report in the Police Station alleging that he was wrongfully confined in the house by the prosecution witnesses including Tanu, Sukhdeo and Munnibai. 27. There is no doubt that there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses Tanu, Munnibai, Shamli and prosecutrix Munnibai as to disclosure of commission of rape on prosecutrix Munnibai after she was released on bail. But one thing is clear, that, as regards commission of rape on her in Police Outpost at Kathumbh, she disclosed to her husband Sukhdeo who visited the Outpost on the next day morning and who was taken to Police Station, Chikhaldara and kept at night and then, on the next day, produced before the Court at Achalpur, in that regard, the versions of prosecutrix and witness Sukhdeo about disclosure are consistent. The discrepancy about disclosure to witnesses Tanu and Shamli was no doubt apparent But then, in my opinion, placed in the situation except the discrepancy in that regard, the basic claim of prosecutrix and witnesses about commission of rape is no way affected or impaired. In no case, the claim of prosecutrix about commission of rape on the her in the Police Outpost, Kathumbh is rendered incredible or lacks any confidence because of disparity in the factum of disclosure. 28. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellants accused vehemently submitted that though prosecutrix in her evidence stated about commission of rape on her at night in Police Station, Chikhaldara, nothing has been stated about it in the report (Exh. 52), much less F.I.R. (Exh. 65) which was drawn on the basis of that report. 28. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellants accused vehemently submitted that though prosecutrix in her evidence stated about commission of rape on her at night in Police Station, Chikhaldara, nothing has been stated about it in the report (Exh. 52), much less F.I.R. (Exh. 65) which was drawn on the basis of that report. The learned Counsel also pointed out that there is grave omission by the trial Court in framing the charge as no charge has been framed so far as accusation of commission of rape in Police Station, Chikhaldaran is concerned. It is no doubt true that in the charge the accusation as to commission of rape on the prosecutrix at Police Station, Chikhaldaran and in the report (Exh. 52) is conspicuously absent. The learned Counsel submitted that this brings out inherent infirmity in the prosecution case and that goes to show that the version of prosecutrix Munnibai about commission of rape on her in the Police Station at Chikhaldara is palpably false and which makes her entire evidence lacking in inspiring confidence. In my considered opinion, omission to frame charge in respect of allegation of rape in Police Station, Chikhaldara by itself cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case or evidence of prosecutrix Munnibai. Mr. Mandape, learned A.P.P. was right in submitting that the objection as to omission to frame charge has to be taken by the accused at the earlier opportunity at the trial Court. In absence of that, at this stage, when no prejudice is caused to the appellants because of omission in framing the charge, the appellants-accused cannot claim benefit of doubt. In this context, I do not agree with the submissions of Mr. Dharmadhakari, learned Counsel for the appellants that as the charge was not framed to that effect, the appellants were deprived of challenging the version of the prosecutrix in respect of the allegations of commission of rape at Police Station, Chikhaldara. The learned Counsel submitted that had the charge been framed, the defence would have succeeded in showing that the allegations in respect thereof and the evidence of prosecutrix in that regard was totally false and unbelievable and in that case, that would have affected materially her evidence in respect of the allegations of rape at Police Outpost, Kathumbh. I do not think that there is any substance in this submission. 29. I do not think that there is any substance in this submission. 29. The prosecution led evidence of prosecutrix in respect of the allegations of commission of rape on her at Police Station, Chikhaldara. It is pertinent to note that the defence has cross-examined the prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix Munnibai in respect of the claim made in the evidence as to commission of rape on her at Police Station, Chikhaldara. That is apparent from the tenor of cross-examination and the replies given by her to the questions put to her by the defence in the cross-examination. Suffice it to say that even the Counsel for the defence was not mindful or aware about omission to frame the charge in respect of the allegation of commission of rape at Police Station, Chikhaldara, inspite of evidence of prosecutrix being challenged in that regard by the defence. If that is so, no prejudice has been caused to the appellants merely because the trial Court omitted to frame specific charge in respect of case of commission of rape on the prosecutrix on the night between 18th and 19th August, 1991 in Police Station, Chikhaldara, Therefore, that omission in no way impairs the evidence of prosecution. The trial Court has committed no error in accepting her evidence and holding the appellants guilty for commission of rape on her. But, at the same time, I must say that in absence of specific charge as to commission of rape on the prosecutrix at Police Station, Chikhaldara, which was obviously an independent incident, the trial Court was not justified in holding the appellants guilty for the offences under section 376(2)(a) and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code on that count. But, at the same time, conviction of the appellants for commission of rape on her at Police Outpost, Kathumbh on the basis of the evidence on record is no way affected. 30. It is no doubt true that the prosecutrix Munnibai has not disclosed names of the appellants in the report (Exh. 52). She has given admission that she came to know about the names of the Police Officers who committed rape on her later. Making much capital of this admission of prosecutrix, the learned Counsel submitted that it is either derogatory to non-disclosure of names of the appellants in the report (Exh. 52) or it falsifies the claim of prosecutrix . 52). She has given admission that she came to know about the names of the Police Officers who committed rape on her later. Making much capital of this admission of prosecutrix, the learned Counsel submitted that it is either derogatory to non-disclosure of names of the appellants in the report (Exh. 52) or it falsifies the claim of prosecutrix . I do not think that, considering the evidence of prosecutrix and the fact that the witness has stood the test of cross-examination, such inference could be drawn about the veracity of prosecutrix Munnibai. If we go by the theory of defence of false implication of the appellants and more so, on account of probability for there being existence of motive to implicate falsely, as suggested and contended by the defence, it was very easy for the prosecutrix and witness Tanu to disclose the names of the appellants in the report (Exh. 52). But the fact that no such disclosure was made of the names of the appellants, particularly those who were the Police Officers, goes to show that the reality was that the prosecutrix was not knowing the Police Officers who acted high handedly and committed atrocious act with her and they were not known to her even by their names, if that is so, it is plausible and probable that the prosecutrix, when her evidence was recorded, was bound to disclose their names stating that she was knowing their names. Therefore, it was sheep mistake on her part while replying the questions put by the defence in her cross-examination to state that she was knowing the names of the appellants-accused, Therefore, even accepting the inconsistency in her evidence as to disclosure of names of the appellants, I do not think that her evidence is rendered doubtful. In this view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the case reported in A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 116, (Wille (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.)8, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants has any application to the case before hand. I am of considered opinion that the omission to frame charge in respect of the allegation of commission of rape at Police Station, Chikhaldara has not resulted into causing prejudice to the appellants. 31. Mr. I am of considered opinion that the omission to frame charge in respect of the allegation of commission of rape at Police Station, Chikhaldara has not resulted into causing prejudice to the appellants. 31. Mr. Dharmadikari, learned Counsel for the appellants-accused placed reliance on the decision of our High Court in the case reported in 1999(5) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)209 : 1999 Cri.L.J. 4239, (Anmol Shirdhar Gharde and others v. State of Maharashtra)9, wherein there was delay of four days in lodging F.I.R. which was not satisfactorily explained and the evidence of prosecutrix was suffering from infirmities and not supported by medical evidence and there was also unchallenged evidence of friend of prosecutrix showing that the prosecutrix was having love affair with the accused. The Court found that there was possibility of false implication and therefore, conviction of the appellants was set aside. The factual position in the case before hand is entirely different. In the earlier part of the judgment, I have elaborately dealt with the facts and circumstances which certainly goes to show that the version of prosecutrix is worthy of credit, believable and inspiring confidence, despite the fact that the medical evidence was absent. Absence of medical evidence was justified as the prosecutrix was examined about 12 days after occurrence and in addition to that she was married woman having a sucking child. There could be no trace of semen or blood either on the clothes of prosecutrix or of the appellants, It is not a case of consent nor it was the plea of defence that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. I have already found that the motive for false implication contended by the appellants did not stand to the reasons. Therefore, on the evidence of prosecution witnesses including the prosecutrix, her father-in-law Tanu, her husband Sukhdeo and the circumstances attending the case, the prosecution has established clinchingly that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse at police Outpost, Kathumbh, where she was confined on the might after being brought from her house and the appellants, as stated by the prosecutrix in her evidence, had sexual intercourse with her despite all possible resistance on her part, taking disadvantage of her helpless condition. 32. Mr. 32. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the appellants-accused placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2382, (State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hafiz Faruki and others)10, wherein the respondents-accused were tried for rape and acquitted by the High Court and their acquittal was confirmed by the Apex Court. It was found that though it was alleged that rape was committed by eight persons and that too, twice and that the accused had pushed the prosecutrix out of running train after giving kicks, however, acceptence a small incise would on her right hand and some minor superficial abrasions, no other injury was found on her person and no evidence to show that the prosecutrix raised shouts while accused were taking her forcibly to the railway yard was brought on the record. The Apex Court while discarding the prosecution case held that there was possibility of prosecutrix going with the accused willingly and involving the accused falsely with ulterior motive. For the reasons stated above, it is very difficult to say that this decision of the Apex Court is of any assistance to the case in hand. In fact, there is no circumstance indicating that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Absence of injuries, in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the part of the prosecutrix Munnibai, as a result of the fact that she was examined after 12 days of the occurrence, does not render her claim of commission of sexual assault on her by the appellants improbable and false. 33. In the result, on appreciation of evidence of prosecution witnesses independently, I have found that the evidence of prosecutrix Munnibai is worthy of credit and implicit reliance has to be placed on her evidence. Her evidence coupled with other circumstances including the evidence of witnesses Tanu, Sukhdeo and Mishrilal goes to show that the prosecution has clinchingly proved that the appellants committed sexual assault on her prosecutrix at the Police Outpost, Kathumbh after having brought her on that night from her house. Absence of medical evidence and even delay in making report to the police and non-disclosure of names of the appellants, no way impairs truthfulness of the prosecution case. The theory of false implication on account of the report lodged by Mohansing Thakur and prosecution against the prosecutrix and inmates of her house does not stand to the reasons. Absence of medical evidence and even delay in making report to the police and non-disclosure of names of the appellants, no way impairs truthfulness of the prosecution case. The theory of false implication on account of the report lodged by Mohansing Thakur and prosecution against the prosecutrix and inmates of her house does not stand to the reasons. The trial Court has committed no error in holding the appellants guilty for the offences. The appellants Ramdas, Suresh and Ramchandra Gadekar were admittedly the Police Officers who were deputed for making inquiry into the report lodged by the Police H.C. Mohansing Thakur, They, however, misused the authority with which they were empowered with and acted high handedly. That is why, the trial Court dealt with the appellants-accused properly in awarding sentence. The instances of atrocities by the Police Officers on women on the pretext of exercise of power and authority taking advantage of helpless condition of such women are increasing. Therefore, there is absolutely no justification in interfering with the judgment, conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the order. ORDER Appeal dismissed. -----