A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by appellants against their judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court under section 376 (2) (g) and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) as well as under section 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that prosecutrix is a member of scheduled tribe community being a Gond and she happens to reside with her widow mother Kalabai. On 26/1/1996 at 8 p. m. the prosecutrix was inside her Tapra with her mother, at that juncture accused persons entered in the Tapra and forcibly took away the prosecutrix with them. The accused persons kept prosecutrix in night inside a room and committed rape on her. The mother, though searched the prosecutrix, but later on came back. On 27/1/1996 at 12. 35 p. m. , the mother of prosecutrix lodged First Information Report narrating the entire episode. Next day, the prosecutrix anyhow escaped and she came to her Tapra. The police, after recording her statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code sent the prosecutrix for medical examination. Thereafter on 27/3/1996 accused persons were arrested and since they were not known earlier to the prosecutrix and her mother, they were subjected to test identification parade in which they were rightly identified by the prosecutrix as well as by her mother. ( 3 ) AFTER completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted in the competent Court which committed the case to the Special Court. The Special Judge framed charges punishable under sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code against accused persons. The Special Judge also framed charge punishable under section 3 (ii) (v) of the Act. Both the accused persons denied the charges. ( 4 ) IN order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and placed Ex. P-1 to P-il the documents on record. The accused persons in their defence examined two witnesses, namely, DW-1, Heeralal and DW-2, Parmanand. Both the accused persons denied the charges. ( 4 ) IN order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and placed Ex. P-1 to P-il the documents on record. The accused persons in their defence examined two witnesses, namely, DW-1, Heeralal and DW-2, Parmanand. ( 5 ) THE Trial Court after scanning the evidence came to hold that appellant Krishna Kumar committed offence punishable under section 366 and 376 (2) (g), Indian Penal Code and eventually punished him by imposing sentence of 10 years R. I. under section 366, Indian Penal Code and life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default, one month further imprisonment under section 376 (2) (g), Indian Penal Code. Accused Bablu alias Abdul Akhtar was punished under sections 366, 376 (2) (g), Indian Penal Code read with section 3 (ii) (v) of the Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment of life and fine of Rs. 500. 00. Hence this appeal. ( 6 ) PW-1, Dr. Kailash Datt Dubey is a doctor who medically examined accused Abdul Akhtar and Krishna Kumar. PW-2 is the prosecutrix. PW-3, Kala Bai is the mother of prosecutrix and she is also an author of FIR. PW-4, Prakash Naik is the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar who conducted the test identification parade on 27/3/1996. PW-5, Babulal is the wit-ness who has seen the accused persons along with one girl but according to him he could not say that the prosecutrix is the same girl. PW-6, Dr. (Smt) K. Ojha is an important witness since she had examined the prosecutrix medically. PW-7, Krishna Kumar is a constable and a formal witness. The last witness is PW-8 R. P. Tiwari, who is the investigating officer. ( 7 ) THE important witnesses of the prosecution are prosecutrix (PW-2), her mother Kala Bai (PW-3) and the lady Dr. (Smt.) K. Ojha (PW6 ). According to the prosecutrix, she belong to Raut Gond community which is a Scheduled Tribe community. On the fateful day she was with her mother. In the night at eight, appellants and one more person came to her house and they forcibly took her inside a college where she was wrongfully confined in a room. The accused persons brandished the knife and undressed her. Thereafter both the appellants, one by one, committed rape on her. On the fateful day she was with her mother. In the night at eight, appellants and one more person came to her house and they forcibly took her inside a college where she was wrongfully confined in a room. The accused persons brandished the knife and undressed her. Thereafter both the appellants, one by one, committed rape on her. According to the prosecution first of all accused Abdul Akhtar committed rape and thereafter accused Krishna Kumar ravished her. According to the prosecutrix accused persons inserted their male organ inside her vagina. One more person was with the appellants and he had also committed rape on her. She was detained for whole night and for the entire day inside the room. According to the prosecutrix when accused persons, after consuming the liquor slept, she opened the chain of the door and fled from the spot and thereafter she arrived at her house. Thereafter, she went to the police station with her mother from where she was sent to hospital for medical examination where she was examined by lady doctor. ( 8 ) AFTER some days, she was called to identify the accused persons. The identification parade took place in the jail. In test identification parade she rightly identified the accused persons. According to this witness she requested, appellants to leave her but they did not agree and they also gave slaps to her. In her cross-examination she has said that accused persons were not known to her earlier to the incident and she saw them for the first time on that day. According to her accused persons entered inside the house, they caught hold the neck of her mother and thereafter dragged her (the prosecutrix) outside the Tapra. In cross-examination, she has said that accused persons gave slaps to her and tore her clothes. These facts were narrated by her in her police statement. She had also stated that during inter-course, accused persons bite her cheek, she told this fact to police as well as to lady doctor. According to the prosecutrix, the house in which she was wrongfully confined and was raped is near about 200 yards away from college. ( 9 ) THE mother of prosecutrix has said that on the date of incident she along with prosecutrix was inside the house, at that time two persons entered inside the house and one person was standing outside. ( 9 ) THE mother of prosecutrix has said that on the date of incident she along with prosecutrix was inside the house, at that time two persons entered inside the house and one person was standing outside. After identifying the accused Abdul Akhtar, she said that he pressed her neck and thereafter both the accused persons forcibly took away her daughter. The third person who was standing outside the house also went along with the appellants. According to her for the whole night her daughter did not come back and she came on next day at 12-1 noon. The prosecutrix told her that in the night accused persons committed rape on her and when after consuming the liquor they slept, she ran away and arrived at the house. Before the prosecutrix could arrive, she went to lodge the report (Ex. P-4) and put thumb impression on it. In her cross-examination, she has stated that in her house electric connection is not there but there was light of Chimni Since she was caught hold by the accused persons, she became astonished, as a result of which she was unable to scream. Later on, on being further cross-examined, she has said that in the identification parade, she rightly identified the accused persons. The suggestion put to her was denied by her that she ever gave any affidavit in favour of accused persons. This witness has categorically stated that one year before the incident she solemnized the marriage of the prosecutrix and after staying some days with her husband, her daughter came back to her house and was residing therein. ( 10 ) DR. Smt. K. Ojha (PW-6) has said that on 27/1/1996 she examined the prosecutrix who was a married woman. She could not find any external injury on the person of prosecutrix, she did not notice of any mark of violence on her body, her vagina admitted two fingers and there was no tenderness on the vagina. She did not find any injury on private part. For age verification she advised for radiological examination. The lady doctor has proved her report Ex. P-6. ( 11 ) ON examining the testimony of these three important witnesses, we could not find any infirmity in their testimony. She did not find any injury on private part. For age verification she advised for radiological examination. The lady doctor has proved her report Ex. P-6. ( 11 ) ON examining the testimony of these three important witnesses, we could not find any infirmity in their testimony. If the evidence of prosecutrix and her mother is considered in proper perspective, it is revealed that accused persons carried the prosecutrix forcibly in night at 8 and wrongfully confined her in a room and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix as well as her mother rightly identified the accused persons in the test identification parade. ( 12 ) THE FIR (Ex. P-4) was lodged by the mother of prosecutrix on next day (27/1/1996) at 12. 35 p. m. In FIR as well as in her testimony, the mother has specifically said that in the night of 26/1/1996 she was searching her daughter and ultimately when she did not find her, first information report was lodged. The mother has specifically mentioned in the FIR that she would be able to identify the accused persons, if they are brought before her. The prosecutrix, on next day of the incident, i. e. 27/1/1996 succeeded in getting herself escaped from the confinement of the accused persons and on that day her statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code (Ex. D-1) was recorded and thereafter on the same day at 10. 05 p. m. she was medically examined. In her statement (Ex. D-1) the prosecutrix also stated that she can identify the accused persons if they are brought before her. There is a clear and unimpeachable evidence of the Executive Magistrate (PW-4) that prosecutrix and her mother rightly identified the accused persons in test identification parade, arranged and conducted by him. The memo of test identification parade is (Ex. P-5) dated 27/3/1996. Since the prosecutrix was ravished by three per-sons including the appellants (third accused is absconding) she had ample opportunity to notice the features of the culprits (accused persons ). On account of traumatic and tragic experience of the prosecutrix their faces definitely must have got imprinted in her mind and, therefore, she rightly identified the accused persons. Similarly, the mother in whose presence her artless daughter was taken away by the accused persons could also imprint in her memory the ghastly faces of accused persons and therefore she rightly identify the accused persons. Similarly, the mother in whose presence her artless daughter was taken away by the accused persons could also imprint in her memory the ghastly faces of accused persons and therefore she rightly identify the accused persons. In the case of Malkhan Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the unknown accused persons committed gang rape over the prosecutrix and test identification parade was not arranged and they were identified by prosecutrix of that case in the dock, even in that case the evidence of prosecutrix was found to be implicitly reliable. In that case the Apex Court held the evidence of identification of accused persons in the dock, to be a reliable evidence and maintained the conviction accorded by the High Court. The present case is rather on better footing, since there is an identification parade in which accused persons were rightly identified, not only by prosecutrix but by her mother Kala Bai also. ( 13 ) IT has been vehemently argued by Shri Nema that if the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by three persons, certainly she would sustain injuries on her person and since no injury was found by lady doctor either on the person of the prosecutrix or on her private part, according to learned counsel the story of prosecution becomes tainted and cannot be relied upon. It has come in the evidence of prosecutrix as well as of her mother that prosecutrix was a married woman and three months earlier to the incident she got married and she came to spend some days with her mother at her house. Since the prosecutrix is a married woman, if injuries were not sustained by her on her private part, itself will not be sufficient to hold that the vile act was not committed. The lady doctor while examining the vagina found that two fingers could be easily inserted in it. Thus it can be said that the prosecutrix was habituated to sexual intercourse. Since it has come in the evidence that she was married, therefore there is all possibility of not sustaining any injuries on her private part. The fact that no injury was found on the body of prosecutrix only goes to show that she did not put up any resistance. Since the prosecutrix was an artless girl having age between 17-19 years as per the report of Radiologist (Ex. The fact that no injury was found on the body of prosecutrix only goes to show that she did not put up any resistance. Since the prosecutrix was an artless girl having age between 17-19 years as per the report of Radiologist (Ex. P-3) and she was forcibly dragged from her house and was subjected to rape on the point of knife she might not have resisted the lascivious and vile act of the accused persons. But, merely she did not sustain any injury would not be sufficient in order to hold that the vile act was not committed by the accused persons. There is clear, cogent and trustworthy evidence of committing gang rape by accused per-sons. It is well settled in law that in a case of rape no corroboration is required though in the present case there is some corroboration as the mother of prosecutrix has said that in the night at 8 accused persons forcibly took away her daughter. ( 14 ) WE do not have any scintilla of doubt in our mind that accused persons did commit the offence under section 376 (2) (g) and 366, Indian Penal Code. Shri Nema, learned counsel for the appellants has given much emphasis on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surjan and others v. State of M. P. and on its basis he has argued that trial Court committed an error in convicting the appellants. We are not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the simple reason in the case of Surjan (supra) the testimony of prosecutrix was not inspiring any confidence and there was a delay in lodging the FIR by 10 days. Similarly the medical examination of prosecutrix was also not brought on record. Thus, the case of Surjan (Supra) is tangentially off the point. In the present factual scenario, as we have already held that the testimony of the prosecutrix is reliable since it is clear cogent and trustworthy. The FIR in the present case was also lodged without any delay and was lodged on next day. It has come in the evidence of the mother that she searched the prosecutrix during the night hours and on next day she lodged the report. In this manner the case of Surjan (supra) is not helpful to learned counsel for appellant. The FIR in the present case was also lodged without any delay and was lodged on next day. It has come in the evidence of the mother that she searched the prosecutrix during the night hours and on next day she lodged the report. In this manner the case of Surjan (supra) is not helpful to learned counsel for appellant. ( 15 ) WE have also scanned the reasonings assigned by learned trial judge in that regard and we find them to be cogent as they are based on evidence and other material placed on record. ( 16 ) APPELLANT Bablu Abdul Akhtar, apart from 366 and 376 (2) (g), Indian Penal Code has also been convicted under section 3 (ii) (v) of the Act. But, according to us, the prosecutrix merely is a member of scheduled tribe community, would not be sufficient alone to convict appellant Bablu alias Abdul Akhtar under the said offence. According to us, no ingredient of this section has been proved by prosecution in order to hold Bablu to be guilty of offence under the said Act. We accordingly set aside the conviction of accused Bablu Abdul Akhtar under section 3 (ii) (v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. ( 17 ) LOOKING to the entire facts and surrounding circumstances, according to us, it would be justifiable to pass sentence of 10 years R. I. to appellants under section 376 (2) (g) and 10 years R. I. under section 366, Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. ( 18 ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds in part, the conviction of accused Bablu Abdul Akhtar under section 3 (ii) (v) of SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is hereby set aside. Both the appellants are held guilty of the offences punishable under section 376 (2) (g) and 366, Indian Penal Code and they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years R. I. under each section. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Appeal allowed partly. .