Judgment S.P. Pathak, J.-These two criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code against a common Judgment and order dated 13.03.1987 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 22/1985 -State vs. Basantilal & Ors. whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Basantilal, Sawailal Chunnilal, Nainsukh and Kana Under Section 376(2)(g) IPC 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment Moda & Barda Under Section 376(2)(g) IPC 11 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment 2. As accused-appellants Basantilal S/o Maganlal, Chunnilal S/o Bhoja and Nainsukh S/o Hardeo in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 103/1987 have expired and report of the SHO, Police Station, Begu in this regard was placed on record, vide order of this Court dated 011.2004 that appeal against the these appellants stands abated. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment and order, these are being disposed of together by this common Judgment . 3. The brief facts of the case are that PW. 3 Chaturbhuj alongwith PW. 5 Mst. Badami (hereinafter to be referred as the prosecutrix) submitted a written report in the police station, Begu before PW. 7 Roop Kishore, ASI on 03.05.1985 at 1:00 PM inter alia stating therein that her niece - the prosecutrix had gone to her Bua (parental aunt) in Katunda village and stayed there for two days. His brother Raghunath had gone to his in-laws house and he himself had gone with a truck of stones to village Kehrad and on his coming from there he was informed by the prosecutrix that while she was coming alone on foot from Katunda (the village of her Bua) on 26.04.1985, in the evening at about 5:30 PM, on the way to Bedal Mandana, in the forest, two persons Moda and Barda, who were taking liquor by the side of way, came in front of her, stopped her and pressed her breasts. They tightened her hands by the turban (Modas turban) and when she resisted and objected to it, accused Moda took out a knife and thereafter both of them forcibly laid her down on the earth. They tightened her hands by the turban (Modas turban) and when she resisted and objected to it, accused Moda took out a knife and thereafter both of them forcibly laid her down on the earth. They poured liquor in her mouth and after releasing her hands and lifting her petticoat one after another committed rape against her will. They also took her forcibly upto the turn of village Katunda. After reaching there, from a liquor shop where so many persons were taking liquor, accused Basantilal (since expired), came at the house of Barda and Moda and committed rape with her. Thereafter also, one after another about 8-9 persons outraged her modesty. The accused at about 3-4 AM left her outside in a very precarious condition. In the morning, Chhittar S/o Gopi Gurjar, resident of village Katunda met her on the way to whom she narrated the entire story and requested him to drop her at her house, who made arrangement for her going to the village in a truck belonging to one Parbat Singhji. As Raghunath, the brother of the prosecutrix, was not at home and the complainant came in the morning, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to him and as such the report Ex.P/1 was submitted in the police station, on which case No.78/85 under Sections 341, 342, 354, and 376 IPC registered and investigation commenced. 4. During the course of investigation, memos Ex.P/6 Inspection Note dated 04.05.1985 of the site, Ex.P/7 Site-plan thereof , Ex.P/8 Site Inspection Note of the second place of occurrence, Ex.P/9 Site-plan thereof , Ex.P/10 Seizure memo of the bangles pieces found at the spot, Ex.P/12 regarding the pieces of bangles handed over by the prosecutrix to the police and Ex.P/13 inspection note regarding injuries found on the person of the prosecutrix were prepared. 5. Prosecutrix was examined by PW. 2 Dr. S.S. Das. The medical examination report is Ex.P/2. The accused persons were arrested and medically examined. Their medical examination report is Ex.P/3. Ex.P/18 to Ex.P/24 respectively are the arrest memos of accused persons Basantilal, Sawailal, Chunnilal, Nainsukh, Moda Ram, Vardha and Kana. 6. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Begu. On committal for trial, the matter came to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh. Their medical examination report is Ex.P/3. Ex.P/18 to Ex.P/24 respectively are the arrest memos of accused persons Basantilal, Sawailal, Chunnilal, Nainsukh, Moda Ram, Vardha and Kana. 6. After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Begu. On committal for trial, the matter came to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh. On 28.02.1986, charges were framed under Sections 376(2) and 342, IPC against the accused persons, who denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. After close of the prosecution evidence, in the statement under recorded under Section 313 CrPC accused Sawailal has stated that he has been implicated in the case on account of enmity with the family of prosecutrix. Accused Moda Ram has stated that his daughters engagement with Bhanwarlal, the younger brother of prosecutrix, was cancelled therefore, he has been falsely implicated. Accused Barda in his statement has stated that Moda is his Sadu (his wifes sisters husband) and his daughter Jeetu, whose engagement was fixed with Chatra, the brother of prosecutrix, was also subsequently cancelled, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Accused Kana in his statement has denied the prosecution case and stated that Moda is his cousin brother and there is enmity between their family and the family of the prosecutrix. In defence, DW. 1 Pyara, DW. 2 Abhay Kumar and DW. 3 Gopilal were got examined on behalf of the accused persons. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated hereinabove. 8. Following submissions were made on behalf of the accused appellants:- 1. That the learned trial Court has misread the evidence and has overlooked important facts which clearly show that statements of prosecutrix are not of worth reliance. 2. That there has been inordinate delay in lodging the first information report of the incident inasmuch as the incident is alleged to have taken place on 26.04.1985 whereas the first information report was lodged on 30.05.1985 but no reasonable explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. 3. That the conduct of the prosecutrix was unnatural because she did not disclose the incident to anybody at home except PW. 3 Chatarbhuj after his arrival from his work. 4. 3. That the conduct of the prosecutrix was unnatural because she did not disclose the incident to anybody at home except PW. 3 Chatarbhuj after his arrival from his work. 4. That no description has been given in the first information report of the identified accused persons by her in the Court. It was not possible in the dark night to have identified the accused persons particularly in the circumstances when accused persons are relatives of the prosecutrix. 5. That the investigation is faulty. No precautions were taken in the instant case inasmuch as that the small pieces of clothes, alleged to have been used for wiping out the white discharge on the private parts of the prosecutrix were not send for chemical examination. 6. That Chunnilal and Sawailal being father and son and Moda being the real brother of Chunnilal would never indulge in such acts simultaneously. 7. That the engagement of daughter of accused Moda with the brother of the prosecutrix Bhanwarlal was cancelled and that was the reason for involving the accused persons in this case falsely. 8. That there are material contradictions and omissions in the story of prosecution which creates doubts in the truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix : The following submissions were made by the learned Public Prosecutor:- 1. That the prosecution has proved its case by placing on record trustworthy unimpeachable evidence of prosecutrix which has been corroborated by the medical testimony. 2. That no guardian would falsely involve a ward in such matters leaving the actual culprits. 3. That the delay in lodging the first information report has been properly explained in the case. 4. That the defence theory that on account of enmity the accused persons have been involved, has been discarded by the learned trial Judge after assigning cogent reasons for the same. 5. That the minor contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecutrix and other witnesses are natural and on that basis the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, when otherwise inspires confidence, is not required to be set aside. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available on record. 10. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material available on record. 10. Before proceeding further, in view of the submissions made, it shall be proper to examine as to what law has developed on the point of appreciation of testimony of the prosecutrix and regarding delay in filing first information report of the incident in such matters. 11. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, 1990 (1) SCC 550 , the Honble Apex Court held:-“The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self -respecting woman would come forward in a Court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the Courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The Court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a part with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self -inflicted is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another persons lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if , then as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable.” 12. In the aforesaid case, the Honble Apex Court further held as under:-“A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a part with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the 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 Section118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. She is in fact a victim of the 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 Section118 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. If 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 Section114 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 necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is 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 discussed that the prosecutrix does not have strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” 13. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh & Ors., 1996 (2) SCC 374, the Honble Supreme Court took note of the existing rate of crime against the woman and held:-“Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating womans rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. It is an irony that while we are celebrating womans rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victims privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault - It is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The Court, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the Court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance on her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive of its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation.” 14. The Honble Apex Court, while dealing with regard to discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, in the case of Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana & Anr., JT 1999 (8) SC 274, held:-“There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimention, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. . . . Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. . . . The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not failing within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.” 15. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Lekh Ram & Anr., 2000 CrLR 7 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the absence of test identification may not be fatal if the accused is known or sufficiently described in the complaint leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court regarding his involvement. In that very case, the Honble Court has observed :- “.......The hyper-technicalities or figment of imagination should not be allowed to divest the Court of its responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence to arrive at the conclusion regarding the existence or otherwise of a particular circumstances keeping in view the peculiar facts of each case, the social position of the victim and the accused, the larger interests of the society particularly the law and order problem and degrading values of life inherent in the prevalent system. The realities of life have to be kept in mind while appreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth. The Courts are not obliged to make efforts either to give latitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law in favour of the accused. The traditional dogmatic hyper-technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. Criminal jurisprudence cannot be considered to be a Utopian through but have to be considered as part and parcel of the human civilization and the realities of life. The Courts cannot ignore the erosion in values of life which are a common feature of the present system. Criminal jurisprudence cannot be considered to be a Utopian through but have to be considered as part and parcel of the human civilization and the realities of life. The Courts cannot ignore the erosion in values of life which are a common feature of the present system. Such erosions cannot be given a bonus in favour of those who are guilty of polluting society and the mankind.” 16. In the case of Narayan Iranna Potkanthi vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CrLJ 1752 , while examining the matter on delay, Bombay High Court observed as under :-“It was contended in the context of the first information report that, though the incident had taken place on 05.01.1990, the incident was reported at the police station only on 06.01.1990 and that too, as late as at about 3.30 p.m. True it is that there was some delay in lodging the first information report, but, this delay has been properly explained, both by Gangabai and Gangadhar (PW. 1). PW. 5, Gangabai was an illiterate woman and it appears from her evidence that on account of the shock sustained by her due to the sexual violence meted out to her child, she had broken in tears immediately. Once can imagine how she must have taken some time to take some decision in the matter.” 17. In the case of Kali Charan vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1995 CrLJ 663 , the Honble Delhi High Court while considering the matter of delay has observed as under:-“It is a matter of common experience that in our country, people are quite hesitant in reporting such offences to the Police in majority of cases primarily to save honour of the family and the prosecutrix and in small number of cases as and when these cases are reported to the Police, they do so after considerable hesitation and long deliberations. In this view of the matter often there is delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution version cannot be thrown out only on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report, otherwise in some cases it may lead to serious miscarriage of justice.” 18. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash, 2002 (5) SCC 745 , it has been held that there should be proper explanation of inordinate delay. The prosecution version cannot be thrown out only on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report, otherwise in some cases it may lead to serious miscarriage of justice.” 18. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash, 2002 (5) SCC 745 , it has been held that there should be proper explanation of inordinate delay. In this case, there was delay of 26 hours in lodging of first information report fully explained by the prosecution, therefore, it has been observed as under :- “As regards the contention regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the real question is about the explanation for the delay. It is not at all unnatural for the family members to await the arrival of the elders in the family when an offence of this nature is committed before taking a decision to lodge a report with the police. The reputation and prestige of the family and the career and life of a young child is involved in such cases.“ 19. In the case of Harpal Singh and Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 361 , in which the occurrence according to the prosecutrix took place in the night intervening 20th and 21st August 1972, the first information report was lodged on 31st August, 1972 and the complainant had given reasonable explanation for lodging it after ten days of the occurrence stating that as honour of the family was involved, the family members had to decide whether to take the matter to the Court or not. The Honble Apex Court in that case observed that it is not uncommon that such considerations delay the action on the part of the near relations of a young girl who is raped. 20. After carefully examining the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court and various High Courts, now I propose to examine the evidence led in the case by the prosecution. 21. In the present matter, PW. 5 Mst. Badami is the prosecutrix. In her statement in the Court, she has deposed that 14-15 months before recording of her statement in the Court, she had gone to her Buas village and after staying for two days there on the third day she started on foot for her village and while she was on the way in the Bid, Birdha and Moda came infront of her and stopped her forcibly. Her hands were tightened with the turban of Moda accused and liquor was poured into her mouth. Moda took out a knife and she was made to lie on the earth. The accused lifted her petticoat upwards and one after another inserted their penis into her vagina. She has stated further that she resisted and as a result of that her bangles broke and fell down on the earth. The accused did not leave her there but took her upto the turn of village Katunda at a liquor shop and by that time it had become dark. At that place (Daru ki Gumati), Basantiya (since expired) committed rape on her and went outside. Thereafter, 2-4 persons came one after another and committed rape on her and after wiping out the white discharge coming out from her vagina left her outside in semi-conscious condition. She has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court. She has further stated that in the early morning she started for her village and on the way near Katunda village turn Chittar met her and she narrated the entire incident to him, who managed for her going to the village sitting in the truck of one Parbat Singh and could reach her village Madana. On reaching home, she found that her father and mother had gone to village Moraka Kheda and her uncle Chatra had gone out of village, who came after three days and on his arrival the entire story was narrated to him. She alongwith her uncle PW. 3 Chatra went to police station and lodged the first information report which was got written by one Ramesh and the police thereafter inspected the two places where the rape was committed on her, prepared memos and recovered pieces of bangles from the spot so also two small pieces of dirty clothes. She has proved memos Ex.P/6, Ex./P7, Ex.P/8 and P/9 and further stated that she was medically examined by the doctor and she had shown her injury to the doctor. She further stated that identification parade was held in the Sub-Jail, Begu in the presence of Magistrate and she was asked to identify the persons who had committed rape and she has identified accused Kana, Chunnilal, Nainsukh and Sawailal. She further stated that identification parade was held in the Sub-Jail, Begu in the presence of Magistrate and she was asked to identify the persons who had committed rape and she has identified accused Kana, Chunnilal, Nainsukh and Sawailal. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix has stated that she did not know the names of the accused prior to the incident however, accused Barda and Moda were known to her from before. She has accepted the suggestion that Moda and Barda committed rape on her in Bada and not in the Gumti. She has denied the suggestion that as her sisters engagement was cancelled she involved the accused Barda and Moda in the case. 22. PW. 2 Dr.S.S. Das examined Mst. Badami - the prescrutrix, on a police requisition on 03.05.1985 while he was posted as Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Begu. He found the following injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. 1. Abrasion 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. -on the medial surface of the left writs joint. 2. Abrasion 1.5 cm. x 0.2 cm. -on the middle of the back of the chest. 3. Abrasion 10 cm. x 2.5 cm. -on the middle of the lateral surface of the right thigh 4. Abrasion 12 cm. x 3 cm. -on the middle of the lateral surface of the left thigh. 23. In his statement the doctor stated that at the time of examination the condition of clitoris, libia majora and minora was normal and there was fresh vaginal discharge round about the vagina. According to him there were no signs of tearing hymen fresh or old and the orifice of hymen was of 2 cm. width which was of dark red colour with complain of pain. He also stated that prosecutrixs vagina allowed passing of two fingers with little discomfort. The witness has further stated that the abrasions found were of dark brown colour with scab formation on the injuries which could peel off within one or two days. The injuries were about 7 days old and during this period the rape might have committed with her. The witness has further stated that the abrasions found were of dark brown colour with scab formation on the injuries which could peel off within one or two days. The injuries were about 7 days old and during this period the rape might have committed with her. During his cross examination the doctor stated that the injuries could not be result of one time consented intercourse and it is also not necessary to suffer injuries on libia majora and minora even if 6-7 persons commit rape but even after giving local anesthesia there was pain in the hymen of the prosecutrix and other conditions which he found, led him to come to the conclusion that the prosecutrix was raped. 24. PW. 3 Chatarbhuj is the uncle of prosecutrix. He has stated that before coming to know of the incident he was out of village on his duty and had come to village only after 3-4 days when the prosecutrix narrated to him the entire incident which happened with her and told that she was raped by Moda and Birda and thereafter by seven persons near the Katunda village turn in the house of a Thakur. He has further stated that he took Mst. Badami to the police station and the first information report, which was got written by one Ramesh, was lodged in the Police Station, Begu, the police inspected the site and recovered pieces of b