Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1025 (GAU)

Kamraj Das v. State of Tripura

2006-11-22

A.B.PAL, R.B.MISRA

body2006
JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-Appellants under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 10.5.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Sessions Trial No. 79 (NT/K) of 1998 convicting the accused-Appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. 2. The victim (P. W.3) had lodged a written FIR with Officer-in-charge, Fatikroy Police Station on 3.5.1993 alleging that for the last 4/5 years one Kamraj Das of her area had been proposing her to marry and on 26.5.1993 at about 7.30 p.m., he came to her house and informed her that they would go for court marriage and accordingly she left her house with Kamraj Das with a sum of Rs. 7000/-; derived from the sale proceeds of catties. On the way, after a while, Kamraj took out the money from her; and after proceeding some distance, Rathindra Das and Ram Kumar Das clasped her from her back and took her in a rubber plantation where these three persons tied her in a tree, took off her apparels ('chhaya', 'blouse', 'shari') and tore these things and with ill motive they went on pressing her breast continuously and gagged her mouth with cloth. She spent in that jungle the whole night and on the following day at about 9 a.m. some labourers of the Rubber Plantation came there are and found her in naked position and they shifted her to Primary Health Centre of Kanchanbari. 3. In reference to the said written FIR, Fatikroy P.S. Case No. 12(5)93 under Sections 365 / 420 /354 / 34 of IPC was registered and after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused-Appellants, namely, Shri Kamraj Das, Shri Ram Kumar Das and Shri Rathindra Das under Section 365 / 376 / 420 / 411 / 34 of IPC. 4. From the prosecution side 13 (thirteen) witnesses were examined and defence side did not adduce any evidence except total denial. 5. 4. From the prosecution side 13 (thirteen) witnesses were examined and defence side did not adduce any evidence except total denial. 5. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances and after scrutinizing the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge has believed the prosecution version and has also found that the prosecution has successfully been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellants/accused. As such, they were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for offences under Section 376(2)g) of I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 (six) months. 6. P.W.1 Shri Surja Kumar Majumder deposed that on 30.5.93 he was working in Amarendra Rubber Plantation Centre at Paschim Kanchanbari and on that day Darogababu seized some items in connection to this case in his presence as well as in presence of Ors. and he identified the signature in the seizure list, and identified the seized articles marked Ext. P/M.O.-1 series. In the cross-examination this witness deposed that Darogababu seized the articles from the middle of Amarendra Rubber Plantation Centre and the same were found tied with a branch of tree. P.W.2 Shri Haripada Singha as the O/C, Fatikroy police Station has deposed that on 30.5.93 he received one written complaint at 0805 hours from one Rekha Rani Das, where he registered Fatikroy P.S. Case No. 12(5) 93 under Sections 365 / 420 / 353 / 34 of IPC. He identified the signature, endorsement and the printed form of the FIR with his signature. P.W. 3 the victim deposed that, Kamraj gave her a proposal for Court marriage and demanded Rs. 20,000/- and her mother could manage only Rs. 7000/- by selling a cow and by giving mortgage of some land. Kamaraj was known to her and used to visit her house. On 26.3.93 at about 7.30 p.m. Kamraj came to her house where her mother handed over Rs. 20,000/- and her mother could manage only Rs. 7000/- by selling a cow and by giving mortgage of some land. Kamaraj was known to her and used to visit her house. On 26.3.93 at about 7.30 p.m. Kamraj came to her house where her mother handed over Rs. 7,000/- to him on the assurance by him that marriage would be registered in the court next day and both started from her house at about 7.30 p.m., through a jungle road and when she reached Amarendra Rubber Plantation, one Rathindra Das and Ram Kumar Das suddenly appeared, they took her into rubber plantation center and roped her hands and put of her wearing cloths and made her naked and also covered her face with cloths and Kamraj first raped her lying her on the ground and thereafter Ram Kumar Das and Rathindra Das raped her. From their talk and voice she could identify the accused persons. She further deposed that they took away one silver necklace from her neck, two golden ear rings. When she raised alarm, none could hear, as there was no human habitation nearby to the RO. After rape they tied her with rope with a rubber tree and left the place. She had to spend the whole night in tied condition and on the following morning at about 9 a.m. the labourers of the plantation found her in naked condition and brought her to Kanchanbari hospital. One female labour put on her a 'pachra'. She narrated the occurrence to hospital and thereafter, she was brought to Police Station where she narrated the story however, the O/C. told her to settle the matter in panchayat. The matter could not be settled in panchayat, she lodged the FIR to Police Station on 30.5.93, which was written by one Animesh Goswami where she put her signature (FIR marked Ext. P/3.) She narrated the whole incident to said Animesh Goswami, but he did not read over the FIR. From P.S. she was sent to Kumarghat hospital wherein she was examined by the doctor. Thereafter she was sent to Court by the Police Officer for recording her statement before the Magistrate where she narrated the incident to Hakimbabu. She identified her signature in her statement recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure On identification the signatures where marked Ext. P/4 series. Thereafter she was sent to Court by the Police Officer for recording her statement before the Magistrate where she narrated the incident to Hakimbabu. She identified her signature in her statement recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure On identification the signatures where marked Ext. P/4 series. She identified all the accused persons, namely, Shri Kamraj Das, Shri Ram Kumar Das and Shri Rathindra Das in the dock. She also identified her shari which she was wearing and one pachra as was given by a female labourer and also one shaya. She also identified one jute made rope with which she was tied by the accused persons. In her cross-examination she deposed that she could read Bengali, but she did not go through the F.I.R. which was written by one Animesh Goswami. On 30.5.93 she went to P.S. duly accompanied by her mother and brother-in-law Sunil Chandra Das. Animesh Goswami is known to said Sunil Ch. Das to whom she narrated the incidence in presence of her brother-in-law and mother. On 27.5.93 on her narration of the incidence Darogababu wrote accordingly where she put her signature. There were houses at a distance of 1/14 miles from the P.O. In the rubber plantation besides rubber trees there are bushes also. The distance between the P.O. and her house would be 11/2 miles. She denied the defence suggestion about the proposal of court marriage and demand of Rs. 20,000/- and regarding handing over of Rs. 7000/- by accused Kamraj by her mother and also denied the defence suggested about the rape as alleged by her. P.W. 4 Smti. Kshetromoyee Das is the mother of the victim in her deposition reiterated the version of P.W. 3, the victim. She also deposed that on 27.5.93 at about 9.00 a.m. one labourer of Rubber Plantation informed her that her daughter was in Kanchanbari hospital when she went there she noticed that the face, eyes and some portion of wrist of her daughter were in swelling condition and her daughter told her that Kamraj, Ram Kumar and Rathindra raped her in a rubber garden tying her hands with rope. Thereafter she went to Fatickroy Rs. with her son-in-law Sunil Das and Rekha and informed the matter to Darogababu. That, Darogababu informed some party members, but the matter was not settled. She identified the accused persons in the dock. In her cross-examination she reiterated her version. Thereafter she went to Fatickroy Rs. with her son-in-law Sunil Das and Rekha and informed the matter to Darogababu. That, Darogababu informed some party members, but the matter was not settled. She identified the accused persons in the dock. In her cross-examination she reiterated her version. P.W. 5 Shri Sunil Das, the brother-in-law of the victim has deposed that about 7 years back one day he went to Kanchanbari hospital on receiving an information that his sister-in-law was in hospital and there she told him that accused Kamraj, Ram Kumar and Rathindra have tied her both hands with rope and also gagged her face and raped her in a rubber plantation. Her mother-in-law told him mat Kamraj Das was willing to marry the victim in the Court and wanted Rs. 7000/- for that two hands of Cattle were sold for Rs. 5,200/- belonging to her mother-in-law and half kani of land was given in mortgage to one Gopi Mohan Das at Rs. 2,000/- and in this way, Rs. 7,000/- was managed and was given by her mother-in-law to Kamraj Das thereafter both started for the purpose of marriage. When he came to Fatikroy P.S. with Rekha and informed the matter to Darogababu and who advised them that the matter be settled amicably and inspite of making attempts nothing happened as Kamraj refused to marry Rekha, F.I.R. was lodged by the victim and it was written by one Goswami. In his cross-examination he stated that the F.I.R. writer Goswami is not known to him. On the first day when went to Rs. Darogababu did not write the F.I.R. and advised to get the matter settled but the matter was not settled then second time they went to P.S. and victim narrated the incidence accordingly FIR was not written by Goswami. In course of cross-examination he further deposed that he did not tell the I.O. that the village people tried to settle the matter, but it was not settled as Kamraj refused to marry the victim. P.W. 6 Shri Abani Das, deposed that on 5.3.93 at about 9/10 A.M. he went to the house of Kamraj as requested by one Darogababu and there the aunt of Kamraj brought Rs. 3,500/- from the bed of Kamraj. (100 rupee note 32 No. 50 rupee note-6 Nos. ) as these notes were seized by Darogababu by preparing a seizure list. 3,500/- from the bed of Kamraj. (100 rupee note 32 No. 50 rupee note-6 Nos. ) as these notes were seized by Darogababu by preparing a seizure list. He identified his signature in the seizure list (Ext P/5) and at the time of seizure accused Kamraj was also present and as a witness he also put his signature in his presence. In his cross-examination he deposed that in Kamraj's house he has his uncle and aunt. RW. 7 Shri Animesh Goswami, deposed that he knows Sunil Ch. Das. That, on 30.5.93 he wrote one F.I.R. of the victim. On identification the F.I.R. was marked Ext. P/2/1. Witness also identified that signature of the victim. As told by the victim he simply wrote the said F.I.R. and earlier she was not known to him. He was not cross-examined. P.W. 8 Shri Pran Krishna Pal, the Judicial Magistrate deposed that on 3.6.93 he recorded the statement of Smt. Rekha Rani Das under Section 164(5) Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Fatikroy PS. Case No. 12 (5) 93 as per the statement of the victim, it was read over to her and she admitted it to be correctly written and she put her signature. In cross-examination he deposed that he did not make any query whether the victim was tutored or not. P.W. 9 Shri Paresh Das in his deposition corroborated the version of P.W. 6 (Shri Abani Das) about the recovery of Rs. 3,500/ - from the bed of accused Kamraj was also present at that time. P.W. 10 Shri Benimadhab Chakraborty deposed that about two years back oneday at about 8 a.m. he had been to Amarendra Rubber Plantation Centre with labourers and Forest Guard Babachand Singh was with him. While counting trees, the said Forest Guard called him and shown him one torn shari lying there and at a distance of about 100 yards beneath the tilla and he heard a sound 'U' 'U' and at that moment one female labour, namely, Malati Singh told that one woman was lying there in naked condition and her face and hands were in tied condition. He also noticed one woman lying there in naked condition. Malati Singh went to that site and brought that woman putting some cloths in her body. He also noticed one woman lying there in naked condition. Malati Singh went to that site and brought that woman putting some cloths in her body. Malati removed her ties and asked her as to what happened and at that time the girl told that her name was Rekha Rani Das one Kamraj Das assured her to marry and brought from her house and she had some money which was taken away by him. Kamraj, one Rathindra Das and Ram Kumar Das raped her in the garden and have tied her hands and gagged her face and left that place. Thereafter, Rekha was sent to Kanchanbari hospital. Kamraj, Rathindra and Ram Kumar were also the labourers of the Rubber Plantation Center who have left their work before the incidence. In cross-examination he denied the defence suggestion that on the relevant date and time he did not got to the site and did not find any woman in naked position and that woman did not name the accused persons and also did not disclose that they raped the victim. P. W.-11 Smti. Malati Singh deposed that she knows the victim and about 7 years back one day at about 8 A.M. she went to Amarendra Rubber Plantation to work, when Benimadhab Chakraborty, the Forest Guard and some labourers were there and at the call of Beni Madhab Chakraborty she went towards that direction and saw a woman there with her face, hands in tied up condition. Her face was tied with shhaya and one blouse in her body was in torn condition and she was naked. She put a piece of her shari in the body of that woman and that woman narrated that Kamraj and two Ors. brought her from her house and these three persons and committed her this condition. The girl told her that Kamraj allured her that he would marry her. The girl was sent to hospital. This witness is also a seizure list witness. She identified the seized piece of her nylon shari, a piece of printed cotton shari, one shhaya and piece of rope. She identified her signature in the seizure list. She further deposed that with the shhaya the face of the victim was tied, with the rope her hands were tied in the backside. She identified the seized piece of her nylon shari, a piece of printed cotton shari, one shhaya and piece of rope. She identified her signature in the seizure list. She further deposed that with the shhaya the face of the victim was tied, with the rope her hands were tied in the backside. She identified her printed cotton shari with which was covered the victim's body, the nylon shari which was wearing by the victim and was torn by the accused persons. In her cross-examination she deposed that she could know the victim on the day of occurrence. The printed cotton shari was brought by Darogababu from the hospital. P. W. 12 Shari Kamal Kar Choudhury, the I.O. of the instant case in his deposition and cross examination supported and reiterated the prosecution version. P.W. 13 Dr. Kalyanbrata Dey posted as Medical Officer at Kumarghat Rural Hospital on 3.5.93 has deposed that he examined the victim aged about 22 years on 30.5.93 at 8.45 a.m. At first the examined her wearing cloths. The petticoat she was wearing on the night of 26.5.93 as told by her bore few old suspected blood stains and he found marks of violence in her body and deep ligature mark around both the wrists. Few old scratch marks were present on the breast and inner side of thing. Her movement was painful. On examination of her genital matting of public hairs or any seminal stains were found. No foreign public hair was also present. Hymen was torn and painful on stretching. Small old blood stain was present on the lateral aspect of left knee. Swab from the posterior vaginal for nix was taken and examined for spermatozoa which were not found. No signs of venereal infection were present. He recorded the statement of the victim as narrated by her before he conducted examination. The victim stated before him that on the night of 26.5.93 about 10 P.M. three persons entered her home and they snatched away Rs. 7,000/- from her mother and then they tied her both hands and took her away in the forest where she was raped by them. The victim was brought before him by S.I.K.K. Choudhury and was identified by said S.I. and her mother. He identified his report. It was marked Ext. P/l 3. 7,000/- from her mother and then they tied her both hands and took her away in the forest where she was raped by them. The victim was brought before him by S.I.K.K. Choudhury and was identified by said S.I. and her mother. He identified his report. It was marked Ext. P/l 3. In cross-examination he deposed that he prepared the report on 19.12.1993 and examined the victim on 30.5.93. The materials received during the examination were recorded and kept in hospital record and on the basis of these materials the report was prepared. 7. It has been argued by Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the accused/Appellants that the FIR was lodged by delay of three days where nothing was expressed or mentioned about the alleged rape upon the victim. Therefore, subsequent story of rape is fabrication. The victim-informant (P.W. 3) was adult, educated women and she was narrated the alleged occurrence to the medical Officer of Kanchanbari Primary Health Centre and also to Police Station on 30.5.1993 and the FIR was written at her description by one Animesh Goswami as he was known to her brother-in-law Sunil Chandra Das and at that time his brother Sunil Chandra Das was also present. Since the FIR was written by Animesh Goswami according to the narration given by the victim where the victim had put her signature then, there is no occasion or scope to disbelieve that she had not understood the contents of the FIR where rape was specifically not mentioned therefore story of subsequent development and narration of rape cannot be believed. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, incidence of occurrence of rape not divulged at the first instance to the Police Station and having failed to settle the matter amicably and then subsequently coming to the court on 30.5.1993, filing the FIR without disclosing the incidence of rape on the victim should not be believed. When initial FIR was in respect of the offence under Section 354 IPC then there was no occasion by the Medical Officer to examine the victim for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. In the circumstances, the allegation and story of rape against the Appellants was built up in the hospital itself. The victim has nowhere subsequently indicated that Animesh Goswami has not written the correct version as desired by her. According to Mr. In the circumstances, the allegation and story of rape against the Appellants was built up in the hospital itself. The victim has nowhere subsequently indicated that Animesh Goswami has not written the correct version as desired by her. According to Mr. Bhowmik, when the victim in her deposition has said that she has narrated the whole incidence to Animesh Goswami, then for the reasons best known to her, she did not mention whole thing in the FIR and there is no iota of evidence that Animesh Goswami was friendly to the accused-Appellant, therefore, the developed version of the incident consequent to the filing of FIR should not be taken and relied upon for upholding the order of conviction against the accused-Appellants. According to Mr. Bhowmik many discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, procedural irregularities on the part of the prosecution and improbabilities are so apparent that prosecution version is to be disbelieved. 8. According to Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor the victim has nowhere indicated that the FIR was read over to her and she has agreed to the contents thereof written in the FIR. According to the prosecution, the incident took place in the night of 26.5.1993 at about 7.30 and on the following day at about 9 a.m. the victim was rescued and taken to the doctor for treatment and there was hardly any occasion left to divulge to the attending doctor the incidence of sexual assault and however, on 30.5.1993 at the instance of the victim when the FIR was lodged and the same was not read over or heard by the victim and nothing was mentioned that she had agreed and ratified the contents of the FIR, whereas, according to the prosecutrix/victim (P.W.3) she has indicated to have narrated the whole incidence to Shri Animesh Goswami but he did not read over the FIR after writing of the same. It is pertinent to note that on 30.5.1993 itself at 9.45 p.m. the (P. W. 13) Dr. Kalyan Brata Dey, has recorded the victim girl's statement where the incidence of rape by the three accused/Appellants was divulged with specific indication that because of social stigma she did not tell the incidence of rape at the time of his admission to Kanchanbari Primary Health Centre. 9. Kalyan Brata Dey, has recorded the victim girl's statement where the incidence of rape by the three accused/Appellants was divulged with specific indication that because of social stigma she did not tell the incidence of rape at the time of his admission to Kanchanbari Primary Health Centre. 9. The testimony of victim/prosecutrix (P.W.3) regarding her rape by the accused persons is wholly corroborated by the P. W. 10 and P.W. 11. These two witnesses are neither related to the prosecutrix nor the enemies of the accused persons and in cross-examination the defence could not bring anything nullifying the incident of rape case. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure the victim/prosecutrix has very clearly stated in details about the assault on her body by way of rape by the accused persons. The P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 as independent and chance witnesses have observed the victim lying naked in plantation area and have supported coherently the version of P.W. 3 the victim about the incidence of rape. Since P.W. 13 Dr. K. B. Dey had examined the victim on 30.5.93 at Kumarght P.H.C. who has found the marks of violence in her body, deep ligature mark present around both the wrists and few old scratch marks present on the breast and inner side of the thighs. The victim has also disclosed to P.W. 13 very specifically about the rape and sexual assault on her body by the accused as such (P.W. 13) has also totally corroborated the prosecution case. 10. In the instant gang rape even if some injuries caused to the back side of the prosecutrix could not be noticed or mentioned in injury report, however, it can not be said that the victim was consenting to rape. Such omission is not fatal as the victim might not be in a position to resist three accused in this connection the decision of Supreme Court in AIR 1987 SC 1080 (Balwant Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab) may be relevant. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the absence of any injury on the back of the prosecutrix or any part of her body falsifies the case of rape by the Appellants on her. v. State of Punjab) may be relevant. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the absence of any injury on the back of the prosecutrix or any part of her body falsifies the case of rape by the Appellants on her. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was expected to offer resistance which would normally cause certain injury on her body and particularly on the back as there was no such injury, it should be held that there was no such incident as alleged. This argument, in our opinion, is devoid of merit. It can not be said that whenever resistance is offered there must be some injury on the body of the victim. The Appellants were four in number and the prosecutrix being a girl of 19/20 years of age, she was not expected to offer such resistance as would cause injuries to her body. It is also not correct to say that there was no injury at all. It has been earlier noticed that as per the medical report she had red abrasions on her right breast. In the circumstances, the contention of the Appellants is rejected. No other point has been urged on behalf of the Appellants in these appeals. 11. In 1999 Cri.L.J. 1725 (Sonai v. The State rep. By Inspector of Police, Madurai) the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed as below: Merely because there was no external injury on the body of the victim, it can not be said that she was consenting party. It appears the case reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1080 is more or less similar to the present case as already stated above the M.O. has found injuries in her inner part of the thighs, breasts and on both the wrists of victim. 12. Learned Sessions Judge has also dealt with the report of the Medical Officer of Kanchanbari Hospital marked as Ext.D/1 where the Medical Officer informed the O.C., Fatickroy P.S. stating that one patient i.e. the victim attended the O.P.D. of the Primary Health Center on 27.5.1993 at about 9 a.m. complaining of plain all over her body neither indicating anything herself nor her accompanying people that the victim had sexually been assaulted. In such situation, the version of defence that had there been a rape, then, at the first instance the victim could have informed the Medical Officer of Kanchanbari Hospital was considered by learned Sessions Judge and in our respectful consideration learned Sessions Judge has correctly observed that the victim was left in jungle in naked condition where her hands were tied and face was covered and she was rescued by the labourers and was brought to hospital before that she could have gone to her mother and relatives, in those circumstances it was quite natural on her part not to divulge this shameful event to the Medical Officer. However, the victim disclosed the incident of rape to her mother (P. W.4) and her brother-in-law (P.W.5) when they met her at Kanchanbari hospital and that was natural. Learned Sessions Judge has correctly referred and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SC 1393 (State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.) which provides as below: ...The conduct of the prosecutrix in this regard appears to us to be most natural. The trial court over-looked that a girl, in a tradition bound non permissive society in India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society. Her not informing the teachers or her friends at the examination center under the circumstances can not detract from her reliability. In the normal course of human conduct this unmarried minor girl, would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate it to her teachers and Ors. over-powered by a feeling of shame and her natural inclination would be to avoid talking about it to any one, lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy. Therefore, her informing to her mother only on return to the parental house and no one else at the examination center prior thereto is an accord with the natural human conduct of a female... 13. Therefore, her informing to her mother only on return to the parental house and no one else at the examination center prior thereto is an accord with the natural human conduct of a female... 13. In our respectful consideration the delay in filling of the FIR on 30.5.1993 by the victim/prosecutrix herself about the instant gang rape which took place in the night of 26.5.1993 cannot be fatal in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the decision in 1999 Cri.L.J. 1725, para 15 (Sonai v. The State rep. by Inspector of Police) which provides: Admittedly, the victim was examined only on the next day. As the Apex Court often held that there ought to be some delay to lodge complaint in a case of rape. In 1996 SCC (Cri) 133 : AIR 1996 SC 922 , Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty and 1996 SCC (Cri) 316 : 1996 Cri. L.J. 1728 State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Apex Court held that if the evidence of victim is believed, no corroboration is required and more delay in launching the complaint to the police would not affect the credibility of the victim. 14. The discrepancy about the possibility of taking the money of Rs. 7000/- or money given by the mother of the victim to the accused-persons in her house has no bearing in the instant case i.e. on the actual incident of rape. So, the variation in the statement regarding taking of money of Rs. 7000/- shall not be a fatal. 15. In (2000) 5 SCC 30 (State of Rajasthan v. N.K.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case of offence of rape, the testimony of prosecutrix should be appreciated on the basis of probabilities like testimony of any other witness and conviction can be based solely on such testimony. In (2003) 3 SCC 175 (Vimal Suresh Kamble v. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that conviction of an accused for the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix alone is permissible, provided the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be natural and truthful. In present facts and circumstances, the evidence of prosecutrix, R.W. 3 was natural and inspires confidence as the evidences of RW. In present facts and circumstances, the evidence of prosecutrix, R.W. 3 was natural and inspires confidence as the evidences of RW. 4, the mother of the prosecutrix as well as R.W. 10, 11 and 13 have also corroborated the fact that the accused had been raped by the accused/Appellants and in view of Vimal Suresh Kamble (supra) in the facts and circumstances, the conviction of the accused/Appellants even on the sole testimony of the victim/ prosecutrix would be justifiable. 16. In (2003) 8 SCC 551 (Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the evidence of victim in reference to offence under Section 376 / 34 of IPC is not insisted to be corroborated by other evidences as corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. An accused cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes the judicial mind as probable in Bhupender Sharma (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as below: In cases of gang rape the proof of completed act of rape by each accused on the victim is not required. The statutory intention in introducing Explanation 1 in relation to Section 376(2)(g) appears to have been done with a view to effectively deal with the growing menace of gang rape. In such circumstances, it is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or on each one of the victims where there are more than one in order to find the accused guilty of gang rape and convict them under Section 376IPC Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance. 17. In (2004) 8 SCC 153 (State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony of victim in reference to the offence under Section 376 of IPC could be treated as reliable and can be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. The plea about lack of corroboration has no substance. 17. In (2004) 8 SCC 153 (State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony of victim in reference to the offence under Section 376 of IPC could be treated as reliable and can be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. However, if the Court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the victim on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony and assurance, short of corroboration, as understood in the context of an accomplice, would suffice. Even filing of F.I.R. by inordinate delay based on satisfactory explanation and in any event delay per se in that respect is not a mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusations of rape are involved. In case of offence under Section 376 of IPC, the question of consent is a matter of defence by the accused and for that purpose materials was to be produced by the accused/defence to show that there was consent and it was not for the victim to show that there was no consent. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shree Kant Shekari (supra) as below: Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity-it degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of woman, i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life contained in Article 21. The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. It is a crime against basic human rights, and is also violative of the victim's most cherished of the fundamental rights, namely, the right to life contained in Article 21. The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely. A socially sensitized Judge is a better statutory armour in cases of crime against women than long clauses of penal provisions, containing complex exceptions and provisos. In the present case, the accused who was a teacher gratified his animated passions and sexual pleasures by having carnal knowledge of his student, a girl of tender age. Such offenders are a menace to civilized society. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2005) 5 SCC 413 (State of M.P. v. Babbu Barkare) while explaining the meaning of 'rape' has indicated that legislative intent is to curb with an iron hand. In (2005) 1 SCC 88 (Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has occasioned to deal with the consent in reference to the offence under Section 375 of IPC and has also explained the consent under Section 90 of IPC and has indicated that the burden on prosecution to prove absence of consent from attendant circumstances, for that purpose evidence should be scanned carefully. Is it a case of passive submission in the face of psychological pressure exerted or allurements made by the accused or was it a conscious decision on the part of the prosecutrix knowing fully the nature and consequences of the act she was asked to indulge in? Whether the tacit consent given by the prosecutrix was the result of a misconception created in her mind as to the intention of the accused to marry her? These are the questions which have to be answered on an analysis of the evidence and the question as to whether the promise to marry, if made by the accused, was false to his knowledge and belief from the very inception and it was never intended to be acted upon by him. In that case the burden is on the prosecution to prove that there was absence of consent. Of course, the position is different if the case is covered by Section 114-A of the Evidence Act. Consent or absence of it could be gathered from the attendant circumstances. In that case the burden is on the prosecution to prove that there was absence of consent. Of course, the position is different if the case is covered by Section 114-A of the Evidence Act. Consent or absence of it could be gathered from the attendant circumstances. The previous or contemporaneous acts or the subsequent conduct can be legitimate guides. Whether on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is reasonably possible to infer the lack of consent on the part. of the prosecutrix is the ultimate point to be decided. 19. In (2005) 3 SCC 594 (State of U.P. v. Pappu) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no rule of law that testimony of victim/prosecutrix of rape cannot be acted upon without corroboration in material particulars. She stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness. In the latter case, there is injury on the physical form, while in the former it is both physical as well as psychological and emotional. However, if the court of facts finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of accomplice, would do. 20. In (2005) 5 SCC 194 (Kamalanantha v. State, of T.N.) and (2005) 8 SCC 122 (State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu) it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and the same is accepted by the Court, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration of her testimony is required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the same. It was also held that the accused having dominion of control over prosecutrix physically, mentally and spiritually and many of them believed him to be God. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamalanantha (supra) that there was no reason why prosecutrix should depose falsely against the accused. Therefore, conviction based on the sole evidence of victim/ prosecutrix can be justifiable. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 6 SCC 73 (Visveswaran v. State Rep. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamalanantha (supra) that there was no reason why prosecutrix should depose falsely against the accused. Therefore, conviction based on the sole evidence of victim/ prosecutrix can be justifiable. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2003) 6 SCC 73 (Visveswaran v. State Rep. by S.D.M.) has given a guideline regarding approach and duty of courts while appreciating evidence in the cases of offences under Sections 376, 346 and 366 of IPC and has indicated that any deficiency or irregularity in investigation need not necessity lead to rejection of the case of prosecution when it is otherwise proved. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as below: The approach required to be adopted by courts in rape cases has to be different. The cases are required to be dealt with utmost sensitivity. Courts have to show greater responsibility when trying an accused on charge or rape. In such cases, the broader probabilities are required to be examined and the courts are not to get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies which are not of substantial character. The evidence is required to be appreciated having regard to the background of the entire case and not in isolation. The ground realities are to be kept in view. 22. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused/Appellants and perused the documents including the Session court records and have also carefully gone through the prosecution witnesses and evidences. The minor discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses are not material and fatal to the prosecution case even the story of proposal of marriage by Kamraj Das and subsequently for that purpose coming to the house of the victim on 26.5.1993 at about 7.30 p.m. to take the victim for marriage purpose and giving of Rs. 7000/- by the mother of the victim (P. W.4) is also not so relevant when the victim/prosecutrix (P.W. 3) has categorically indicated that all the three accused/Appellants have sexually assaulted her and raped her in the night of 26.5.1993 in Amarendra Rubber Plantation Area and thereafter left her naked. However, she was rescued by the workers of the Plantation Centre in the naked condition and the victim was observed by P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 and the victim has also divulged for having been raped on 30.5.1993. However, she was rescued by the workers of the Plantation Centre in the naked condition and the victim was observed by P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 and the victim has also divulged for having been raped on 30.5.1993. In these circumstances, the delay in filing the FIR and not recording specifically about the rape in the FIR which was written by Animesh Goswami at the instance of the victim, P.W. 3, cannot be fatal when the entire contents of the FIR was not read over or ratified even by the victim after it was written by Animesh Goswami. P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 the chance and independent witnesses have witnessed the condition of the victim on 27.5.1993 at about 9 O' Clock in plantation area and have rescued her and taken her to the hospital where for justifiable reason of stigma and social fear, she did not divulge about the rape. She also did not disclose about the incidence in Kanchanbari Primary Health Centre as well as to the doctor who had examined in OPD on 27.5.1993 as there was no occasion to divulge about misapprehending as the victim had gone there for treatment of pain in all over her body. However, on the very day of lodging the FIR on 30.5.1993 at about 8.05 a.m. the victim has divulged complete incidence including the incidence of rape along with specific narration of her having been raped by the accused/Appellants. The whole testimony of victim/prosecutrix revealed in normal course inspired confidence and even the testimony of victim alone is sufficient to prove the guilt of offence of rape against the accused/ Appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC despite the fact that the version of rape has also been corroborated by the prosecution witnesses P.W. 4, PW. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 13 consistently and coherently. 23. In our respectful consideration, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt/ offence under Section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. against the accused/Appellants and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence awarded against the accused/Appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Sessions Trial No. 79 (NT/K) of 1998 is legally correct. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is affirmed. The accused/Appellants are to suffer sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. 24. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed