Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. This judgment would dispose of three appeals, mentioned above, filed by appellants Veer Bhan, Raju, Ajmer, Ramesh Kumar, Suraj Bhan alias Suraj and Bagicha against the impugned judgment dated 15.1.2001 and the sentence order dated 19.1.2001 passed by Ms. Raj Rahul Garg, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in case FIR No. 20 dated 10.2.1999 under Sections 376(2)(g), 506 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar, Panipat. 2. Veer Bhan, Ramesh Kumar and Ajmer were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for committing rape on the prosecutrix and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 years. Bagicha, Raju and Suraj Bhan alias Suraj-appellants threatened the prosecutrix, as a result of which she was scared and they were members of the unlawful assembly, the object of which was to commit gang rape on her and they were convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 years. It was ordered that the fine, if realised, shall be paid to the prosecutrix by way of compensation. The appellants were further convicted under Section 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years. They all were also convicted under Section 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo RI for two years. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. It is prayed in the appeals that the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentence order are liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charge of rape and criminal intimidation against them. 4. The facts of the prosecution case are that on 5.2.1999 Suraj Bhan alias Suraj-appellant came to the house of PW-2 Lal Chand, husband of the prosecutrix (her name is not mentioned and she would be described hereinafter as `the victim) and took him along with him. The time was about 6/6.30 p.m. He was taken to the tube-well of Hari Singh Gujjar. The time was about 6/6.30 p.m. He was taken to the tube-well of Hari Singh Gujjar. All the five remaining appellants, namely; Veer Bhan, Bagicha, Ajmer, Ramesh Kumar and Raju were present there. They were already known to PW-2 Lal Chand. Ajmer-appellant brought a can of liquor. PW-2 Lal Chand was made to drink liquor excessively, as a result of which he lost his senses and he fell asleep there. 5. Veer Bhan-appellant on the same day at about 11 p.m. knocked at the door of the house of the victim. She opened the door considering that her husband PW-2 Lal Chand had returned home, whom earlier Suraj Bhan alias Surja had taken with him at about 6.30 p.m. she found Veer Bhan-appellant at the door of her house. Veer Bhan-appellant asked her to bring back her husband, who was reported to be lying under the influence of liquor. She accompanied Veer Bhan-appellant. He took her to the fields near the engine of Mukhtiara Fauji (military man). She asked him the whereabouts of her husband, whereupon, he gave a threat to her that if she tried to raise alarm, he would kill her. Veer Bhan, Ajmer and Ramesh had sexual intercourse with her turn by turn. The remaining appellants, namely; Bagicha, Raju and Suraj Bhan continued scaring her. Thereafter, Veer Bhan-appellant left her at her house. While departing, he also gave a threat to the victim that in case she disclosed the occurrence to anybody, she would be killed. 6. The next morning PW-2 Lal Chand, husband of the victim woke up from his slumber and he reached his house. He found the victim weeping. She then disclosed the entire episode to him. He was not having any relation at village Rajapur. Therefore, he went to his in-laws house in the State of Punjab. Devi Bai and Basant Ram, parents of the victim then came along with PW-2 Lal Chand. Then on 10.2.1999, the victim approached the police. PW-3 Prithvi Singh SI, the then Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Panipat was present at Pepsi Chowk, Panipat, where the victim narrated the occurrence to him. It was reduced into writing which is Ex. P-1. Prithvi Singh SI made his endorsement on it, which is Ex. P-2. He got this case registered. PW-8 Rattan Singh SI scribed the FIR, copy of which is Ex. P-22. 7. It was reduced into writing which is Ex. P-1. Prithvi Singh SI made his endorsement on it, which is Ex. P-2. He got this case registered. PW-8 Rattan Singh SI scribed the FIR, copy of which is Ex. P-22. 7. On 11.2.1999, PW-3 Prithvi Singh SI inspected the place of occurrence. He drew the site plan Ex. P-3 on the pointing out of the place by the victim. On 11.2.1999 itself Prithvi Singh SI moved application Ex. P-4 for conducting the medico-legal examination of the victim. PW-10 Dr. Jaya Goel medico-legally examined the victim on 11.2.1999 at 1 p.m. She was taken by the police before the said doctor. She disclosed the forcible intercourse with her by 2/3 persons on 5.2.1999. History disclosed by the victim was recorded by Dr. Jaya Goel. As disclosed by the victim, she was married for the last two years. Her last menstruation period was on 28.12.1998. She found the following injuries on her person :- "1. There was small bluish colour bruise on the right eye lid on the lateral part of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size. 2. There was a bluish colour bruise on the right cheek of 2 cm x 0.5 cm in size. 3. An abrasion on the upper 1/3rd of the left fore-arm on the lateral part of 2 cm x 0.2 cm in size. Brownish colour crust was present." 8. All the injuries were declared simple. Their duration was found within seven days. 9-10 On local examination, there was no external mark of injury. Labia majora and labia minora were normal. There was old rapture of hymen. The vagina admitted two fingers. Two swabs and two slides were taken and were sent for the histopathological examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The following were handed over to the police by the doctor :- "1. A sealed box bearing four seals, containing two swabs and two slides from the vagina. 2. A sealed packet bearing four seals containing pink coloured salwar. 3. A sealed envelope bearing four seals containing a copy of MLR forwarding letter and a sample seal. 4. Sample seal. 5. A copy of MLR." Ex. P-25 is the copy of the medico-legal report. 11 After perusal of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P-24, Dr. Jaya Goel gave her opinion that the possibility of rape was not ruled out. 12. 4. Sample seal. 5. A copy of MLR." Ex. P-25 is the copy of the medico-legal report. 11 After perusal of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P-24, Dr. Jaya Goel gave her opinion that the possibility of rape was not ruled out. 12. Radhu Sarpanch on 14.2.1999 at Pepsi Chowk, Panipat produced Ramesh, Ajmer, Suraj Bhan alias Surja and Bagicha-appellants before PW-3 Prithvi Singh SI. They were arrested in this case. 13. On 15.2.1999, an application Ex. P-6 was moved before the doctor for conducting the medico-legal examination of Ajmer-appellant. PW-5 Dr. S.K. Gupta medico-legally examined Ajmer-appellant. He found him fit to perform sexual intercourse. Ex. P-16 is the copy of the medico-legal report. 14. He also medico-legally examined Ramesh Kumar-appellant. Ex. P-15 is the copy of the medico-legal report. He was also found fit to perform sexual intercourse. 15. Dr. S.K. Gupta also medico-legally examined Suraj Bhan alias Surja- appellant. Ex. P-18 is the copy of the medico-legal report. He found him fit to perform sexual intercourse. 16. Dr. S.K. Gupta also examined appellant Bagicha-appellant. Ex. P-20 is the copy of the medico-legal report. He found him fit to perform sexual intercourse. 17. On 15.2.1999, Radhu Sarpanch also produced Veer Bhan and Raju-appellants before PW-3 Prithvi Singh SI. They were taken into custody. Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11 applications were moved for their medico-legal examinations. PW-4 Dr. K.L. Chopra medico-legally examined Veer Bhan on 16.2.1999 at 12.10 p.m. and he found him fit to perform sexual intercourse. Ex. P-13 is the copy of the medico-legal report. On the same day, he medico-legally examined Raju- appellant and found him also fit to perform sexual intercourse. Ex. P-14 is the copy of the medico-legal report. 18. Laboratory examination made in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban revealed that there was human semen on the `salwar of the victim, on the slides and the swabs, on the underwears of Ramesh Ajmer-appellants. 19. On completion of the investigation, the accused were challaned for the commission of the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 506 and 148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. 20. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Charge was framed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 506, 148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 21. 20. The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Charge was framed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 506, 148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 21. The prosecution at the trial examined 10 witnesses, namely; PW-1 the victim, PW-2 Lal Chand, PW-3 Prithvi Singh SI, PW-4 Dr. K.L. Chopra, PW-5 Dr. S.K. Gupta, PW-6 Jagmohan Lal Patwari, PW-7 Constable Jai Ram, PW-8 Rattan Singh SI, PW-9 Constable Jasbir Singh and PW-10 Dr. Jayal Goel. They proved various documents, which are on the file. 22. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. They denied all the prosecution allegations and complained of their false implicity in the case. 23. The defence plea is that the appellants were implicated falsely on account of enmity and party faction in the village. 24. Veer Bhan and Ramesh Kumar-appellants took the plea that they did not commit rape on the victim and on the day of incident they were not present in the village. 25. Ramesh Kumar-appellant also took the plea that his father namely Radhu Ram had been contesting election for the last 20 years. Deewan Chand contested election for Sarpanch against him (Radhu Ram). Radhu Ram had been winning election throughout. As such, Deewan Chand nursed grudge against him (Ramesh Kumar-appellant). Gura, resident of village Tanda, District Sonipat is relation of said Deewan Chand. Said Gura is Tau (fathers elder brother) of PW Lal Chand, husband of the victim. The victim was put up and a false case was made out against him. 26. Ajmer and Suraj Bhan alias Surja-appellants also took the same defence. 27. Raju-appellant stated that he was in village Mohana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat on the day of the incident. He was implicated in this case on account of enmity. 28. The appellants in defence tendered certified copy of Election Petition No. 12/2 of 1995 decided on 28.10.1995 titled "Deewan Chand v. Radhu Ram" Ex. D-1 and closed their defence evidence. 29. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Senior Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-Haryana State were heard and the evidence was scrutinished with their help. 30. The Ld. D-1 and closed their defence evidence. 29. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Senior Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent-Haryana State were heard and the evidence was scrutinished with their help. 30. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that the allegations of gang rape seem to have clouded the objective approach of the trial Court. Lal Chand, husband of the victim is alcoholic and if he was taken on 5.2.1999 by Suraj Bhan alias Suraj, one of the appellants for drinking bout, this by itself does not take the prosecution anywhere. The victim allegedly accompanied Veer Bhan-appellant at about 11 at night and it looks queer that on a winter night for bringing back her drunken husband. It was also argued that the statement of the victim is not corroborated by evidence of any other witness. There is delay of five days in lodging the First Information Report with police. The explanation, which has been furnished is not plausible. There are contradictions in the statements of the victim and her husband. All this makes the impugned judgment of conviction liable to be set aside. We have given out thoughtful consideration to all the objections raised by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants and our observations are as under :- 31. The victim was examined as PW-1. As per her statement, Suraj Bhan alias Surja, one of the appellants came at her house at about 6.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence and he took with him her husband. Then at about 11 p.m., the door of her house were knocked at. She opened the door considering that her husband had returned home. She, however, found Veer Bhan-appellant at the door, who asked her to bring back her husband saying that he was lying under the influence of liquor. She accompanied Veer Bhan-appellant, who took her to the fields near the engine of Mukhtiara Fauji (military mean). She asked Veer Bhan the whereabouts of her husband, wereupon, he gave a threat to her that in case she raised alarm, she would be killed. The other appellants, namely; Bagicha, Ajmer, Ramesh Kumar, Raju and Suraj Bhan were also present there. She already knew all of them. She was scared. Veer Bhan, Ramesh Kumar and Ajmer had sexual intercourse with her turn by turn. The other appellants, namely; Bagicha, Ajmer, Ramesh Kumar, Raju and Suraj Bhan were also present there. She already knew all of them. She was scared. Veer Bhan, Ramesh Kumar and Ajmer had sexual intercourse with her turn by turn. The other three remaining appellants, namely; Bagicha, Raju and Suraj Bhan alias Surja kept on scaring her. Thereafter, Veer Bhan left her at her house. At that time, he also gave her threat that in case she disclosed the incident to anybody, she shall be killed. The statement of the victim further reveals that the next morning her husband returned home. She then narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter, he went to Punjab State to bring her parents. When her parents came, she lodged the report with the police. Her statement Ex. P-1 was recorded by the police, which she admitted to be correct when it was read over to her. She put her thumb impression on it. She claimed that she was also medico-legally examined by the doctor. 32. There is an impress of truth in her statement. No corroboration is required for basing conviction on the testimony of the victim provided it is truthful. In Indian set up, refusal to act on the testimony of the victim in the sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. The victim in this case is a ruralite. She is conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society. There is an inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine, rather than fabricated. Just as an injured witness is the best witness, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. The victim, who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants is not, therefore, tenable that it would not be safe to act upon the solitary statement of the victim. 33. PW-2 Lal Chand is the husband of the victim. His statement lends support and to some extent corroborates the prosecution case. His statement reveals that on 5.2.199 at about 6.30 p.m., Suraj Bhan-appellant came to his house and took him along with him for a drinking bout. He was taken to the tube-well of Hari Singh Gujjar. 33. PW-2 Lal Chand is the husband of the victim. His statement lends support and to some extent corroborates the prosecution case. His statement reveals that on 5.2.199 at about 6.30 p.m., Suraj Bhan-appellant came to his house and took him along with him for a drinking bout. He was taken to the tube-well of Hari Singh Gujjar. It is pertinent here to mention that this place i.e. tube-well of Hari Singh Gujjar is different to which the victim was taken by Veer Bhan-appellant. She was taken to the fields of Mukhtiara Fauji (military man). All the appellants were present at the tube-well of Hari Singh Gujjar. They were already known and familiar to PW-2 Lal Chand. Ajmer-appellant brought a can of liquor. The appellants made PW-2 Lal Chand to drink liquor excessively. He was alcoholic. He lost his senses and slept there. His testimony reveals that he woke up at about 6 a.m. in the next morning. Then he returned home. He found his wife i.e. the victim weeping. She then narrated the entire story of commission of rape on her. As he was not having any relation at village Rajapur, therefore, he went to his in-laws house in the State of Punjab to bring them from there. He returned with his father-in-law and mother-in-law on 9.2.1999 and then on 10.2.1999, victim lodged report of the occurrence with the police. There is also a ring of truth in his statement. There are some contradictions in his statement and in the statement of the victim. These contradictions pale into insignificance. The combined reading of their evidence cogently proves that the victim was taken to the fields of Mukhtiara Fauji (military man) on the pretext that she was to bring back her drunken husband and there Veer Bhan, Ajmer and Ramesh Kumar committed rape on her turn by turn, while the other appellants Raju, Bagicha and Suraj Bhan intimidated her, as a result of which she was scared. The prosecution version stands proved from their testimonies. 34. The medical evidence in this case corroborates the testimony of the victim. She was medically examined on 11.2.1999 at 1 p.m. by PW-10 Dr. Jaya Goel. Three injuries were found on her body, which are as under :- "1. There was small bluish colour bruise on the right eye lid on the lateral part of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size. 2. She was medically examined on 11.2.1999 at 1 p.m. by PW-10 Dr. Jaya Goel. Three injuries were found on her body, which are as under :- "1. There was small bluish colour bruise on the right eye lid on the lateral part of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size. 2. There was a bluish colour bruise on the right cheek of 2 cm x 0.5 cm in size. 3. An abrasion on the upper 1/3rd of the left fore-arm on the lateral part of 2 cm x 0.2 cm in size. Brownish colour crust was present." 35. These injuries obviously were caused as a result of her resistance to the sexual assault made by the appellants. The victim was a married and pregnant woman. Her last menstruation period on 28.12.1998. There was an old rapture of her hymen. Vaginal swabs and slides were taken, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. It is in the statement of the victim that she had preserved her `salwar having felt conscious of the fact that she might be required to produce it before the police. This `salwar was also sent for laboratory test in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Two underwears of Ramesh Kumar and Ajmer-appellants, which the police had seized were also sent for test in the laboratory. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P-24, human semen was detected on the `salwar of the victim, on slides and vaginal swabs and underwears of Ramesh Kumar and Ajmer-appellants. PW-10 Dr. Jaya Goel after seeing the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory gave opinion that the possibility of rape could not be ruled out. Presence of human semen on the `salwar of the victim, presence of injuries on her body, which were caused on account of her resistance to the sexual assault furnish corroborative evidence. 36. Appellants Veer Bhan, Ramesh Kumar and Raju have taken the plea of alibi. The law is well settled that the onus to prove it is on the accused. No evidence has been adduced by them to prove this plea of alibi. 37. The defence plea is also that Deewan Chand lost elections in favour of Radhu Ram, father of Ramesh Kumar-appellant. The law is well settled that the onus to prove it is on the accused. No evidence has been adduced by them to prove this plea of alibi. 37. The defence plea is also that Deewan Chand lost elections in favour of Radhu Ram, father of Ramesh Kumar-appellant. Said Deewan Chand is related to Gura, who in turn is `Tau (fathers elder brother) of Lal Chand, husband of the victim and Deewan Chand put up the victim and got the appellants falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry. Nobody puts up his wife in cases of such like heinous crime. The honour of the family is at stake. So, there is no substance in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been implicated in this false case on account of political rivalry. 38. Regarding delay in lodging the FIR with the police, it would be suffice to mention that the relatives of the victim living in the vicinity were against them. So, they did not feel secure to disclose the occurrence to them. Husband of the victim is alcoholic. His relatives were hostile to him. So, he went to the State of Punjab to bring the parents of the victim from there and on their return this occurrence was reported to the police on 10.2.1999. The prosecution version has been found in conformity with the medical evidence and all other circumstances indicate towards the guilt of the appellants. The prosecution case cannot be thrown away merely because of some delay in reporting the occurrence to the police. 39. Having analysed the evidence, we are of the opinion that the charge of gang rape and criminal intimidation is proved beyond every reasonable doubt against all the appellants. We, therefore, uphold the impugned judgment of conviction. 40. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that Bagicha, Raju and Suraj Bhan did not indulge in sexual intercourse with the victim. They are married persons and they have to support their wives and children and old parents and, therefore, a lenient view regarding sentence to be taken against them. Bagicha has already undergone incarceration for more than 4 years and 1 month, while Suraj Bhan has undergone incarceration for more than 4 years and 3 months and their co-convict Raju has undergone incarceration for more than 3 years and 10 months. Bagicha has already undergone incarceration for more than 4 years and 1 month, while Suraj Bhan has undergone incarceration for more than 4 years and 3 months and their co-convict Raju has undergone incarceration for more than 3 years and 10 months. Since Bagicha, Raju and Suraj Bhan have already undergone a considerable period of incarceration, taking a lenient view it appears to be just and proper that the imprisonment already undergone by them would meet the ends of justice. Ordered accordingly. Veer Bhan, Ajmar and Ramesh Kumar, who committed the act of rape on the victim do not deserve any leniency. Except the above modification in the impugned sentence order, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.