JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. The present one is a nerve-shattering incident of commission of rape on a girl, at the prime of her youth in the hands of an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police with the aid and, in fact, at the instigation of a woman, regarded as his wife, while the victim had been working as a domestic help at the house of the two accused-Appellants. 2. By the judgment and order, dated 17.12.1998, passed in Sessions Case No. 94/1997, the accused-Appellant No. 1, stands convicted under Section 376 and 323 IPC and sentenced to suffer, for his conviction under Section 376 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and, in default, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years and also suffer, for his conviction under Section 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently with further direction that the fine shall, if realised, be given to the victim. By the judgment and order aforementioned, the accused No. 2 stands convicted under Section 323 and 376 read with Section 114 IPC; but she has been released on execution of a bond undertaking to keep peace and behaviour for a period of 2 years. 3. The prosecution case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described thus: The accused-Appellant No. 1 accompanied by a man, went to the house of the parents of the alleged victim 'K' and requested her parents to send their daughter 'K', to the house of the accused-Appellant No. 1 to work as a domestic help and, in return thereof, the accused-Appellant No. 1 offered to help 'K' in receiving proper education and also promised to get 'K' married. Happy with the proposal, so received, 'K's father sent 'K' to the house of the accused-Appellant No. 1, who used to live there with the accused-Appellant No. 2 as his wife. Initially, both the accused-Appellants behaved well with 'K'; but the accused No. 2, gradually, started ill-treating 'K'. Happy with the proposal, so received, 'K's father sent 'K' to the house of the accused-Appellant No. 1, who used to live there with the accused-Appellant No. 2 as his wife. Initially, both the accused-Appellants behaved well with 'K'; but the accused No. 2, gradually, started ill-treating 'K'. After 'K' had spent more than one month, at the house of the two accused, one day, i.e., on 04.07.96, 'K', having cooked food in the evening, laid the food on the table and when the two accused were having their meals, 'K' was present near them At that time, accused No. 2 asked 'K' if she would give them a child. When 'K' expressed unwillingness to agree to such a sinful proposal, accused No. 2 pushed 'K' towards accused No. 1 and asked him to do whatever he wanted. The accused No. 1, then, forcibly carried 'K' to their bed-room and threw her on the bed. While 'K' was struggling to free herself and shouted for help, she was gagged and the accused No. 2 closed the door of the house from inside and, thereafter, the accused No. 1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with 'K' During the occurrence, 'K' suffered injuries on her check, chest, etc. After the rape was. committed on 'K', accused No. 2 told the accused No. 1 that 'K' might run away and, hence, she must be made to sleep in their room. 'K' was, then, forced to sleep on the floor of the bed-room, wherein the two accused used to sleep. On the following day, in the morning, 'K' started looking for an opportunity to run away from the house and after the accused No. 1 left home for the market, 'K' scaled the wall of the house, went running to a Teacher's Training Centre, located nearby, and reported the occurrence to them. The women, who were present at the said training centre, consoled 'K' and, their Principal (PW 4), then, informed, in writing (Ext.4), the Superintendent of Police Dibrugarh, about the occurrence. On being informed about the occurrence, police came to the training centre and took 'K' with them to the police station where 'K' formally made a complaint and treating this complaint as FIR, the police registered a case against the two accused. On being informed about the occurrence, police came to the training centre and took 'K' with them to the police station where 'K' formally made a complaint and treating this complaint as FIR, the police registered a case against the two accused. During the course of investigation, 'K' was medically examined and, on completion of the investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 342 / 323 / 376 IPC. 4. To the charges framed against him under Sections 342, 323 and 376 IPC, the accused No. 1 pleaded not guilty. Similarly, to the charges framed under Sections 342, 323 and 376 read with Section 114 IPC, the accused No. 2, too, pleaded not guilty. In support of their case, prosecution examined seven witnesses. The two accused were, then, examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and in their examination aforementioned, the accused denied that they had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by them, the case of the defence being, in brief, thus: Following an altercation, which the accused No. 1 had with the local Superintendent of Police, the accused No. 1 had development stained relation with the local Superintendent of Police and the accused No. 1 had been threatened by the latter with dire consequences. 'K' had asked for money; but the accused No. 1 declined to give her money by saying that he would give money only to her father, whereupon 'K', taking advantage of the absence of the accused No. 1, ran away from the house and, on coming to know about her disappearance, the accused No. 1 informed the police. At the behest of the Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh, the present case was initiated against the two accused by making wholly false and concocted allegations. In support of their case, the defence examined one witness. Having, however, found the accused guilty, as indicated hereinabove, the learned trial Court convicted them accordingly and passed sentences against them as already mentioned above. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences passed against them, the two accused have preferred the appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-Appellants, and Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences passed against them, the two accused have preferred the appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-Appellants, and Mr. B. S. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 6. Since it is the evidence of 'K' (PW 2), which functions as the pivot and upon whose evidence revolves the entire case of the prosecution, necessary it is to have a patient and careful look into the evidence of PW 2. 7. Before I enter into the merit of the present appeal, certain facts, which are not in dispute, may be taken note of and these facts are: The accused-Appellant No. 1 is a married person and he has instituted a suit seeking dissolution of his marriage. Till, at least, the time, when the impugned judgment was pronounced, no decree for dissolution of marriage of the accused with his wife had been granted. Though the accused, at the relevant time, functioned as the Foreigner's Registration Officer, Dibrugarh, and dissolution of his marriage with his wife having not reached its finality, lived with accused No. 2 as his wife, the fact remains that out of the relationship, which the accused No. 1 maintained with the accused No. 2, no issue had been born to them. 'K' had been brought by accused No. 1 from her parents' house and, at the relevant point of time, 'K' had been working as a domestic help at the house of the accused No. 1, where he used to live along with accused No. 2. PW1 was a casual employee at the officer of the accused No. 1, he used to extend domestic help at the house of the accused, but at night, he (PW1) used to sleep at the said officer; but 'K' used to work and also sleep at the house of the accused. There is a Teacher's Training Centre near the house of the accused No. 1. After the case was registered by police against the two accused, while accused No. 2 was forwarded to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, seeking her remand to the judicial custody, the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, allowed the accused No. 1 to go PR Bond. The police never sought for police or judicial remand in respect of the accused No. 1. 8. The police never sought for police or judicial remand in respect of the accused No. 1. 8. In the backdrop of the above admitted facts, let me, now, turn to the evidence of 'K' (PW2) around whose evidence revolves the entire case of the prosecution. 9. According to the evidence of 'K', on the night of the occurrence, after she had laid food on the table and the two accused had started having their dinner, accused No. 2, during the course of her conversation, asked 'K' if she would be willing to give them a child and when 'K' vehemently opposed such a proposal, accused No. 2 caught hold of 'K', pushed her towards accused No. 1 and asked accused No. 1 to do whatever he could do, whereupon accused No. 1 forcibly dragged 'K' to their bed-room, threw her on the bed and as 'K' was struggling to free herself from the clutches of accused No. 1, she was gagged, accused No. 2 closed the door from inside and accused No. 1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with 'K' despite her resistance. After the rape was committed on her, accused No. 2 told the accused No. 1 that 'K' might run away and, hence, she should be made to sleep in their bed-room, whereupon 'K' had to sleep on the floor of the said bed-room. It is in the evidence of PW2 that on the following day, in the morning, she had bath and washed her wearing apparels and after the accused No. 1 had left his house for marketing, she scaled the wall of the house and run to the training centre and informed the women, working there, about what had happened to her, whereupon those persons, who were present at the said training center, informed the police, came and took her to the police station, where she lodged an Ejahar, which is Exhibit 1. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that police took her to medical college, where the doctor examined her. 10. A microscopic scrutiny of the cross-examination of PW2 shows that from the cross-examination of PW2, nothing could be elicited by the defence, which can be taken to have shaken the credibility of the evidence given by this witness. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that police took her to medical college, where the doctor examined her. 10. A microscopic scrutiny of the cross-examination of PW2 shows that from the cross-examination of PW2, nothing could be elicited by the defence, which can be taken to have shaken the credibility of the evidence given by this witness. In fact, notwithstanding a lengthy cross-examination of PW2, her evidence has remained unshaken and the defence, except offering some suggestions to her, elicited nothing, which can be taken to have impeached her credibility. It may also be pointed out that though, while cross-examination PW2, the defence suggested to her that she had been seen scaling the boundary wall of the house of the accused and going away along with two boys, the defence evidence, as disclosed though DW1, shows that according to DW1, he had seen PW2 going alone. This assertion of DW1 belies the defence case, suggested to PW2, that she had elopechor run away with two boys from the house of the accused. 11. Though it has been the case of the defence that it was at the behest of the Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh, that the accused No. 1 has been implicated in a wholly concocted case, the fact remains, as already indicated hereinabove, that while the female accused, namely, accused No. 2 was remanded to judicial custody, the accused No. 1 was allowed to go by the police from the police station itself on his executing a PR Bond. If the accused No. 1 was really sick, nothing had stopped the police from arresting him, securing his remand and putting him to Assam Medical College Hospital at Dibrugarh. It is asserted by accused No. 1 that the Superintendent of Police had asked the Officer-in-Charge, Dibrugarh Police Station, to take accused No. 1 in handcuff to the Court; but the evidence on record belies this assertion inasmuch as the accused No. 1 was not taken to the Court at all; rather, he was allowed to go home on mere execution of PR Bond, while the female accused was to sent to Court seeking her judicial remand. The impression that the police was helpful to accused No. 1, rather being hostile to him, as alleged by the accused No. 1, gets strength from the fact that while the accused was a serving officer, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police showing the accused as an absconder. Such conduct of the police clearly reveals that they did not want to send the accused No. 1, on judicial remand, to jail and by merely showing him as absconder, in the charge-sheet, they ensured that the accused No. 1 could go to the Court and plead that police had shown him as absconder, though he had all along been a serving officer. All these circumstances rule out the possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated at the behest of the Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh. 12. Thus, while the possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated at the behest of the Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh, can be safely ruled out, the evidence given by the PW2 remains, despite cross-examination, unshaken in material particulars. 13. In the backdrop of what have been indicated above, let me, now, turn to the Appellants's case as presented before this Court. 14. It is contended by Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-Appellant, that the entire description of the alleged occurrence is absurd inasmuch as no woman would help her husband to commit rape on Anr. woman or ask a woman or a girl to give them a child through her husband. It is next contended by Mr. J.M. Choudhury that the medical examination report completely rules out the possibility of rape having been committed on 'K'. It is pointed out by Mr. J.M. Choudhury that Ext.4, which was lodged by the Principal of the said training college, does not mention that rape had been committed on 'K' and since this was the information, which was first, in point of time, as regards the occurrence, and was, in law, the FIR of the case and since this FIR is silent as regards the alleged occurrence of rape, it can be safely gathered that the case has been concocted at the behest of the Superintendent of Police. It is also pointed out by Mr. It is also pointed out by Mr. J.M. Choudhury that Jogeswar (PW1), whom 'K' had met at the house of the accused No. 1, on the following day of the occurrence, had not been reported about the incident of rape by 'K'. The omission, on the part of 'K', to report to PW 1 is, according to Mr. J M Choudhury, clear indication of the fact that the occurrence of rape, as alleged by 'K', is a concocted version of the occurrence. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. J.M. Choudhury that some assault might have been taken place on 'K', but the allegation of rape committed on her is completely false. This impression, according to Mr. Choudhury, receives support from the medical evidence on record, which discloses presence of some injuries on the person of 'K'. 15. Before discussing the merit of the submissions made on behalf of the accused-Appellants, it is pertinent to note that a prosecutrix does not stand on the same footing as dies an accomplice. 16. While considering the evidence on record, it is important to bear in mind that a victim of sexual assault does not stand on the same footing as does an accomplice. Hence, her evidence does not need corroboration. If her evidence is found believable and trustworthy, no further corroboration may be insisted. (See State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj and Anr. reported in (2000) 1 SCC 247 ). Clarified the Supreme Court, in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , that if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars and, 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 to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. Further observed the Supreme Court, in Gurmit Singh (supra), that the testimony of a prosecutrix must be appreciated in the back ground of the entire case and the trial Court must remain alive to its responsibility and be sensitive, while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation. 17. Further observed the Supreme Court, in Gurmit Singh (supra), that the testimony of a prosecutrix must be appreciated in the back ground of the entire case and the trial Court must remain alive to its responsibility and be sensitive, while dealing with cases involving sexual molestation. 17. Referring to the State of Maharastra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain reported in (1990) 1 SCC 550 , the Supreme Court, in Gurmit Singh (supra), held, The Courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman comes 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 case 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 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 Courts 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. (Emphasis is supplied) 18. Bearing in mind the principles of law governing appreciation of evidence of a victim of sexual assault, let me, now, turn to the evidence of PW 3. This witness, has, I notice, deposed that on 05.07.1996, at about 10 am, while she, along with two of the other trainees, at the Teachers Training Centre, was preparing tea, a girl, whom this witness has, eventually, identified as 'K', came running to the said training centre and while so entering into the training centre, 'K' was crying. What is important to note, in the evidence of PW 3, is that according to her, 'K' told them that she had been working in the house of accused No. 1 and that on the previous night, she was assaulted and ravished. What is important to note, in the evidence of PW 3, is that according to her, 'K' told them that she had been working in the house of accused No. 1 and that on the previous night, she was assaulted and ravished. It is also in the evidence of PW 3 that 'K' was, then, taken to the office of their principal (i.e., P.W. 4) and that 'K' reported to the principal too about the said occurrence. 19. In her cross-examination, PW 3 clarified that she had seen injuries on the hands and face of 'K' and that 'K' had entered into the training centre by saying, "Baideo, Bachaok, Bachaok" "Sister, please save me, save me." 20. What is, now, of utmost importance to note is that the evidence given by PW 3 that 'K' had reported to them that on the previous night, she had been subjected to rape remained wholly unchallenged. It is in this backdrop that the evidence of PW 4, who was, at the relevant time, principal of the said training college, needs to be analyzed. While considering the evidence of PW 4, what may be noted is that on 05.07.1996, at about 11 O' clock, in the morning, while she was present at the said training centre, some of the female trainees came running to her and reported that a girl, in nervous state, had arrived there sobbing and asking them, 'Mok Bachaok, Mok Rakhya Karak" (i.e., please save me, please protect me"). It is in the evidence of P.W. 4 that she, then, got the girl (P.W. 2) called and enquired from her as to what had happened. To the query, so made by PW 4, PW 2 is said to have told her that on the previous night, her employer, Prafulla Sensowa, and his wife had beaten her and ravished her. It is in the evidence of PW 4 that on the cheek of 'K', there were injuries. It is also in the evidence of PW 4 that they made 'K' comfortable and she, in writing, reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, whereupon the police came from the police station and took away the girl. 21. It is in the evidence of PW 4 that on the cheek of 'K', there were injuries. It is also in the evidence of PW 4 that they made 'K' comfortable and she, in writing, reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, whereupon the police came from the police station and took away the girl. 21. From the evidence of PW 4, it becomes clear that it was pursuant to the information given by her regarding the occurrence to the Superintendent of Police that the police machinery moved into action, police came to the said training centre and took away the girl with them. When this piece of evidence is considered in the light of the evidence of the police officers, it becomes transparent that after reaching the police station, the police received a complaint from 'K' with regard to the occurrence and treating the same as FIR, they registered a case, the complainant, so made by 'K', being Ext.2. 22. From the above, it is clear that 'K's complaint (Ext.2) made to the police, which has been treated as the FIR, is, in fact, a statement made during the investigation of the case, for, the investigation had already commenced on the report, which PW 4 had sent to the Superintendent of Police and acting upon which the police had come to the said training centre and took 'K' away to the police station. The report given to the Superintendent of Police by PW 4 has been proved as Ext. 4. It is thus, crystal clear that Ext. 4 ought to have been treated as FIR and not Ext. 2. 23. Be that as it may what needs to be noted is that Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, has pointed out that Ext. 4, which is, in law, the FIR, does not state explicitly that rape had been committed on 'K' and this omission shows, reiterates Mr. Choudhury, that the accusation of rape was made by 'K' at the behest of the then Superintendent of Police, Dibrugarh, after she (K) had reached the police station. 24. While considering the above aspect of the submission made on behalf of the accused-Appellants, what may be noted is that accused No. 1 was a high-ranking police officer and it is quite possible that PW 4 was careful not to mention explicitly, in Ext. 24. While considering the above aspect of the submission made on behalf of the accused-Appellants, what may be noted is that accused No. 1 was a high-ranking police officer and it is quite possible that PW 4 was careful not to mention explicitly, in Ext. 4, that 'K' had reported to them that she have been subjected to rape. This apart, Ext. 4 shows that PW 4 reported to the police that 'K' had told them that she had been tortured at her employer's place. The expression torture includes not only assault on K or K's employer's attitude towards her, but also the act of rape committed on her (K's). 25. Coupled with the above, what is worth noticing is that Ext. 4 was written and submitted by PW 4. Since 'K' (PW 2) was not the author of Ext. 4, she is not bound by the contents of Ext. 4. That apart, even when PW 4 was cross-examined, the defence felt shy to ask PW 4 as to why she has not mentioned, in Ext.4, that she had been reported by P.W.2 that P.W. 2 had been subjected to rape. Having not specifically asked PW 4 as to why she had not mentioned, in Ext. 4, that 'K' had reported to them that she had been subjected to rape, the omission to make an explicit statement in Ext.4, as regards the factum of rape, cannot shake the credibility of the evidence of PW 4 and/or PW 2 (K), particularly, when the evidence of K has withstood well the test of cross-examination. That there can be no legal impediment in relying on the evidence of 'K' and also on the evidence of PW 4 is clear from the fact that the clear evidence of PW 3 is that 'K' had reported to them that she had been subjected to rape. This assertion of PW 3 remained, as already noticed above, unchallenged by the defence. This, in turn, shows that 'K' entered sobbing into the said training centre asking the women trainees there to save her, she had injuries on her person including her cheeks and she reported to them that on the previous night, she had been beaten by her employer's wife and that on the previous night, she had been subjected to rape. 26. 26. Thus, whether rape had, in fact, been committed on PW 2 or not is a question, which may remain in dispute; but in the light of the evidence of PW 3 and PW 4, there can be no escape from the conclusion that 'K' did come sobbing, in injured state, running to the said training centre and reported to them that she had been beaten by her employer and his wife and that on the previous night, she had been subjected to rape. In short, the omission to mention in Ext. 4 that 'K' had been subjected to rape does not, as the evidence on record discussed above reflect, impeach the credibility of the evidence of 'K'. 27. Bearing in mind what have been indicated above, let me, now, come to, and deal with, the medical evidence on record. 28. According to the evidence of the doctor (PW 5), on 06.07.1996 at about 10:30 am, he examined 'K' and found as follows: Description of injury. 1. Sub conjunctional haemorrhage present on both eye, approx. 0.5 cm in dia, which is red colour. 2. An abrasion present on left martial process (0.5x0.5 cm) 3. An abrassion present on left side of forehead at hair margin. (1 x 0.4 cm) 4. An abrasion present on dorsal surface of the right middle finger in the proximal so middle phalanx. (1.5 x 0.5 cm) each, with tendernes and smelling present. 5. Smelling and tenderness present on dorsum of the left hand. 6. 4 Nos. of abrasion present on right side of the cheek in a creosote line, (3/4 x 0.2 cm) each. 7. A diffused bruise present on lateral side of upper half of the left arm (10x 4 cm) 8. A sessire present on back of the sight shoulder (2 x 1 cm) and lateral side of middle part of right arm(1 x 1 cm) 9. A diffused urine of 3 cm dia, present on right cheek. 10. Tenderness present (on palpation) on joint of the chest. The colour of the abrasion are found with bright seal formation and the bruise are blue colour. 29. Though PW 5 has opined that the evidence of recent sexual intercourse was not seen, on PW 2 s person, the fact remains that there were multiple injuries on 'K' (PW 2), the injuries included abrasions on the cheek and there were signs of defloration. 29. Though PW 5 has opined that the evidence of recent sexual intercourse was not seen, on PW 2 s person, the fact remains that there were multiple injuries on 'K' (PW 2), the injuries included abrasions on the cheek and there were signs of defloration. Though the defloration may not be due to rape; but even in the face of the findings of PW 5, the possibility that 'K' was subjected to rape cannot be boldly ruled out. Thus, the medical evidence on record does not rule out the possibility of rape having been committed on 'K', rather, even the medical evidence on record supports, to a large extent, the evidence of 'K' (PW 2) and of PWs 2, 3 and 4. It is also important to note that the occurrence took place on the night of 4th of July and the medical examination took place 26th of July in the morning. Thus, there might not have been visible signs of assault on the genital of 'K'. 30. It has been pointed out by Mr. J.M. Choudhury that according to the evidence of 'K', she did not report to Jogendra (PW 1) about the occurrence of rape. What is important to note, while considering this submission, made on behalf of the accused-Appellant, is that PW 1 was a casual employee at the office of the accused No. 1 and as the evidence on record shows, PW 2 used to work during the day time at the house of the accused. It is quite possible that 'K' did not find it safe to report PW 1 about the occurrence lest PW 1 reports the matter to the accused. Be that as it may, when 'K' was under cross-examination, nothing stopped the defence mom eliciting from 'K' as to why she had not reported the occurrence to PW 1. Without giving any opportunity to PW 2 to have her say in the matter and explain as to why she had not reported the occurrence to PW 1, no adverse inference, in the absence of any cross-examination, in this regard, can be drawn against 'K'. 31. Without giving any opportunity to PW 2 to have her say in the matter and explain as to why she had not reported the occurrence to PW 1, no adverse inference, in the absence of any cross-examination, in this regard, can be drawn against 'K'. 31. What emerges from the above discussion is that the evidence on record convincingly prove that 'K' used to work at the house of the accused No. 1, where the accused No. 2 also used to live as the wife of the accused No. 1, though the marriage-tie between the accused No. 1 and his legally wedded wife had, at least, till then, not been dissolved. The accused No. 1 and also the accused No. 2 being issueless, at the relevant point of time, wanted to have child through 'K'; but 'K' declined to acceed to such indecent proposal; both accused, then, applied force on K and accused No. 2 helped the accused No., 1 to have sexual intercourse with 'K' without her consent and against her will. In the circumstances, as reflected from the evidence on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the accused-Appellant No. 1 had been proved to have committed the offences under Sections323 and 376 and the accused-Appellant No. 2 had committed offences under Sections 323 and 376 read with Section 114 IPC. The conviction of the accused-Appellants, therefore, needs no interference. 32. Turning to the sentences passed against the accused-Appellant No. 1, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has dealt with the matter leniently compared to what evidence on record demanded. Situated thus, it is clear that even the sentences passed against the accused-Appellant No. 1 need no interference by this Court. As far as the accused-Appellant No. 2 is concerned, she has been let off without any sentence of imprisonment or fine. Since the State has not preferred any appeal, for, the omission, on the part of the learned Sessions Judge, to sentence the accused-Appellant No. 2 to imprisonment, the sentence passed against the accused-Appellant No. 2 also calls for no interference by this Court. 33. With the above observations and directions, this appeal shall stand dismissed. 34. Let the LCRs be sent back. Appeal dismissed