JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J:- This order will dispose of above said three appeals as these have arisen out of the same judgment. The appellants have assailed the conviction and sentence awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment dated 31-05-2001. All the appellants were sent up to face trial for having committed offences under Sections 363/366/376(2)(g)/342/506 /34 IPC in a case registered vide FIR No. 8 dated 19-01-1998. 2. A 17 year old girl, a student of 10+1 in Kairon School at Amritsar was allegedly taken away by the appellants on 17-01-1998 to a house in a locality in the vicinity of the bus stand when she was waiting to catch the bus to go to her residential school. In the said house, she was subjected to rape by the 4 accused persons. The prosecutrix is said to have returned home and apprised her mother of the incident. Her father who is ASI with the police department was away in connection with his duties and had returned on 19-01-1998 upon which he was apprised of the situation and a formal FIR was registered against the accused persons. 3. The police after completing its investigation prima facie established the complicity of the appellants and submitted a challan against them under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 4. Accordingly, all the appellants were charged for having committed the offences under the provisions of law which have been detailed above. 5. In order to establish the case against the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses which included testimony of the doctors and the report of the Chemical Examiner by way of medical evidence. 6. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the appellants pleaded false implication on account of enimity. The plea of alibi was also set up wherein Surinder Kumar alias Sunny pleaded that he was on duly at that point of time. Similarly, Balwant Raj also set up the plea of alibi to say that he was on duty on that day with B.M. Munjhal with whom he is working as gunman, 7. The plea of alibi was also set up wherein Surinder Kumar alias Sunny pleaded that he was on duly at that point of time. Similarly, Balwant Raj also set up the plea of alibi to say that he was on duty on that day with B.M. Munjhal with whom he is working as gunman, 7. The trial Court after appraisal of the evidence before it, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to establish the case against all the appellants and accordingly convicted them for having committed the offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and setenced them to undergo imprisonment the details of which are as follows:- “Under Section 363 IPC To undergo Rl for 5 years and to fine of Rs. 500/-each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. Under Section 376(2)(g) To undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rl for 3 months. In the present appeals against the aforesaid sentence and conviction awarded to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 31-05-2001 the appellants have pleaded that the prosecutrix was concededly more than 17 years of age and that it is a clear case where she was the consenting party and in view of this, no offence was made out against them. 8. That apart, it was pleaded that in the eventuality of this Court coming to the conclusion that the offence as alleged against the appellants has been committed a lenient view be taken as they are first offenders and that there is indeed some element of consent which should be inferred from a reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix. 9. The aforesaid plea as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was stoutly resisted by the learned State counsel who contended that there is ample evidence on record to establish the commission of the aforesaid offence and that the appellants do not deserve any leniency for the reason that they being police personnel, belonged to a disciplined force and were expected to behave responsibly. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. 11. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. 11. The prosecutrix has given her age as 17 years and the opinion of the doctor, who wanted to probe her age, but due to the non-cooperation of the prosecutrix could not get the ossification test done and gave her age as anything between 19 to 20 years and qualified it with her physical description regarding development of the secondary sexual characters of the prosecutrix. 12. It would be thus safe to assume that the age of the prosecutrix was concededly more than 17 years. A strong emphasis was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to contend that the prosecutrix in her testimony had stated that she was waiting at bus stand where she was approached by 3 of the accused persons, namely, Surinder Kumar alias Sunny, Raj Kumar alias Raju and Harminder Singh alias Reta. All the 3 accused are said to have asked her to come on the scooter and she willingly accompanied them which is reflective of the fact that she was the consenting party. This coupled with the medical testimony shows her to be habitual to sexual intercourse which was sufficient to establish her consent in the entire episode. 13. On a careful examination of the statement of the prosecutrix, it transpires that she was certainly familiar with Surinder Kumar alias Sunny who was also known to the father of the prosecutrix. She has stated that she knew him for the last one and a half years prior to the occurrence. In these circumstances, she probably could have consented to go with him. Her coyness, however, prevented her from stating so in as many words that she was know to Surinder Kumar alias Sunny and was also probably used to accompanying him earlier also. But this factor alone does not suggest that she had consented to have a sexual liason with Surinder Kumar or for that matter with three other persons who ultimately made her a victim of their lust. The medical testimony of PW2 is as follows:- “1. Secondary sex characteristics are developed. 2. One cm abrasion present 10 cm below the right ear. 3. Breast is developed. Axillary haris were present. 4. Teeth mark were present on the right breast in the outer quadrant of the breast. The member of impressions was 3. 5. The medical testimony of PW2 is as follows:- “1. Secondary sex characteristics are developed. 2. One cm abrasion present 10 cm below the right ear. 3. Breast is developed. Axillary haris were present. 4. Teeth mark were present on the right breast in the outer quadrant of the breast. The member of impressions was 3. 5. Abrasion 3cm x 4 cm was present on the right thigh on the medical side. 6. Abrasion 2 cm x 3 cm was present on the left thigh on the medial side. 7. No bleeding from vagina, Hymen margins were regular. No tear, no oozing from the hymen four chetty was in tact. Vaginal swabs No. 1 from lower vagina and 2 from upper vagina was taken and sent for chemical examination. 14. The possibility of the prosecutrix having been subjected to sexual intercourse forcibly has not been ruled out by the medical opinion on record. 15. There is, thus. no escape from the conclusion that she was indeed subjected to rape if the sequence of events coupled with medical testimony are taken together. 16. In any eventuality, one need not necessarily look at the corroborative evidence if the testimony of the prosecutrix is inspiring. The Supreme Court in Ram Kirpal v. State of M.P., 2007 AIR SCW 2198 held as follows:­ “A culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and there after attempts to committed the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if he fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment, he commences to do an act with the necessary intention. he commences his attempt to commit the offence. The word “attempt” is not itself defined and must, therefore be taken in its ordinary meaning. This is exactly what the provisions Section 511 require. An attempt to commit a crime is to be distinguished from an intention to commit it; and from preparation made for its commission. Mere intention to commit an offence, not followed by any act cannot constitute an offence. This is exactly what the provisions Section 511 require. An attempt to commit a crime is to be distinguished from an intention to commit it; and from preparation made for its commission. Mere intention to commit an offence, not followed by any act cannot constitute an offence. The will is not to be taken for the deed unless there be some external act which shows that progress has been made in the direction of it, or towards maturing and effecting it. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon considering the motives which suggest the choice. Preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of offence. It differs widely from attempt which is the direct movement movement towards the preparations are made. Preparation to commit an offence is the punishable only when the preparation is to commit offence under Section 122 (wagging war against the Government of India) and Section 399(preparation to commit dacotiy). The dividing line between a mere preparation and an attempt is sometimes thin and has to be decided on the facts of each case. There is a greater degree of determination in attempts as compared with preparation……………………. The sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape. Definition of “rape” as contained in Section 375 IPC refers to “sexual intercourse” and the explanation appended to the Section provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Intercourse means sexual connection. In the instant case that connection has been clearly established. Courts below were perfectly justified in their view.” In the light of the above her testimony reveals that as a gullible girl, she had probably agreed to accompany Surinder Kumar alias Sunny who exploited her confidence and invited his friends to ravish her. There is absolutely no reason why she would implicate all the 4 persons. No enmity has been proved on record as pleaded by the appellants in their defence. Rather the prosecutrix has named these persons as her sense of injury coupled with betrayal by Surinder Kumar alias Sunny whom she had trusted has forced her to bring the truth out in open. No enmity has been proved on record as pleaded by the appellants in their defence. Rather the prosecutrix has named these persons as her sense of injury coupled with betrayal by Surinder Kumar alias Sunny whom she had trusted has forced her to bring the truth out in open. The argument of the learned counsel for Surinder Kumar alias Sunny that at least the mitigating factor was her consent qua him is also not acceptable as he became the prime-preparator of the offence when he permitted 3 more persons his co-accused to subject the innocent girl to the brutality of rape. His role, therefore, is rather on a more vicious footing than the Others. Having regard to the aforesaid and in view of the inspiring, testimony of the prosecutrix and in the absence of any other evidence to establish false implication as also the fact that the plea of alibi set up by the appellants has not been proved by any cogent evidence, the only inescapable conclusion is that the prosecutrix was indeed subjected to rape by all the appellants in a brazen manner. 17. Accordingly, all the appeals are without any merit and are dismissed as such. The prayer for reduction in sentence is also without any merit considering the fact that all the persons who were uniformed persons were expected to maintain decency in public life. The Sentence awarded by the trial Court is accordingly maintained. —————————————