JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.—Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the trial Court, whereby they stand convicted of offences, punishable under Sections 376(2) (g), 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as follows: Under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each; in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years each. Under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 months each. Under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPC Fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each. 2. Appeal was filed by the appellants through Counsel Shri Anup Rattan, Advocate. Later on, they engaged one more Counsel, namely Varinder Singh, Advocate. Today, when the matter was taken up, nobody appeared for the appellants. The Court waited for some time and when nobody appeared even after wait, we proceeded to decide the matter on merits by ourselves. We requested the learned Additional Advocate General to read the judgment and the evidence, in the meanwhile, one Advocate, named Inder Dutt, came to the Court and occupied the seat meant for the Counsel for the appellants. After we had finished perusal of the entire record, we asked the said Advocate to argue the case. He stood up and stated that original Counsel Shri Anup Rattan was out of station and, therefore, the matter be adjourned. On being asked as to why he did not appear when the matter was taken up, he replied that he was busy in another Court. When further asked as to where the other Counsel, named Varinder Singh was, he said that he had no knowledge if any Advocate by the name of Varinder Singh, had been engaged by the appellants, besides Shri Anup Rattan, Advocate. We having completed the job of perusal of the record and the Advocate appearing Vice Counsel for the appellants having failed to answer our queries satisfactorily, particularly with regard to the absence of the second Counsel engaged by the appellants, namely Varinder Singh, we declined the request for adjournment and decided to dispose of the matter on merits. We having completed the job of perusal of the record and the Advocate appearing Vice Counsel for the appellants having failed to answer our queries satisfactorily, particularly with regard to the absence of the second Counsel engaged by the appellants, namely Varinder Singh, we declined the request for adjournment and decided to dispose of the matter on merits. 3. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, may be summed up thus. An old lady aged about 70 years, whose husband had died about 17 years back and who had been living more or less like a "Bhagtani", went to a temple from her village on 18.2.2004. In the evening, she started back for her native place where she lived with her son named Madan. She boarded a bus. The three respondents, who hail from her village, were also travelling by that very bus. They were occupying a bench next to her. One of the respondents, namely Sewa Dass, asked her where would she be alighting from the bus, because there were two points in the village where the passengers deboard the buses. She told that she would deboard near the bridge. The prosecutrix alighted from the bus at the aforesaid point. The three respondents also deboarded the bus at that very point and started following the prosecutrix. When she reached a secluded place, the three respondents overpowered her, gagged her mouth with her Dupatta and committed sexual intercourse with her. String of her salwar got broken when the respondents used force to remove the same. Prosecutrix was wearing leggings also. She could not wear the Salwar because its string was not only broken by the respondents, but it also got misplaced. She carried her Salwar under her armpit and went wearing the leggings. While walking towards her house, she had been crying because of her having been dishonoured by the respondents. PW-5 Sushila Kumar, Secretary, Mahila Mandal, heard her cries and she followed her. On reaching home, the prosecutrix narrated the incident to her daughter-in-law PW-6 Kamlesh Devi. In the meanwhile, PW-5 Sushila Kumari also reached her place. She too was apprised of the incident by the prosecutrix. After some time, her son Madan also reached home. He also came to know about the incident. Her son called the Member of the Panchayat, namely PW-4 Pritam Singh. Matter was. brought to h|s notice also. In the meanwhile, PW-5 Sushila Kumari also reached her place. She too was apprised of the incident by the prosecutrix. After some time, her son Madan also reached home. He also came to know about the incident. Her son called the Member of the Panchayat, namely PW-4 Pritam Singh. Matter was. brought to h|s notice also. PW-4 Pritam Singh sent his son to call the Pardhan of the Panchayat, namely PW-7 Brij Bala Sood. She did not come herself, but deputed the Up-Pardhan of the Panchayat. Next day in the morning, all the three respondents went to PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, Pardhan of Panchayat and confided in her that they had committed rape with the prosecutrix and begged for pardon. They were told by the said Pardhan of the Panchayat that the matter was of a serious nature. Thereafter, Brij Bala Sood went to the house of the prosecutrix and made enquiries with her and then accompanied her to the Police Station for lodging the report. Police registered the case, per narration of the incident given by the prosecutrix vide FIR Ext.PW2/A. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Certain injuries were found on her face, lips, left eye and breasts, which were opined to have been sustained within 24 hours. All the three respondents were taken into custody. They were also got medically examined. The doctor did not find anything suggesting that they were incapable of performing sexual intercourse. Slides of vaginal smear of the prosecutrix were prepared and sent to the Chemical Examiner, but no spermatozoa was found. 4. Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in all, to bring the charge home to the respondents. Respondents denied having committed any offence. They took the plea that when the prosecutrix was returning to the village and travelling by a public bus, one of them, namely Jaswant Singh, who belongs to a "Chamar" caste, which is one of the scheduled castes, sat beside her on a seat of the bus. This annoyed the prosecutrix, who belongs to a Rajput caste and she asked respondent Jaswant Singh how did he dare sit by her side and when he retorted that it was a public bus, she slapped him and called him names. Jaswant Singh protested and proclaimed that he would be lodging a report with the police under the law pertaining to atrocities against the scheduled castes. Jaswant Singh protested and proclaimed that he would be lodging a report with the police under the law pertaining to atrocities against the scheduled castes. It was stated that all the respondents on reaching the village, went to the Pardhan of the village, PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, the same very evening and complained to her about the aforesaid conduct of the prosecutrix in the bus, but the Pardhan put them off by saying that next morning she would be calling the prosecutrix and after making the enquiries, decide about the further course of action. It was also pleaded that, with a view to pre-empting the threatened action of the respondents of lodging the report against the prosecutrix, the latter cooked up a false story and made a false report to the police. 5. Trial Court believed the version of the prosecutrix holding that the same was corroborated by independent evidence and rejected the defence plea with the finding that there was no evidence in support thereof. 6. We have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. Prosecutrix, who appeared as PW-2, stated very categorically that she had been raped by all the three respondents when she was walking to the village after alighting from the bus. She stated that the string of her Salwar had been broken by respondent Jaswant Singh and, therefore, she could not wear the Salwar after the incident and carried the same under her armpit. She also stated that she had been wearing the leggings also that day. She stated that she sustained injuries while being raped by the respondents. She further stated that after the respondents committed the crime and left the scene, she picked up her Salwar and went to her house crying all the way. She also stated that on reaching home, she narrated the indecent to her daughter-in-law PW-6 Kamlesh Devi, and soon several persons, including PW-4 Pritam Singh and PW-5 Sushila Kumari, reached her house and they too were apprised of the incident. 7. Her statement is corroborated by the. medico legal evidence, so far as it pertains to the sustenance of injuries by her in the process of being raped by the respondents. PW-1 Dr. Neenu Narula, who conducted her medico legal examination, found the following injuries on her person, which per her opinion, had been sustained within 24 hours:— "1. 7. Her statement is corroborated by the. medico legal evidence, so far as it pertains to the sustenance of injuries by her in the process of being raped by the respondents. PW-1 Dr. Neenu Narula, who conducted her medico legal examination, found the following injuries on her person, which per her opinion, had been sustained within 24 hours:— "1. Multiple bruises on face and around the lips; 2. It was black eye on left side; 3. Multiple bruises on breast and those were tender also." 8. PW-5 Sushila Kumari has stated that on 18.2.2004 around 7.30 p.m., when she was at her house, she heard the cries of the prosecutrix and went to her house and noticed that she was wearing only her leggings and her Salwar was under her armpit and that the prosecutrix told that she had been raped by the three -respondents, while she was walking to the village after alighting from the bus. PW-6 Kamlesh Devi, the daughter-in-law of the prosecutrix, testified that the prosecutrix came crying to the home late in the evening and she was carrying her Salwar under her armpit and on being asked as to what had happened, she told that the three respondents had committed rape on her. 9. PW-4 Pritam Singh, a Member of the Gram Panchayat, stated that he went to the house of the prosecutrix on being called by the members of her family and that he was told by the prosecutrix that she had been raped by the three respondents. PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, Pardhan of the Panchayat, stated that on 19.2.2004, in the morning, all the respondents came to her house and told that they had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and begged for pardon. She stated that thereafter she told the respondents that she had not received any such complaint and that thereafter she went to the house of the prosecutrix when her son Madan Lai, accompanied by Pritam Singh, a Member Panchayat, came to call her and told that the three respondents had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. She further testified that the prosecutrix told her about having been raped by the respondents and so she advised her to report the matter to the police, as the Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction in such matters. 10. She further testified that the prosecutrix told her about having been raped by the respondents and so she advised her to report the matter to the police, as the Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction in such matters. 10. None of the aforesaid witnesses, who have corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix, is shown to have any closeness with the prosecutrix or any enmity or other reason to falsely implicate the respondents. Therefore, there should be no reason to disbelieve their testimony. 11. In the grounds of appeal it is stated that there is no corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix with regard to the allegation of rape by medico legal evidence. We have considered this plea in the light of the evidence on record. It is true that PW-1 Dr. Neenu Narula, testified that no spermatozoa was found in the vaginal smear by the Chemical Examiner, to whom the slide of the vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix was sent and there was no positive sign of sexual inter course, but at the same time, she gave the opinion that possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. The witness initially reserved the opinion whether the prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse or not till she received the report of the Chemical Examiner. She gave the opinion on the receipt of the Chemical Examiners report. It appears that her opinion that there was no positive sign of sexual intercourse, is influenced by the report of the Chemical Examiner to the effect that no semen or spermatozoa was found on the slide of the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix. It is by now well settled that mere absence of semen or spermatozoa in the vaginal smear of the prosecutrix does not negate the allegation of sexual intercourse. Reference in this behalf may be made to a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Prithi Chand v. State of H.P., AIR 1989 SC 702. 12. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court shows that relevance of the evidence of PW-4 Pritam Singh, PW-5 Sushila Kumari and PW-6 Kamlesh Devi was disputed. The testimony of PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, Pardhan of the Panchayat, about the extra-judicial confession of the respondents, was also assailed. A further plea that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that the FIR was the result of manipulations and deliberations. 13. The testimony of PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, Pardhan of the Panchayat, about the extra-judicial confession of the respondents, was also assailed. A further plea that was raised on behalf of the respondents was that the FIR was the result of manipulations and deliberations. 13. We have examined the evidence on record in the context of the aforesaid contentions, which the respondents Counsel raised before the trial Court. 14. Contention raised before the trial Court was that the testimony of PW-4 Pritam Singh, PW-5 Sushila Kumar and PW-6 Kamlesh Devi that the prosecutrix narrated the incident to them was not relevant as res gestae, because the prosecutrix narrated the incident only on reaching the home. The incident had taken place late in the evening when it had grown dark. The prosecutrix did not come across anybody while going to her house on foot from the place of occurrence. She went straight from the scene of occurrence to her home. She had been crying all the way and on reaching home, she narrated the incident immediately to PW-6 Kamlesh Devi, her daughter-in-law and also to PW-5 Sushila Kumari, who reached her house soon thereafter. The commission of the crime, crying of the prosecutrix all the way while going to her house from the place of occurrence and the narration of the incident to PW-6 Kamlesh Devi and PW-5 Sushila Kumari, are so connected with each other as to form part of the same transaction and, therefore, are relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, testimony of PW-5 Sushila Kumari and PW-6 Kamlesh Devi at least, cannot be said to be hearsay or not relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. 15. Testimony of PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, Pardhan of the Panchayat, with regard to the extra-judicial confession of the respondents, does not suffer from any discrepancy. It has come in the evidence that the witness did not go to the house of the prosecutrix in spite of having been called through a son of PW-4 Pritam Singh. The fact is stated by the witness herself in her cross-examination. That means, the witness showed no enthusiasm in the matter and proceeded in a detached and a professional like manner. The fact is stated by the witness herself in her cross-examination. That means, the witness showed no enthusiasm in the matter and proceeded in a detached and a professional like manner. Though a suggestion was put to her that the respondents did not make any confession, which she denied, but no suggestion was put to her that the respondent did not visit her on the morning of 19.2.2004. Rather, it was suggested that when the respondents visited her (which implies visit in the morning), they complained that the prosecutrix had committed an act of atrocity against them by misbehaving with Jaswant Singh in the bus. She denied the suggestion. No suggestion was put to her that the respondents visited her late in the evening on the previous day. 16. In view of above discussion, we see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, Pardhan of the Panchayat, with regard to the extra-judicial confession made to her by the three respondents. 17. A reading of the judgment of the trial Court shows that it was contended before it on behalf of the respondents that there was no reference of the extra-judicial confession in the FIR, even though PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, accompanied the prosecutrix to the Police Station when she went to lodge the FIR Ext.PW2/A. It is true that PW-7 Brij Bala Sood has stated that she had accompanied the prosecutrix to the Police Station, but there is nothing on the record suggesting that she had told the prosecutrix about the extra-judicial confession made to her by the three respondents. The FIR was recorded on the narration given by the prosecutrix and not by the persons accompanying her, including PW-7 Brij Bala Sood. Therefore, it was not supposed to bear any reference about the extra-judicial confession. Moreover, the FIR is essentially supposed to contain the details of the incident and not all the things which happen or take place subsequent to the occurrence, particularly those, of which the informant has no knowledge. 18. Contention that the FIR was the result of manipulations and deliberations, as raised before the trial Court, was based on the statement of PW-4 Pritam Singh in the cross-examination to the effect that he and the members of the family of the prosecutrix continued making consultations about the lodging of the report. 18. Contention that the FIR was the result of manipulations and deliberations, as raised before the trial Court, was based on the statement of PW-4 Pritam Singh in the cross-examination to the effect that he and the members of the family of the prosecutrix continued making consultations about the lodging of the report. The statement is very clear that the consultations were on the point whether the report should be lodged to the police or not. The consultations were not with regard to the cooking up of a false case or embellishing or making improvements in the real version. Therefore, this contention is also without merit. 19. Respondents examined a witness to prove their plea that the prosecutrix had committed an atrocious act against the respondents, who belong to a scheduled caste and on coming to know that a report was going to be lodged against her under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, she cooked up a false story of rape. The witness examined by them is DW-1 Bishambar Dass. The witness is resident of a village in Hoshiarpur District of Punjab State. He stated that he was travelling by a bus and Jaswant Singh and the other respondents were also travelling by that bus and that when respondent Jaswant Singh sat beside an old lady, she asked him how did he being a "Chamar", dare sit close to her and also slapped her and that the respondents had proclaimed that they would teach her a lesson by seeking the intervention of the Panchayat. The testimony of the witness, even on its face value, does not prove the plea. Plea of the respondents is that they had threatened action against the prosecutrix by lodging report to the police, but the witness says that the threat was of teaching a lesson to the prosecutrix by the intervention of the Panchayat. This apart, the witness is just a chance witness. 20. Plea of the respondents that they went to the Pardhan of the Panchayat that very evening and complained about the alleged atrocious act of the prosecutrix, to her, is falsified by the testimony of PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, the Pardhan of the Panchayat. This apart, the witness is just a chance witness. 20. Plea of the respondents that they went to the Pardhan of the Panchayat that very evening and complained about the alleged atrocious act of the prosecutrix, to her, is falsified by the testimony of PW-7 Brij Bala Sood, the Pardhan of the Panchayat. The witness very categorically stated that the respondents did not complain to her about the alleged atrocious act of the prosecutrix, but in fact they came to her residence on the next following day, in the morning and confessed that they had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. No suggestion was put to the witness that the respondents visited her on the evening or night of 18.2.2004. They did not examine any witness to testify that they had gone to the house of the Pardhan of the Panchayat on the evening or night of 18.2.2004. 21. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.