JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Learned Counsel appointed as amicus curiae in this case is found to be absent in this Court at the time of taking up this Jail appeal for hearing. 2. In the instant case, initially one A. Nath, the learned Counsel was appointed as amicus curiae. But unfortunately the said counsel is not present today in the court though his name has been duly reflected in the cause list of hearing Part-II dated 16.7.2007 to 31.8.2007. 3. Accordingly, having no option and considering the nature and gravity of this case which has been filed from the jail by the accused/Appellants, this Court has felt it expedient to appoint a Senior Lawyer, namely, Mr. A.K. Goswami assisted by Mr. B. Sarma, learned Counsel as amicus curiae to assist the court. 4. Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned amicus curiae and also Mr. P.C. Gayon, learned P.P., Assam. 5. This appeal from jail has been carried from the judgment and order dated 21.5.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 65(J-J)/2003 by which the accused/Appellants were convicted under Sections 376(2)(g), IPC and accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment ('R.I.') for 10 (ten) years each with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each in default 2 (two ) years R.I. 6. Before delving upon in details the challenge of conviction and sentence so handed down by the learned Judge to the accused/Appellants, it would be convenient to notice the facts of the case in a nutshell: 7. On 5.5.2002, informant Sri Sindhu Das, P.W-1 lodged an ejahar with the Majuli Police Station alleging infer-alia that on 3.5.2002 in the evening his daughter the victim, P.W-2 was missing from their house situated at Dakhinpat Kaibarta Gaon. On that day, at about 10 p.m. some youths of the village brought the victim girl to the house of the informant. P.W-2, the prosecutrix told them that in the evening time she was forcibly taken by the accused Mridul Das, Jantu Das and Jiuu Das to a jungle situated near the Dakhinpat Ghat and the accused persons committed rape on her and after committing rape they allowed her to leave the place. According to the complainant he could not lodge the ejahar in time due to illness of his wife. 8. According to the complainant he could not lodge the ejahar in time due to illness of his wife. 8. On the basis of such information as disclosed in the ejahar, police started investigation and registered a case under Sections 447/376/34 IPC. During investigation, the victim gird was medically examined. After completion of investigation police submitted charge sheet under Sections447/376(2)(g), IPC against all the accused-Appellants. The accused persons were arrested and later on they were released on bail. 9. The learned Magistrate of Majuli on receipt of such charge sheet so submitted by the police committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat as the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions. 10. The learned Judge on appearance of the Appellants and upon hearing them and also on perusal of the materials available on record, framed charges against the accused-Appellants under Sections 376(2)(g), IPC. The entire charges were read over to the accused/Appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses including the Doctor P.W-5 who examined the victim girt. The prosecution failed to bring the Investigating Officer into the witness box as he was already reported to have retired from service. The defence examined none. All the accused were examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. On proper appreciation of the material evidence on record both oral and documentary so produced by the prosecution as well as upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge was of the considered view that the prosecution had proved the case so projected beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused/Appellants were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence this appeal from jail. 13. Assailing the conviction and sentence by the learned Judge so indicated herein above, Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned amicus curiae has forcefully submitted that the entire finding of the learned Judge was wholly perverse as the deposition of the P.W-1, the father-informant, P.W-2 the victim girl and P.W-3 the mother of the P.W-2 does not corroborate in the medical evidence. Referring to the medical evidence, Mr. Goswami has submitted that there was no sign of violence or rape and under such factual situation narrated in the medical testimony of Dr. Referring to the medical evidence, Mr. Goswami has submitted that there was no sign of violence or rape and under such factual situation narrated in the medical testimony of Dr. P.W-5, the evidence of both P.W-1, 2 and 3 cannot be believed for the purpose of roping in the Appellants under provision of law indicated above. 14. Per contra, Mr. Gayon, learned P.P. Assam in support of the conviction and sentence has strenuously argued that the learned trial court was wholly justified and correct in convicting and sentencing the accused-Appellants under the above mentioned Section since the victim girl herself testified the incident with complete narration of the sequence of events leaving no scope disbelieved such deposition, there cannot be any question to doubt to upset her evidence that on the eventful day she had been criminally assaulted by way of gang rape by the Appellants and as such no perversity and/or illegality has been reflected on the face of the judgment itself and the same may be sustained. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions so placed on record by the learned Counsel for the parties including the learned amicus curiae and also meticulously scanned the entire evidence on records especially the evidence of Doctor P.W-5, P.W-L, P.W-2 and P.W-3. 16. In order to delving upon the submission by the learned Counsel for the rival parties and to appreciate the same, let us consider at the very outset the medical evidence of Doctor R.W-5 who examined the victim girl after (three) days of the commission of offence, i.e., on 6.5.2002 when the occurrence took place on 3.3.2005. The Doctor found the following injuries: Identification Mark: one black mole over the right shoulder. On examination - Height 149 cm, weight 45 kg. Teeth-28 Nos. pubic hair, Auxiliary hair, breast. Valva: All are well developed Hymen: torn, tender with signs of implementation. Infoitus: 2 fingers tender, There is no mark of violence. Laboratory examination of Vaginal swabe: does not show any spermatozoa. X-ray of elbow and wrist joint: ossification is not completed in the bones around the left wrist joint. (Reported by Dr. Puffin Boruah) Ossification is completed in the bones around the left elbow joint. Opinion: There is evidence of old intercourse. The age of the girl is above 16 years but below 18 years. 17. X-ray of elbow and wrist joint: ossification is not completed in the bones around the left wrist joint. (Reported by Dr. Puffin Boruah) Ossification is completed in the bones around the left elbow joint. Opinion: There is evidence of old intercourse. The age of the girl is above 16 years but below 18 years. 17. It is natural and obvious that when the victim was examined after 3 (three) days of occurrence, there cannot be any possibility to notice any violence and hence the medical evidence cannot be disbelieved on the anvil of evidence so narrated by the victim P.W-2. 18. P.W-1, Sri Sindhu Das was the informant and father of P.W-2, stated that P.W-2 was his daughter. All the accused persons were known to him. At the time of occurrence he was not at home. While he returning home at about 11 p.m. his younger daughter informed him that while her mother was praying in the "Gusaighar" accused Mridul, Jintu and Japu forcibly took her sister P.W-2 to a nearby jungle after gagging her mouth with clothes. At that night his wife was fallen ill as she was suffering from high blood pressure and they did not search for their daughter. On that night itself at about 10 p.m. some youths of their village brought her daughter to their house. When P.W-1 asked P.W-2, she told him that she was forcibly taken away by the accused Mridul Das, Jantu Das and Japu Das to a nearby jungle and they committed rape on her. P.W-1 informed the matter to the village Headman who advised him to lodge an ejahar at police station and accordingly, he lodged ejahar with the Majuli Police Station on 5.5.2002. He stated that due to the illness of his wife there was delay in lodging the ejahar. 19. P.W-2 the victim girl has stated that on 3.5.2002 her father was not at home. Accused Mridul, Jintu and Japu forcibly took her to a jungle behind their house after gagging her mouth with clothes. The accused persons made her naked. The accused persons led her down on the ground and committed rape one by one. At first accused Mridul committed rape on her. Then it was followed by accused Jipu and Jintu. When she raised halla she was gagged with clothes. The accused persons made her naked. The accused persons led her down on the ground and committed rape one by one. At first accused Mridul committed rape on her. Then it was followed by accused Jipu and Jintu. When she raised halla she was gagged with clothes. After committing rape on her the accused persons took her to a nearby paddy field and from there she was taken by one Tikoi Das and others. She deposed that she had narrated the whole incident to her parents. She was medically examined by the Doctor at Jorhat Medical Hospital. 20. The mother of the victim, P.W-3 also narrated the story so projected by the informant P.W-1. 21. Having considered such evidence of P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 and also upon hearing the learned Counsel to the parties, this Court is of the view that P.W-2 along with P.W-1 along P.W-3 had proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and this Court does not find any plausible or cogent reason to interfere with the above conviction. Accordingly, this Court does fully agree with the view taken by the learned court below. Consequently, the impugned conviction stands upheld. 22. At this stage Mr. Goswami, learned amicus curiae has appealed that the accused persons are of 18/20 years of age at the date of occurrence and considering their tender age including their future, they may be imposed at least a lesser punishment other than 10 (ten) years R.I, each under Section376, IPC. This Court finds sufficient force in the submission of the learned amicus curiae and accordingly, the sentence of 10 years is reduced to 7 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. 23. Consequently, this appeal stands partly allowed to the extent of modification of sentence as indicated above. 24. Before parting with the record, we would like to put on record our Appreciation to Mr. A.K. Goswami, the learned appointed amicus curiae for his help and assistance rendered to arrive at a decision in this jail appeal and accordingly, it is ordered that he is entitled to get his professional fee which is quantified at Rs. 3,000. However, Mr. Goswami, in his usual fairness, has made a request that such amount may be deposited with the High Court Legal Aid Fund. It is ordered accordingly. 25. LCR be sent down immediately.