JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. These three appeals are being disposed of by the common judgment, since they arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2003/24.11.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Dhanbad. 2. Appellants along with the co-convicts were charged with and tried for the offences under Sections 376,364 and 34 of the IPC. They were however convicted for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment and acquitted for the offences under Section 364/34 of the IPC. Appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. Case against the appellant was registered at Dhanbad Police Station on the basis of the fardbeyan of the prosecutrix (PW7) recorded at the police station on 28.7.1981 at 11.30 PM. 3. Case of the prosecution is that in the night of Sunday between 26/27.7.1981 she was sleeping in her house, along with her six year old sister Leelawati Nonia (PW4). Her uncle Villayati Nonia was sleeping outside the room on the veranda and her parents had gone to Deoghar on pilgrimage. While she was sleeping in her house in her room, the present appellants along with other co- convicts entered her room and gagged her mouth. They picked up sleeping sister and took her out of the room and thereafter returned. They lied the hands and feel of the prosecutrix and thereafter all of them committed rape on her one after the other. They left the house after committing the crime and while retreating, they look away a sum of Rs. 95/- kept in the box besides silver anklets and other jwellery and a transistor. In the morning, her sister came into her room and untied her feet and hands. The mohalla people including the mother of the appellant Mohan Singh came to her house and she reported the incident to them. She alleges that the mother of the appellant Mohan Singh had threatened and persuaded her to name her uncle Villayati Nonia as her offender and forbade from naming any of the appellants. Her parents returned home two days later on Tuesday. She narrated the entire occurrence to them naming all the five offenders. She alleges that the mother of the appellant Mohan Singh had threatened and persuaded her to name her uncle Villayati Nonia as her offender and forbade from naming any of the appellants. Her parents returned home two days later on Tuesday. She narrated the entire occurrence to them naming all the five offenders. Her parents left the village being afraid of the village Mukhia and went to the Superintendent of Police at Dhanbad where a typed complaint was submitted to the Superintendent of Police and to the Deputy Commissioner and later, she accompanied her parents to the police station where her fardbeyan was recorded. 4. Appellants have denied the charges, pleading not guilty and had preferred to be tried. Their case in defence was that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the father of the prosecutrix on account of previous enmity and that the actual offender was the uncle of the prosecutrix against whom the prosecutrix had complained to the villagers in the early hours of the morning of the next day when they had assembled at her house on hearing her cries. In course of trial, co-accused Chudhiya Mian died while another co-accused Prahalad Nonia had absconded and consequently, trial had proceeded against the remaining five accused persons including the present appellants. 5. Altogether seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution at the trial including the prosecutrix herself, her parents and sister. Significantly, neither the investigating officer, nor any medical expert was examined by the prosecution. The appellants in their defence had examined three witnesses and had also adduced the injury report in respect of the injury purportedly sustained by Villayati Nonia at the hands of the villagers. 6. Out of several witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1 has not supported the prosecutions case and has only affirmed that the father of the prosecutrix had approached him wanting him to accompany to Dhanbad since, some of the Basti people had committed illegal acts against his daughter. He has also stated that his statements were not recorded by the police. PWs 2 and 3 have not supported the prosecutions case. PW3 has however affirmed that Ritlal (father of the prosecutrix) along with the prosecutrix and her mother had met him at Dhunbad and he accompanied them to the dispensary of Dr. He has also stated that his statements were not recorded by the police. PWs 2 and 3 have not supported the prosecutions case. PW3 has however affirmed that Ritlal (father of the prosecutrix) along with the prosecutrix and her mother had met him at Dhunbad and he accompanied them to the dispensary of Dr. Ram Autar Chouhan at Basta Cola and thereafter, they went to the police station where the police had recorded the statements of the prosecutrix and had also seized her saari and petticoat. PW3 claims to have signed on the seizure list in respect of the seized clothes. This witness further affirms that he had heard from the prosecutrix that 5-7 persons had committed rape on her. though he does not remember their manes. He claims that another person namely Bunshi Nonia had also accompanied them to the police station. 7. PW7 is the prosecutrix whose evidence is in consonance with the statments contained in her fardbeyan. She has named has all the accused persons including the present appellants and has claimed that the accused persons had committed rape on her on the night of the occurrence. She affirms that on return of her parents from Deoghar two days after, she narrated the occurrence to them, whereafter they took her to the Superintendent of Police at Dhanbad and later to the police station where her statements were recorded and the police forwarded her for medical examination and she was medically examined by the doctor. She further affirms that the assailants had lifted her sister who was sleeping by her side and took her outside the room and thereafter, appellants gagged her mouth and tied her hands and feet and committed rape on her one after the other and left her in the same condition with her hands and feet tied. It was in the morning that her sister came and untied her. Her uncle was not seen in the morning. She insists that the mohalla people including the mother of the appellant Mohan Singh came to her in the morning and gave out threats and persuaded her to name her uncle Villayati Nonia as her offender and not to name any of the actual offenders. PW4 Leelawati Nonia is the sister of the prosecutrix. She insists that the mohalla people including the mother of the appellant Mohan Singh came to her in the morning and gave out threats and persuaded her to name her uncle Villayati Nonia as her offender and not to name any of the actual offenders. PW4 Leelawati Nonia is the sister of the prosecutrix. She has affirmed that in the morning of the dale of occurrence, she woke up only to find herself outside the room, although in the previous night, she was sleeping inside the room along with her sister (prosecutrix). She adds that when she went to the room of her sister, she found her sister tied by her feet and hands and her mouth was gagged with clothes. She untied her sister. She further admits that the mother of the appellant Mohan Singh came to her house and look her sister to the other room and later, went away in anger. This witness further adds that her sister told her that Sada Singh, Mohan Singh, Ujagir Nonia, Prahalad Nonia and Chudhiya Mian had tied her hands and feet and committed rape on her. She affirms that her parents had gone to Deoghar and on their return two days later, her sister narrated the incident to them. They took her sister along with them to the Superintendent of Police at Dhanbad and the case was later instituted at the police station. She also affirms that her uncle Villayati Nonia was sleeping on the veranda on the night of the occurrence. She however admits in her cross- examination that she had not given any statement to the police. 8. Four witnesses examined by the defence have stated that in the next morning after the date of occurrence, mohalla people gathered at the house of the prosecutrix and she told them that in the previous night, her uncle Villayati Nonia had committed rape on her. The mohalla people caught hold of Villayati Nonia and assaulted him. Evidence by way of injury report has also been adduced by the defence in their attempt to prove that Villayati Nonia had sustained injury at the hands of mohalla people and later taken to the dispensary where he was medically treated for his injuries. 9. The mohalla people caught hold of Villayati Nonia and assaulted him. Evidence by way of injury report has also been adduced by the defence in their attempt to prove that Villayati Nonia had sustained injury at the hands of mohalla people and later taken to the dispensary where he was medically treated for his injuries. 9. The trial court, after discussing the evidences of the witnesses, placed reliance upon the testimony of the prosecutrix finding support from the testimony of the sister of the sister (PW4) and parents (PWs 5 and 6) of the prosecutrix and recorded its finding of guilt for the offences under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC against the present appellants. 10. The appellant have assailed the impugned judgment of their conviction and sentence on the following grounds: i. that the trial court has committed grave error in placing reliance upon the testimony of the prosecutrix ignoring the fact that on the alleged date of occurrence, prosecutrix was adult married lady, who according to her own mother, was deserted by her husband, and further ignoring the fact that the evidence of the prosecutrix is full of contradiction and inconsistencies, ii. that the trial court has erred in failing to appreciate that the prosecution has not adduced any medical evidence in support of the claim of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to gang rape, iii. that the trial court has also erred in failing to appreciate that though it is alleged that as many as five persons had committed forcible rape on the prosecutrix one after the other throughout the night, yet she did not suffer any injury whatsoever, nor required any immediate medical treatment or first aid at all, iv. that the trial court has failed to appreciate that PW4 was a tutored witness who was a minor of the age of six years on the alleged date of occurrence and her evidence was recorded more than 16 years after the alleged date of occurrence and yet, she claims unbelievably to remember in graphic detail an incident which had occurred 16 years ago, v. that the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that except the prosecutrix and the members of her own family, no other co-villager has come forward to depose in support of (he case of the prosecution, vi. that the trial court has also erred in failing to consider that non- examination of the investigating officer by the prosecution has caused serious prejudice to the defence inasmuch as, several contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses, could not be brought on record by confronting the investigating officer with the same, vii. that the trial court has erred in foiling to consider that the most important witness namely Villayati Nonia has not been examined by the prosecution and the story of the prosecutrix that Villayati Nonia was abducted by the assailants, has been belied in course of investigation itself. 11. Counsel for the Suite on the other hand, has tried to support the findings of the learned trial court and the judgment of conviction of the present appellants for the offences under Section 376(2)(g) of the-IPC learned Counsel argues that the prosecutrix has given vivid description of the entire occurrence naming all the persons who had ravished her and the manner of occurrence as described by her, is consistent with her statement recorded by way of her fardbeyan and her statements are further corroborated by statements of her sister (PW4) and partially by her parents also besides the evidence of PW3 Shankar Nonia. Learned Counsel argues further that the defence has not brought any material on record to accept their contention that non-examination of the investigating officer has caused prejudice to them. As discussed above, the prosecution has relied entirely upon the evidence of the prosecutrix and has sought support from the statement of the sister (PW4) and parents (PWs 5 and 6) of the prosecutrix. 12. The question, which needs to be considered, is, whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, is sufficient to record a finding of guilt of rape against the appellants? Definite stand of the appellants is that the testimony of the prosecutrix is totally unreliable and cannot be accepted as true. The prosecution claims that the testimony of the prosecutrix in itself is sufficient to convict the appellants for the offence. 13. The Rule regarding appreciation of evidence of the prosecutrix in cases of rape, has been laid down elaborately by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court in its judgment dated 14.9.2007, has observed as follows: 5. 13. The Rule regarding appreciation of evidence of the prosecutrix in cases of rape, has been laid down elaborately by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Radhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court in its judgment dated 14.9.2007, has observed as follows: 5. It is now well settled that a finding of guilt in a case of rape, can be based on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix. The very nature of offence makes it difficult to get direct corroborating evidence. The evidence of the prosecutrix should not be rejected on the basis of minor discrepancies and contradictions. If the victim of rape states on oath that she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, her statement will normally be accepted, even if" it is uncorroborated, unless the material on record requires drawing of an inference that there was consent or that the entire incident was improbable or imaginary, liven if there is consent, the act will still be a rape, if the girl is under 16 years of age. It is also well settled that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim will not by itself falsify the case of rape, nor construed an evidence of consent. Similarly, the opinion of a doctor that there was no evidence of any sexual intercourse or rape, may not be sufficient to disbelieve the accusation of rape by the victim. Bruises, abrasions and scratches on the victim especially on the forearms, writs, face, breast, thighs and back arc indicative of struggle and will support the allegation of sexual assault. The courts should, at the same time, bear in mind that false charges of ripe are not uncommon. There have also been instances where a parent has persuaded a gullible or obedient daughter to make a false charge of rape either to take revenge or extort money or to get rid of financial liability. Whether there was rape or not would depend ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW7) has stated in her evidence that on the night of occurrence, she was sleeping in her room and her six year old sister (PW4) was sleeping by her side, while her uncle Villayati Nonia was sleeping outside the room on the veranda. Her parents had gone to Deoghar on pilgrimage. 14. In the present case, the prosecutrix (PW7) has stated in her evidence that on the night of occurrence, she was sleeping in her room and her six year old sister (PW4) was sleeping by her side, while her uncle Villayati Nonia was sleeping outside the room on the veranda. Her parents had gone to Deoghar on pilgrimage. In her FIR, she has claimed that while she was sleeping, the accused Mohan Singh had first entered her room, though in her deposition, she claims that at about 11-12 AM while she was sleeping with the electric bulb burning in the room, the accused Mohan Singh entered into her room along with co-accused Jagir Nonia. Mohan Singh gagged her mouth while Jagir Nonia tied her feet with an electric wire Thereafter, they lifted her sister from the cot and took her out of the room and soon returned into the room along with four other co-accused persons. She has alleged that Mohan Singh was the first person to commit rape on her while the co-accused Chudhiya Mian put off the light. She gives a graphic detail of the manner in which Mohan Singh has ravished her and she has alleged that after Mohan Singh had committed rape on her, Jagir Nonia was the second person followed by the co-accused Sahdeo Singh @ Sada, Chudhiya Mian and lastly by Prahalad Nonia. She has also alleged that the assailants had tied the hands and feet of her uncle Villayati Nonia before entering her room and later, while departing they untied her uncle and took him away along with them. In her deposition, she claimed that all the accused persons had together entered into her room and committed rape on her by gagging her mouth and tied her hands and feet and she could not offer any resistance to them, although she suffered pain on her back. In her deposition, she is silent about her uncle except suggesting that in the morning when she came out of the room, she did not find her uncle Villayati Nonia in the house. She admits that on being persuaded by Mohan Singhs mother, she had initially given out before the mohalla people who had come to her house, that it was Villayati Nonia who had committed rape on her. She admits that on being persuaded by Mohan Singhs mother, she had initially given out before the mohalla people who had come to her house, that it was Villayati Nonia who had committed rape on her. It is significant to note that though the prosecutrix has claimed to have been subjected to gang rape by as many as five persons throughout the night, she admits that she had not suffered any injury either on her private part or elsewhere on her body and neither did she suffer any bleeding. Her evidence even suggests that she had not felt any discomfort physically to need any medical attention after the occurrence. The prosecution has not brought any medical evidence whatsoever to inform as to whether there was any evidence in respect of the claim of the prosecutrix that she was subjected to gang rape. The above facts suggest highly suspicious circumstance as it is highly improbable that a girl who is aged about 20 years, would not suffer any injury whatsoever even after being subjected to gang rape by as many as five persons. She has tried to explain that though initially, she had given out the name of her uncle Villayati Nonia as her offender, but was on being threatened and persuaded by the mother of the accused Mohan Singh who had visited her house in early hours of the morning after the night of occurrence. The visit of mother of the accused Mohan Singh to the house of the prosecutrix only to threaten and persuade the prosecutrix not to name the actual offender and to falsely implicate her uncle, appears to be highly improbable. It is not believable that an accused who had committed rape on the lady would himself confess before his own mother and send her to threaten and persuade the prosecutrix not to make any complaint against him. The failure of the prosecution to examine Viliayati Nonia who, according to the prosecutions case, is an important and material witness, gives reasonable grounds to draw adverse inference to the claim of the prosecutrix. As admitted by the prosecution, Viliayati Nonia was the only adult person who was present in the house at the time when the alleged occurrence took place and yet, he does not come forward to depose. As admitted by the prosecution, Viliayati Nonia was the only adult person who was present in the house at the time when the alleged occurrence took place and yet, he does not come forward to depose. A feeble attempt was made by the prosecutrix in her fardbeyan, though not in her deposition at the trial, to suggest that the accused persons had abducted Viliayati Nonia. This claim of the prosecutrix made in the fardbeyan has not been followed up in her deposition and even otherwise, the same appears to be false in view of the fact that Viliayati Nonia was taken to the State dispensary for medical treatment of his injuries on the next day of the occurrence as indicated by the injury report (Ext.-A) adduced by the defence in evidence. 15. The fact that the prosecutrix had initially named Viliayati Nonia as offender and Villayati Nonia had failed to come forward to take necessary steps to lodge prompt complaint to the police, does gives a reason to seriously doubt the veracity of the statements of the prosecutrix. The parents of the prosecutrix (PWs 5 and 6) do not give a convincing answer as to why they choose to go all the way to Dhanbad to lodge the complaint at the police station and not to the nearest police station within whose jurisdiction incident is alleged to have occurred, The claim of this witness as also that of the prosecutrix that they had initially gone to the Superintendent of Police where father of the prosecutrix submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, is also not corroborated by any reliable evidence of the prosecution. The evidence of PW4, sister of the prosecutrix, also does not inspire confidence and she appears to be tutored witness making a parrot like repetition of the statements of her sister. The evidence of PW4, sister of the prosecutrix, also does not inspire confidence and she appears to be tutored witness making a parrot like repetition of the statements of her sister. She has deposed for the first time in the court and she was not interrogated by the police, as per her own admission, Significantly, she too like her sister would remain silent regarding any detail of information about her uncle Viliayati Nonia, Thus, on careful scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix and that of her parents and her sister, there appears serious contradiction and inconsistency and the story of gang rape by as many as five persons including the present appellants and the story as narrated by the prosecutrix, appears to he highly improbable. Above all, the prosecution has not explained as to why the investigating officer has not been examined. In course of cross-ca the prosecutrix and other witnesses, defence has elicited several contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses as compared to their statements made before the investigating officer. No evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to confirm that the clothes worn by the prosecutrix at the time of the alleged occurrence and which were purportedly seized by the police, was sent for forensic examination and if so. what was the report of such examination ? No explanation has been offered as to what happened to the electric wire allegedly electric wire allegedly used by the offenders for tying the hands and feet of the prosecutrix. 16. From the facts admitted by the prosecutrix that she had initially named her uncle Villayati Nonia as her offender before the mohalla people and the fact that Villayati Nonia was available in the village and was taken to the hospital for the medical treatment of his injuries, the evidence of the defence witnesses assumes significance and importance. It is the consistent case of the defence that on being informed by the prosecutrix that her uncle Villayati Nonia had committed rape on her, the mohalla people had caught hold of her uncle and had assaulted him resulting in some injuries to him for which he was taken to the dispensary where his injuries were examined by the doctor and he was provided with medical treatment. The injury report (Ext.-A) confirms that the doctor had- found bruises on the body of Villayati Nonia. 17. The injury report (Ext.-A) confirms that the doctor had- found bruises on the body of Villayati Nonia. 17. It appears from the impugned judgment of the trial court that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had allowed himself to be carried away by the evidence of the prosecutrix with the belief that no lady would come forward and expose herself to ignominy with false allegation of rape against any person. Learned trial court has failed to appreciate that even according to the prosecutions case, the report about the alleged incident was submitted by the father of the prosecutrix to the Superintendent of Police by way of a written report, that too after two days of the alleged occurrence and the prosecution has not offered any reasonable explanation as to why the parents did not choose to report the matter promptly to the local police station and had instead, chosen to visit all the way to Dhanbad to lodge the report. The trial court has also ignored the fact that the parents of the prosecutrix have carefully avoided to refer to the presence and conduct of Villayati Nonia who is the younger brother of the father of the prosecutrix. It is apparent that the trial court has not appreciated the evidences on record in proper perspective and the inference as well as finding of guilt as drawn by the trial court against the appellants, is perverse. 18. In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence as passed by the trial court against the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 1991, is hereby set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. Appellants ore in custody, they we directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.