SHIV CHARAN, J. Above mentioned appeals have been instituted against the judgment and order dated 27. 2. 2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in ST No. 1165 of 1998 (State v. Sushil Kumar and others) under sections 376, 323 and 506 IPC, Police Station Khatoli, district Muzaffarnagar. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Sessions judge convicted the appellant Sushil Kumar under sections 376 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under section 323/34 IPC for 1 year Simple Imprisonment. The sentenced order to run concurrently. The appellants Bittu @ Devendra and Ravinder were convicted for the offence under section 323/34 and sentenced 6 months simple imprisonment. 2. The brief narration of the facts are essential to mention: - Smt. Gomti wife of late Mool Chandra, Resident of Sikretha, Police Station Khatoli, District Muzaffarngar lodged the F. I. R. at the police station on 16. 9. 1994 at about 02:00 AM with the allegation that as usual on Thursday in the intervening night of 15/16. 9. 1994 at about 12:00 Oclock she went at her field for irrigation of her field. The accused persons Sushil, Bittu @ Devender and Ravinder appeared on the spot and all these accused persons thrashed her by legs and fists and the accused Sushil committed rape on her. On her noise witnesses Ham Chandra, Take Chandra, and Naresh rushed at the spot. Seeing the witnesses, these accused persons escaped from the spot. Afterwards at about 4:00 AM complainant victim was medically examined at Government Hospital, Khatoli. 3. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S. I. Om Prakash. During the investigation the Investigating Officer visited at the spot and at the pointing out of the victim prepared a site-plan of place of incident. Peticoat of the victim was taken into custody and Fard was prepared. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and on the completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants. 4. That prosecution in support of allegation of the F. I. R. examined Smt. Gomti (PW-1), Ham Chandra (PW-2), as the witnesses of the fact and incident. Gomti also proved the written F. I. R. Ext. Ka. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses and on the completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants. 4. That prosecution in support of allegation of the F. I. R. examined Smt. Gomti (PW-1), Ham Chandra (PW-2), as the witnesses of the fact and incident. Gomti also proved the written F. I. R. Ext. Ka. The doctor Arti Faujdar, (PW-3) conducted the medical examination of the victim Gomti on 16. 9. 1994 at about 4:00 a. m. and she prepared examination report (Ext. Ka-2 ). S. I. Jagdish Prasad ( PW-4) was Head Moharrir at the police station Khatoli on 16. 9. 1994 and on the basis of written F. I. R of Gomti, he prepared chik F. I. R. (Ext. Ka-3 ). Entry was made in the G. D. and proved the copy of G. D. Ext. Ka-4. Om Prakash (PW-5) was the Investigating Officer of the case. He proved the site-plan Ext. Ka-5. Fard of Petticoat of Gomti Ext. Ka-6. Charge-sheet Ext. Ka-7. The accused appellants in their statement under section 313 Cr. P. C. denied the allegation of the prosecution. Appellant Sushil further stated that there had been an incident took place in between Ravindra alias Bittu and the Gurjar of the village and in this regard an F. I. R. had been lodged. And in that Criminal case his father appeared as witness against Jeet Singh, due to this reason this false case has been fabricated. Bittu and Ravinder further stated that their brother Bhusan lodged the First Information Report against Jeet Ram under section 307ipc and the criminal case is pending against him and his brother. In order to pressurize in that case this false case has been fabricated. Smt. Gomti is under the influence of Jeet Singh. Ravinder also stated that he is brother of Bittu @ Devender. It has also been stated that Ham Chandra (PW-2) has given statement against them as he is brother-in-law (Devar) of Gomti. No evidence was produced by the appellants in their defence. 5. I have heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellants, AGA for the State and perused the entire material on record. 6. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the entire prosecution story is highly improbable and doubtful. No evidence was produced by the appellants in their defence. 5. I have heard Sri Arjun Singhal, learned Counsel for the appellants, AGA for the State and perused the entire material on record. 6. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that the entire prosecution story is highly improbable and doubtful. It is unbelievable that Gomti victim of the offence went at her field at about 12:00 Oclock in the night specially in the circumstances when she has got her son also. It is more probable that instead of Gomti a lady herself went at the field for irrigation purpose. The statement of Gomti is not worth reliable and to inspire confidence. The statement of prosecutrix is full of shadow of doubt. There are numerous contradictions in the statement of the witnesses on material particulars. Even the spot is also doubtful. Inspite of the fact that numerous independent witnesses were present at the spot according to Gomti, but only Ham Chandra (P. W. 2) has been examined as a witness as he is highly interested witness and his appearance unbelievable on the spot. That the prosecutrix is aged about 55 years whereas the accused Sushil is too younger from Gomti. Under these circumstance this is also highly improbable that Sushil will commit rape on the prosecutrix who is much elder to him. He further argued that the appellants were falsely implicated in the case due to the enmity with Jeet Singh. Otherwise it is improbable how Jeet Singh came to know about this incident. That the F. I. R. is too prompt which make the story unbelievable. And it shows that the F. I. R. was lodged in pre-planed manner. Incident took place at about 12 Oclock in the night and the F. I. R. was lodged at about 2. 00 a. m. And the distance of Police Station is about 5 km. And, the medical examination was conducted at about 4. 00 a. m. on 16. 9. 1994. The sequence of all these events shows that it was the pre-planed case. That it is also material in the circumstances that whether Gomti had the turn of water for irrigation on the date of incident. And whether water started flowing in the field of Gomti at the time of incident. A slide of smear was prepared but the same was not sent for examination. That it is also material in the circumstances that whether Gomti had the turn of water for irrigation on the date of incident. And whether water started flowing in the field of Gomti at the time of incident. A slide of smear was prepared but the same was not sent for examination. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that all the facts and circumstances are sufficient to presume that the entire story is fabricated and concocted. 7. Learned A. G. A. argued that the prosecution story is worth reliable. Sushil appellant committed rape on a lady aged about of 55 years. At the time of incident she was widow. As her son was physically in capable due to accident for doing any hard work in the field, hence Gomti went at the filed for irrigation. At the time of incident, she had her turn of water for irrigation. That the statement of Gomti itself is sufficient to place reliance. That even medical evidence has supported the contention of the prosecutrix. In the medical examination possibility of rape has not been ruled out. That the F. I. R. and medical are prompt. That there is nothing on record to show that the victim was a lady of easy virtue and immoral character in the age of about 55 years. She will never like to fabricate a false case at the instance of one Jeet Singh as argued by appellants Counsel. That Ham Chandra (P. W. 2) is also a natural and reliable evidence. His statement cannot be discarded on the ground that he is relation of the victim. 8. In the present case the factum of the rape has been alleged. Hence the statement of victim is the most natural and reliable evidence. Gomti (P. W. I) in her statement stated that the incident took place at about 9 years earlier at about 12 Oclock in the night. She went at her field to irrigate the field. She has also stated that when she was going at her field and when reached near the gher of Nanak, Ravindra appellant was sitting on the roof of gher and he enquired from her that where she was going. After giving reply she went at her field, Ravindra followed her laughing. She also told him why he is laughing. But he turned in another direction. After giving reply she went at her field, Ravindra followed her laughing. She also told him why he is laughing. But he turned in another direction. When she started irrigating her field appellants Bittu alias Devendra, Ravidra and Sushil were seen coming at the spot. She considered that her family members are coming on the spot. She enquired from them that their field had been irrigated and she had started irrigating her field. When all these 3 appellants reached near her, then all of them pulled her and grappled her and they attacked on her and beaten on the head. Sushil committed rape on her and after that she was taken in side of sugarcane field. Then Sushil called Bittu @ Devendra in side of sugarcane field. The victim told to them that she is of the age of their mother and do not commit such an act with her. But in-spite of this fact they continued to embrace her. That on her noise Ham Chandra after running from his engine reached on the spot. Naresh and Tek Chand also reached on the spot. Afterwards all the three appellants escaped from the spot. After the incident Naresh, Tek Chand and Ham Chandra brought her at her residence and afterwards F. I. R. was lodged at the police station. At the instance of Darogagi Kanti was called from his house. Kanti wrote the F. I. R. on her dictation. The witness has been cross-examined regarding the enmity of Jeet Singh. And in response of the question of the appellants Counsel she has stated that she knew Jeet Singh Gurjar. His fathers name is Kundan. Bhushan son of Nanak is also known to her. That some incident took place at about 3-4 years earlier in between Brahmin and Gurjar. In fact she does not know that whether in that incident Lokesh son of Khema sustained firearm injury. But it is fact that Khema is the real uncle of Bittu and Ravindra appellants and both these appellants are real brothers. Bhushan is their brother. She does not know that in that incident in between Gurjar and Brahmin who lodged the F. I. R. against whom. There is no person in the village of the name of Jeet Singh son of Kundan Gurjar. She does not know whether Jeet Singh son of Kundan Gurjar was present at the police Station. Bhushan is their brother. She does not know that in that incident in between Gurjar and Brahmin who lodged the F. I. R. against whom. There is no person in the village of the name of Jeet Singh son of Kundan Gurjar. She does not know whether Jeet Singh son of Kundan Gurjar was present at the police Station. And she denied from the suggestion of the accused persons that at the pressure of Jeet Singh she has fabricated this false case in order to exert pressure in order to compromise in the criminal case. She has also stated that her husband Mool Chand had died about 30 years earlier. That her husband had not died in the village but at some unknown place. She has stated that her father-in-law admitted her husband in the hospital at Meerut and thereafter her husband disappeared from the hospital and where about of her husband is not known till now. That her turn of water is on Thursday from 12 Oclock up to 4 p. m. Bali Ram is the father-in-law and in the paper the turn of water has been entered in the name of her father-in-law. That the turn of water was on the date of incident. She further stated that her son is aged about 20-25 years and Usha is her daughter. Her son Hari Om is married. At the time of incident her son was residing with her daughter Usha, At the time of incident her son was not married. She further stated that one kidney of her son Hari Om was taken out in an accident. And due to this reason he was disabled. And not in a position to work hard. That Ham Chandra is her real brother-in-law (Dever ). Ham Chandra was running the engine at the distance of one field from the spot. Naresh and Tek Chand were also present at the distance of about 3-4 field. There was bleeding from her private part and there was stain of blood on the petticoat. That Sushil committed rape on her thrice. That she sustained injuries in the incident. Her blouse and Petticoat had mud due to the incident. 9. Ham Chand (P. W. 2) stated that at about 10. 30 p. m. in the night he was running his engine on the boring in order to irrigate the field. That Sushil committed rape on her thrice. That she sustained injuries in the incident. Her blouse and Petticoat had mud due to the incident. 9. Ham Chand (P. W. 2) stated that at about 10. 30 p. m. in the night he was running his engine on the boring in order to irrigate the field. He heard the noise from towards the west at about 12 Oclock. And after switching off the engine he went at the spot. Besides him, Naresh and Tek Chand also reached on the spot. On reaching on the spot he saw a danda and fawda (spade) lying there. He also noticed that two persons standing on the chak road and in the flash of torch he saw these two persons and third person came out from the field and all the three escaped from the spot. In the meantime Gomti also came out from the field and they enquired from the Gomti that what is the matter. She narrated that she was beaten by the accused persons and she was also raped. Gomti came out from the field of Om Dutt son of Hari Ram. It was dark night and she was behind Bittu and Ravindra and torch was also flashed on Sushil when he came out of the field. These persons were of the village. That Gomti was brought in the village. In the village elder brother Amin Sahab, Deep Chand Sharma stated that their (Bahu and Beti) daughter used to visit in the jungle, hence you lodge the F. I. R. of the incident. He also admitted that Mool Chand husband of the Gomti disappeared some days earlier to the incident, and he had not returned till then. It is wrong to alleged that her husband deserted the house due to her character. Although he usedto bear the optical. That his vision is not weak. At the time of rape he used to wear optical. But at the time of incident he was not wearing optical. He denied the suggestion of fabricating false case. 10. Dr. Arti Faujdar (P. W. 3) conducted the medical examination of Gomti on 16. 9. 1994 at 4. 00 a. m. According to her statement following injuries were found on the body of the injured Gomti: 1. 1/2" contusion over left eyebrow medially and laterally. 2. He denied the suggestion of fabricating false case. 10. Dr. Arti Faujdar (P. W. 3) conducted the medical examination of Gomti on 16. 9. 1994 at 4. 00 a. m. According to her statement following injuries were found on the body of the injured Gomti: 1. 1/2" contusion over left eyebrow medially and laterally. 2. 1" horizontal contusion (red) 1/2" above the mid point of line drawn between left angle of mouth and left pinna. 3. 1. 5 "scratch mark (red) on the lateral neck (middle ). 4. 1" x 1" contusion mark (red) on mid joint of line drawn between sternum and left nipple. 5. Swelling seen on sacra congeal part of back in mid line. The patient was also complaining of pain all over body. But no other visible injury was found. Clothes and legs were mud stained. The examination of private part was painful as told by the patient. Vaginal inncosa is bright red. 11. In the opinion of the doctor attempt of rape could have been made. Probably sexual intercourse had been performed. Vaginal smear and slides was prepared and delivered to the constable. 12. From the statement of Gomti (P. W. I) it has been established that she was subjected to rape by one of the accused Shushil. It is also fact that where about of her husband Mool Chand are not known for the last 30 years. He has deserted the house or he has disappeared from the house specially in some suspicious circumstance. But nothing had been heard about her husband for the last about 30 years. She had one son and one daughter. She has also stated that her son met with the accident and due to that reason his one kidney was taken out and since then he was not in a position to perform any hard work. It is a known fact that for the purpose of irrigation the hours were allocated by the Irrigation Department according to the holdings of the farmers. Afterwards turn was also fixed for irrigation purpose. Gomti has stated that her turn for irrigation commenced at 12 Oclock in the night of Thursday. On the date of incident on Thursday from 12 Oclock there was her turn of water for irrigation. And for that purpose she went at the field and when the turn commenced at the same time these appellants appeared on the spot. Gomti has stated that her turn for irrigation commenced at 12 Oclock in the night of Thursday. On the date of incident on Thursday from 12 Oclock there was her turn of water for irrigation. And for that purpose she went at the field and when the turn commenced at the same time these appellants appeared on the spot. It is not very material that as to why Gomti all alone went at the field for irrigation purpose when she had a male member. But as has been established from the statement of Gomti that due to accident and due to the kidney problem he was not in a position to perform any hard work. And this was the reason which compelled to went at the field in the night for the irrigation purpose. And this fact has also not been challenged by the accused persons that it is wrong to alleged that she had turn of water from 12 Oclock in the night of Thursday. Documentary evidence could have been produced about all these facts. But no documentary evidence have been produced to discard the statement of this witness. In a case of rape no further corroboration is required except own statement of the prosecutrix. It is a settled position of law of the Honble Apex Court that in the case of rape the solitary statement of prosecutrix is sufficient to base conviction, even in the circumstance when this fact has also not been corroborated by the medical evidence. But in the present case there is not only the corroboration. coincident by one witness Ham Chandra, although he is closed relation of the victim. It has also been settled by Honble Apex Court that the statement of a related and inimical witness is also reliable. But the statement of such a witness is to be scrutinized with care and caution. In the present case besides the statement of Ham Chandra there is also a reliable and believable statement of Gomti victim herself and even medical evidence has corroborated the factum of rape. 13. Dr. Arti Faujdar Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination has not ruled out the possibility of rape with her. And it is a fact that Gomti was leading the life of widow as her husband disappeared for the last 30 years. 13. Dr. Arti Faujdar Medical Officer who conducted the medical examination has not ruled out the possibility of rape with her. And it is a fact that Gomti was leading the life of widow as her husband disappeared for the last 30 years. She had not been seen by the closed relations during this period, hence there was no question of her having any intercourse with any other persons. It is not a case of the appellants that the prosecutrix was a lady of easy virtue or immoral character. A lady who is aged about 55 years having grown up children is not expected of such character. The mere argument of learned Counsel for the appellants is not sufficient to draw the presumption of the fact, hence in my opinion the statement of Gomti coupled with the medical evidence is sufficient to establish the factum of rape. There were injuries on the body of Gomti. And this fact also shows that she resisted the accused persons otherwise there was no reason for presence of the injuries. The vaginal inncosa was found red and such symptom can only be possible when rape/sexual intercourse was committed with a lady. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellants that a false case has been fabricated and concocted at the instance of one Jeet Singh. 14. Witness Gomti was cross-examined on this point that one Jeet Singh Gurjar is instrumental in getting false case fabricated against the appellants. Gomti has stated that Jeet Singh is Gurjar. She has also admitted that earlier about 3-4 years of this incident there had been some incident between Brahmin and Gurjar of the villages. But she was not aware that in that incident one Lokesh son of Khema sustained fire arm injuries. But it is a fact that Khema is real uncle of accused Bittu and Ravendra and the suggestion has been given that due to this incident in between Brahmin and Gurjar and at the instance of Jeet Singh this false case has been fabricated. The moral has not gone down to this extent that the widow having grown up children will come to this extent to fabricate a false case at the instance of Jeet Singh Gurjar. These accused appellants are not Gurjar but are Brahmin. The moral has not gone down to this extent that the widow having grown up children will come to this extent to fabricate a false case at the instance of Jeet Singh Gurjar. These accused appellants are not Gurjar but are Brahmin. It is unthinkable that one will give false evidence due to enmity in order to settle score of others. 15. "honljle Apex Court held in Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (40) AIC 65 (SC) = 2006 (55) ACC 314 = 2006 (3) SCC 771 = AIR 2006 SC 1267 - " 11. In the Indian Settling refusal to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had even occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society and when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light, there is inbuilt assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury, which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted, as the best witness in the sense that he least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of sex offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. A woman or a girl who is raped is not an accomplice. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. " 16. Hence in view of a verdict of Honble Apex Court the solitary statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to base the conviction and there can be no reason to disbelieve the statement of a woman victim of rape. And in view of the verdict of Apex Court, the statement of Gomti victim of rape is most reliable. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants also argued at length regarding false implication of the accused persons due to enmity of one Jeet Singh Gurjar. Much emphasis has been laid on some incident took place at about 3-4 years earlier in between Brahmin and Gurjar. And the relations of the accused persons sustained firearm injury in that incident. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants also argued at length regarding false implication of the accused persons due to enmity of one Jeet Singh Gurjar. Much emphasis has been laid on some incident took place at about 3-4 years earlier in between Brahmin and Gurjar. And the relations of the accused persons sustained firearm injury in that incident. And this is the main argument of learned Counsel for the appellants that no such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution and entire case is fabricated. 18. I have decided above that the statement of Gomati victim of rape is most reliable and there is no circumstance to disbelieve her statement. I am also of the opinion that a lady will never like to fabricate a false case of rape at the instance of some body else. And a widow having grown up children cannot commit such an act. 19. Honble Supreme Court held in Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2006 (42) AIC 34 (SC) = 2006 (55) ACC 556 = 2006 (6) SCC 474 = 2006 (3) Cri. LJ 2913 "13. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian woman has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case. In the instant case the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own prestige and honour. ". 20. In the instant case the suggestion given on behalf of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after scatting her own prestige and honour. ". 20. Hence in view of the above verdict of the Honble Apex Court it does not at all appeal to the common sense that in the present case Gomti at the instance of one Jeet Singh Gurjar will put her prestige, her honour and her status at stake. And mere suggestion by the appellants Counsel is not at all sufficient to draw the inference of false case. The F. I. R. is prompt, incident took place at about 12. 00 Oclock in the night and F. I. R. was lodged at 2. 00 a. m. And afterwards Gomti was medically examined by the doctor at 4. 00 a. m. I disagree with this argument of appellants Counsel that F. I. R. and the medical are too prompt and from this promptness inference may be drawn that all was preplanned. It is expected in normal circumstance that when the criminal offence is committed then immediately that matter is reported to the police so that the culprit may be brought to book. And the promptness cannot be interpreted in the manner as suggested by the applicants Counsel. In the present case rape has been committed on a widow of 55 years of age having grown up children. And the victim shall have to think at several time prior to reporting to the police that whether the F. I. R. is to be lodged or not because her own honour and prestige is at the stake. And a lady in such circumstance cannot be puppet in the hand of other person to settle their score. Ham Chand P. W. 2 is also material witness of the incident. He was present at his own field and running the engine for irrigation of the field. He also rushed at the spot after hearing the noise. He has not stated that rape was committed on Gomti in his presence. When he reached on the spot he saw that the two accused persons Bittu and Ravindra Kumar were standing on the Chak Road and the third accused Sushil came out from the sugar cane field in his presence. He has not stated that rape was committed on Gomti in his presence. When he reached on the spot he saw that the two accused persons Bittu and Ravindra Kumar were standing on the Chak Road and the third accused Sushil came out from the sugar cane field in his presence. Gomti victim also came out of the field and she narrated the story. This statement of Ham Chand is most reliable and probable and natural. So far as regard the factum of rape Gomti is reliable witness of this fact. She has stated about the rape. It is also a fact that Gomti is illiterate lady. She was cross-examined by a refined advocate at length that how the rape was committed on her. There are some contradiction in her statement. But these contradiction are not material. She will be presumed to be a reliable witness. But the contradictions are quite natural and make the story more reliable and believable. What will be the mental condition of the lady who is victim of rape when she is raped can be imagined. 21. Learned Counsel for the appellants cited a case in Naravan alias Naran v, State of Rajasthan. 2007 (53) AIC 35 (SC) = 2007 (58) ACC 366 It has been held by honble Apex Court - " The evidence of the prosecutrix (P. W. 3) is full of material contradictions. There is no corroboration of whatsoever from any of the witnesses more particularly in the evidence of Smt. Tejkanwar (P. W. 6) who is a material witness. It is true the evidence of the prosecutrix (P. W. 3) itself, if acceptable, is sufficient to establish the charge against the accused but her evidence is so artificial which cannot be accepted. " 22. But this judgment of Honble Apex Court is not applicable to the present case. In the present case there is a corroboration of statement of Gomti with the statement of Ham Chand (P. W. 2) and he has also stated that after hearing the noise when he reached at spot two persons were standing on chak road and one accused came but from the sugar cane field followed by Gomti victim. Moreover in the present case there is corroboration of the factum of rape from the medical evidence also. The doctor has not ruled out the possibility of rape with the victim. Moreover in the present case there is corroboration of the factum of rape from the medical evidence also. The doctor has not ruled out the possibility of rape with the victim. There are injuries on her body also and this fact also shows that she put resistance to the act of the accused persons. The cloths under garments were also filled with mud stains and all these facts established that the statement of Gomti has been corroborated by medical evidence, besides the statement of Ham Chand (P. W. 2 ). The presence of mere contradiction is not sufficient to show the statement of victim unbelievable. 23. Learned Counsel for the appellants also cited Ram Das and others v. State of Maharastra 2007 (57) ACC 471 = 2007 (49) AIC 418 (SC) = 2007 (2) SCC 170 . In which Honble Apex Court held that: " It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the Court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances which cast to a shadow of doubt over her veracity. If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality, that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant case, we do not find her evidence to be of such quality. " 24. Honble Apex Court held that in view of settled position of law in case of rape conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix. But for doing so the Court must be convinced labout the truthfulness of the prosecution story and there exist no such circumstance which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. In the present case the solitary statement of Gomti is most natural, reliable and believable and I am convinced that her statement is full of truthfulness and there exist no circumstance which cast a shadow of doubt over her veracity. In view of this judgment of the Honble Apex Court, the statement of Gomti is sufficient to base the conviction against the appellants. In view of this judgment of the Honble Apex Court, the statement of Gomti is sufficient to base the conviction against the appellants. Because in the present case there is no reason even remotest cause for false implication of the appellants and it cannot be believed that a lady will put her own honour, her prestige and her status for the shake of some other persons. There is no direct enmity of the accused persons with the prosecutrix Gomti. Only suggestion has been given to the witnesses that there had been some incident in between Brahmin and Gurjar of the village and Jeet Singh was instrumental in fabricating the false case and this suggestion has no basis to place reliance. 25. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the confirmed opinion that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellants beyond shadow of doubt. The statement of Gomti a married widow about 55 years old having grown up children will not fabricate a false case against the appellants without any rhyme and reason. Her statement is being corroborated even by the medical evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly justified in convicting the appellants. As there is allegation of rape against Sushil and against other of thrashing. Hence learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellants under sections 376 and 323/34. I. P. C. There is no reason to interfere in the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I am of the opinion that the appeals have no merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. 26. The appeals are dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence of the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge is upheld and affirmed. The appellant-accused Sushil is in Jail. He will remain in jail to serve the term of sentences awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The appellants Bittu alias Devendra and Ravindra are on bail by order of this Court. The C. J. M. Shall ensure the compliance of the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge by issuing N. B. W. against them. Copy of judgment be sent to Court concerned and C. J. M. for compliance. Appeals Dismissed. .