JUDGMENT (1) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5-9-07 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions trial No. 433/91 whereby and where under after holding the appellant guilty for the offence of gang rape convicted the appellant under Section 376 (2) (g) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the Code) and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. (2) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged by the appellant on the ground that without any iota of evidence of commission of gang rape by the appellant learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned and thereby committed an illegality. Prosecution case in brief prosecutrix PW 5 aged about 24 years was residing in a hut near Purena Station District Durg. On the date of incident intervening night of 26th and 27th of June, 1991 at about 9 p. m., she was cooking her meal, appellant bholaram was residing in front of house of the prosecutrix. Accused asked the prosecutrix whether she is cooking meals also for him, on her refusal accused went away. After taking her meal prosecutrix closed the door and went for sleep. At about 11 p. m. some person knocked the door but she did not open the door. She was under fear. She also cried for help then after breaking the door 3 persons entered into her house and caught hold her neck and snatched her clothes. Accused Bholaram committed intercourse with her. He committed intercourse with her twicely. Another co-accused shambhu also committed intercourse with her twicely, another accused also committed rape with her. Both the accused again committed carnal intercourse with her against the order of nature by inserting male organ in the anus of prosecutrix. She become unconscious, again they committed intercourse. They threatened her when they will fled away from the house of the prosecutrix then she went to the house of kirtanbai, she narrated the incident. Second day morning Bholaram came to her house and repaired the broken door and took her to the doctor where doctor injected her. She become unconscious, again they committed intercourse. They threatened her when they will fled away from the house of the prosecutrix then she went to the house of kirtanbai, she narrated the incident. Second day morning Bholaram came to her house and repaired the broken door and took her to the doctor where doctor injected her. Prosecutrix was not in position to walk properly. She was suffering from pain in her private part and anus. On 30-6-91 she lodged the report vide Ex. P-5. One sari and Rs. 10/- were taken by accused Ubey from the house of prosecutrix was recovered vide Ex. P-9, blanket and jute bag used at the time of commission of the offence was recovered from the house of the prosecutrix vide Ex. P-10. She was sent for medicial examination by PW-2 Dr. Smt. N. Sharma. On 2-7-91 on her examination one contusion over right thigh of 3" x 2" one continue 3" x 2" upon her left breast and scratches over both the calf muscles were found. Tenderness was present over her private part and anus. Two slides of vaginal smears were taken. She has also examined one blanket and jute bag vide Ex. P-5. Accused Ubey and Shambhu were examined by Dr. L. D. Dhote vide Ex. P-1 and P-2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-3. (3) Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, durg who in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions, Durg. After commission of the offence accused Bholaram absconded from the village. Two accused were tried and convicted under Sections 376 (2) (g), 450, 377 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 22-3-93. The present accused was arrested in the year 2006. (4) In order to prove the guilt of the accused prosecution examined 5 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocency and false implication is claimed. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (G) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. He denied the circumstances appearing against him, innocency and false implication is claimed. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties learned sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (G) and 450 of the Indian Penal Code. Smt. Savita Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Sushil Dubey, Additional public Prosecutor are heard. (5) Judgment impugned and record of courts below perused. (6) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that present appellant has not committed any offence of gang rape with prosecutrix. Prosecutrix was interested to marry with appellant on refusal by appellant she has falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the respondent/state supported the judgment and argued that presence of appellant at the time of commission of the offence and even commission of intercourse by the appellant is not disputed by the appellant. Prosecutrix has specifically deposed that appellant and two other persons have committed forcefully intercourse with her and prosecution has proved the case behind all shadow of doubt. (7) In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. PW-5 prosecutrix has deposed in her evidence that on the date of incident she was residing alone in her hut (after constructing temporary hut). At about 8-9 p. m. appellant came near her house and spoke about the cooking of the meal after some time she went inside for sleep at about 10 p. m. she heard some shout the accused Bholaram along with Shambhu and Ubey broke her door and entered into her hut. Accused bholaram removed her clothes and forcefully lay down her and committed intercourse. Other accused also committed intercourse. Accused persons fled away from the house of the prosecutrix. She was not in position to walk any how she went to the house of the Kirtanbai where she narrated the incident. She has not lodged the first information Report promptly. She was under threat, lastly, she lodged the report vide ex. P-15, blanket and jute bag was recovered vide Ex. P-10. She was sent for medicial examination. She has also deposed that accused has also committed intercourse against the order of nature. PW-2 Dr. Smt. N. Sharma has deposed that on 2-7-91 she has examined the prosecutrix. She was complaining pain over her body. Swelling over right calf-muscles. P-15, blanket and jute bag was recovered vide Ex. P-10. She was sent for medicial examination. She has also deposed that accused has also committed intercourse against the order of nature. PW-2 Dr. Smt. N. Sharma has deposed that on 2-7-91 she has examined the prosecutrix. She was complaining pain over her body. Swelling over right calf-muscles. Swelling over right breast and scratches over right breast were found vide Ex. P-4. Tenderness were present over her private part and anus. She has explained in para-4 of her statement that swelling was in form of contusion and there was tenderness on touch over her private part and anus. PW1 Bhagirathi has deposed in his evidence that at the time of incident he was residing in front of the house of prosecutrix. At the time of incident prosecutrix cried for help but he did not came. He saw the prosecutrix in second day morning. The prosecutrix was sitting in front of the house and was weeping. Prosecutrix has declared this witness hostile. PW-4 Kirtanbai has deposed in her evidence on the date of incident at about 12. 32 at mid night, prosecutrix came to her house and knocked her door when she opened the door she asked for water and after drinking the water she told that 3 persons including Bholaram have committed rape with her, PW-5 prosecutrix has admitted in para-9 of her-cross examination that her in-laws and husband have left her, she constructed new temporary hut just before 3-4 days from the incident other persons have also constructed temporary hut but they have not started living in their hut. There are some discrepancy, omission and contradiction in her statement and First information Report. (8) Defence has asked her in para 15 of her cross-examination that she herself has invited the accused and cooked meal for him. Defence has also suggested that she herself lay down in the floor which she has denied and specifically stated that present accused has fell down her on the floor and committed rape with her. She has also denied the suggestion that she want to marry with accused and when he refused then she has lodged the false report. Factum of presence of appellant in the house of prosecutrix at the time of commission of the offence is virtually not disputed by the appellant. She has also denied the suggestion that she want to marry with accused and when he refused then she has lodged the false report. Factum of presence of appellant in the house of prosecutrix at the time of commission of the offence is virtually not disputed by the appellant. Appellant has specifically suggested that prosecutrix has invited him and she herself lay down on the floor for intercourse which she has specifically denied, her statement is corroborated by the statement of PW-4 Kirtanbai whom she has immediately narrated the incident, some abnormal incident with the prosecutrix has also supported by hostile witness PW-1 Bhagirathi. PW-2 Dr. N. Sharma has deposed that tenderness was found over her private part and injury was also found over her breast and leg. Prosecution has earlier examined the prosecutrix as PW-7 during the trial against two another accused where she has also deposed same thing in her statement. In the present trial she has deposed that 3 persons have committed intercourse and carnal intercourse ravishingly and twicely, tenderness and injuries found by the doctor supported such commission of the offence. Prosecutrix has specifically deposed that after breaking the door appellant entered into her house and committed intercourse with her which is punishable for imprisonment for life. (9) A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. While dealing with the question of corroboration Apex court has held in case of State of Maharashtra v. Chandrapraksh Kewalchand Jain (1990) 1 SCC 550 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 210 : 1990 Cri LJ 889, that the prosecutrix cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. Para 16 reads as follows : "16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act') nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The Evidence act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act') nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person. (a) who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law of practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b)to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for. (b) evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutirx must necessarilly depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding, the Court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be. (c) infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. " (10) While dealing with the same question Apex Court has held in case of S. Ramakrishna v. State represented by the public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad (2009) 1 SCC 133 : AIR 2009 SC 885 that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. " (10) While dealing with the same question Apex Court has held in case of S. Ramakrishna v. State represented by the public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad (2009) 1 SCC 133 : AIR 2009 SC 885 that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In the present case statement of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the medical evidence, evidence of PW-4 Kirtanbai whom she has immediately narrated the incident on close scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecutrix and aforesaid witnesses and suggestion given by the accused to the prosecutrix, her statement inspire confidence trustworthy and safe for reliance. After appreciating evidence available on record learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant aforementioned. Conviction Sentence of the appellant are based on credible and clinching evidence. As regard the sentence is concerned sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence of gang rape and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of rs. 500/- for the offence of house breaking with intent to commit the offence punishable under Section 450 of the Indian Penal code is neither excessive nor unjust. (11) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any scope in the present appeal. Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.