JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 13-2-2006 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No.7/2005, whereby learned Special Judge after holding the accused/appellants guilty for commission of offence under Sections 366, 376 (2) (g) & 342 of the I.P.C., sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for seven years & pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months, to undergo R.I. for ten years & pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months and to undergo R.I. for six months, respectively. 2. Conviction of the appellants is challenged on the ground that without any credible and reliable evidence the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellants in the aforesaid manner. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25-9-2004 at about 11 p.m. the prosecutrix (PW-1), aged about 20 years, had gone to watch video, when she went to answer the call of nature towards a lane, accused/appellants Manoj & Umashankar came to her, they caught hold of her and took her to the house of accused Umashankar. They closed her mouth with a cloth and both the accused persons committed forceful sexual intercourse with her one by one and also gave threatening to kill her. They also committed rape on her on 26-9-2004. On 26-9-2004 at about 11 p.m., she came from the house of Umashankar and narrated the incident to her parents. On 27-9- 2004 she lodged a written complaint Ex.P-1 and on the basis of the said written complaint, F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P-2. Underwear was seized from the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-3. Caste Certificate of the prosecutrix Ex.P-5 was seized vide Ex.P-4. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-6. Radiological test was conducted and age of the prosecutrix was ascertained to be between 17 to 19 years vide Ex.P-7. She was sent for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Sakti vide Ex.P-12-A. Dr. (Smt.) Chandra Kiran Singh (PW-10) examined her on 27-9-2004 at about 5.30 p.m. vide Ex.P-12 and found one lacerated wound & one contusion over labia minora with redness and also abrasion over labia minora, vagina was loose and hymen was irregular in shape. She was sent for medical examination to Community Health Centre, Sakti vide Ex.P-12-A. Dr. (Smt.) Chandra Kiran Singh (PW-10) examined her on 27-9-2004 at about 5.30 p.m. vide Ex.P-12 and found one lacerated wound & one contusion over labia minora with redness and also abrasion over labia minora, vagina was loose and hymen was irregular in shape. Two slides of vaginal smear of the prosecutrix were taken. The doctor opined that the prosecutrix was sexually tried. Two vaginal slides of the prosecutrix were seized vide Ex.P- 8. Under wears were seized from accused Umashankar vide Ex.P- 10 and from accused Manoj vide Ex.P-11. Accused Manoj was sent for medical examination and he was found capable of committing sexual intercourse vide Ex.P-14. Accused Umashankar was also sent for medical examination and he was also found capable of committing sexual intercourse vide Ex.P- 16. Slides of Manoj & Umashankar were seized vide Exs.P-18 & P-19. Spot map was prepared by the Police Officer vide Ex.P- 23. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P-29 and presence of sperm was confirmed on underwear & vaginal slides of the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-30. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and after completing investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Bilaspur. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence & false implication. By way of the documents Exs.D-1 & D-2, the alleged two letters, accused Manoj has taken the defence that he was having illicit relations with the prosecutrix and on the date of incident, the prosecutrix has invited him. 6. After conclusion of trial and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Special Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 7. I have heard Mr. Vimal Tondey, learned counsel for the appellants & Mr. Sameer Behar, learned Panel Lawyer on behalf of the State/respondent, and perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the trial Court. 8. After conclusion of trial and affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Special Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 7. I have heard Mr. Vimal Tondey, learned counsel for the appellants & Mr. Sameer Behar, learned Panel Lawyer on behalf of the State/respondent, and perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged after two days of the incident and no explanation has been offered for delay in lodging the F.I.R. The prosecutrix was having illicit relations with Manoj and on the date of incident she has invited Manoj. The prosecutrix is a woman of easy virtue and she was also having illicit relations with other persons i.e. Bharat & Ottelal. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and also failed to prove that the accused persons had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her will & consent. Evidence of the prosecutrix is suggestive of consent, it shows that she has invited the appellants and when she was caught red handed, she lodged false complaint against the appellants. Learned counsel also submits that the prosecutrix is a woman of easy virtue, her evidence requires corroboration from material particulars, in absence of material corroboration, her evidence is not safe to rely to convict the appellants, that too for commission of heinous offence of gang rape which is punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the I.P.C. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/ respondent submits that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and the same is trustworthy, she has not admitted any previous relations with the accused persons. She is not the consenting party, she has been forcefully raped by two persons after taking her from near the video parlour and she was confined by the appellants in the house of Umashankar. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties and to prove the complicity of the accused/appellants in the crime in question, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties and to prove the complicity of the accused/appellants in the crime in question, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. The prosecutrix (PW-1), who was aged about 20 years on the date of incident, has deposed that on the fateful day at about 11 p.m. she was watching video, when she went to answer the call of nature in the lane of Vishambhar, the appellants came to her and took her from the lane to the house of Umashankar which was previously locked, they lit the chimney and forced her to remove her clothes, on her refusal, accused/appellant Manoj removed her Salwar & underwear and committed sexual intercourse with her. After commission of sexual intercourse by Manoj, Umashankar committed sexual intercourse with her. They also threatened her and after commission of rape, they set her free. She went to her house and narrated the incident to her mother & father. She lodged the written complaint on 27-9-2004 vide Ex.P-1 and lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.P-2. She was examined by the doctor, her undergarments were seized and spot map was prepared. 12. Chitki Bai (PW-2), mother of the prosecutrix, has deposed that on the date of incident her daughter went to watch video, but she did not came back to the house, they searched for her and on the second day at about 11 p.m., she came back to her house and narrated the incident. 13. Naan Bai (PW-3) has deposed that on the fateful day the prosecutrix went to answer the call of nature, but she did not came back, when she went to the house of the prosecutrix, mother of the prosecutrix asked her about the prosecutrix, they searched for her, but she was not traceable on that day. Second day at about 11 p.m. the prosecutrix came back and narrated the incident. 14. Bahadur (PW-6), father of the prosecutrix, has supported the evidence of his wife Chitki Bai (PW-2). Bajrang Singh (PW-7) has also supported the version of Chitki Bai (PW-2). Vikram Bareth (PW-12) has deposed that on the date of incident at late night, father of the prosecutrix was searching for the prosecutrix, but she was not traceable. Mohan (PW-13) has stated in his evidence that the accused persons were present near the place of video. 15. Dr. Bajrang Singh (PW-7) has also supported the version of Chitki Bai (PW-2). Vikram Bareth (PW-12) has deposed that on the date of incident at late night, father of the prosecutrix was searching for the prosecutrix, but she was not traceable. Mohan (PW-13) has stated in his evidence that the accused persons were present near the place of video. 15. Dr. (Smt.) Chandra Kiran Singh (PW-10) who has examined the prosecutrix has deposed that on 27-9-2004 at about 5.30 p.m. she had examined the prosecutrix and found one lacerated wound, one contusion & one scratch wound over labia minora i.e. private part of the prosecutrix which is suggestive of the fact that the prosecutrix was sexually tried within 48 hours. The prosecutrix was also examined by Dr. Meena Armo (PW-8) who has also stated that on 7-10-2004 she has examined the prosecutrix and found old lacerated wound over her labia minora. Dr. (Smt.) Chandra Kiran Singh (PW-10) has admitted in para 14 of her cross-examination that if any person forcefully presses the mouth of a woman, there may be some injury over her mouth. She has admitted in para 17 of her evidence that the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse because her vagina admits two fingers easily. Evidence of Dr. (Smt.) Chandra Kiran Singh (PW-10) reveals that injury was found over labia minora of the prosecutrix and her hymen was irregular in shape which are suggestive of sexual intercourse on her. 16. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has been cross-examined by the defence at length. She has admitted in para 15 of her evidence that the accused persons had pressed her mouth, therefore, she was not in a position to cry for help. In para 16 she has further admitted that she went alone in the lane. She has admitted in para 18 that the accused persons set her free on 26-9-2004 at about 11 p.m., therefore, she has lodged the report on 27-9-2004. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that she has got prepared the type written complaint at the instance of the Police Officer. In para 23 of her cross-examination she has stated that the appellants lay her down on the ground and committed sexual intercourse, therefore, she has not received any external injury, except pain over her mouth. She has denied in paras 45 & 46 of her cross-examination that she has written the letters Exs.D-1 & D-2. In para 23 of her cross-examination she has stated that the appellants lay her down on the ground and committed sexual intercourse, therefore, she has not received any external injury, except pain over her mouth. She has denied in paras 45 & 46 of her cross-examination that she has written the letters Exs.D-1 & D-2. She has also denied any relation with Manoj or Bharat. In her detailed cross-examination she has specifically deposed that the appellants are the persons who have committed forceful sexual intercourse with her after taking her to the house of Umashankar and she has denied all the adverse suggestions. 17. Chitki Bai (PW-2) has also denied all the adverse suggestions and specifically stated in her evidence that when her daughter did not come back, they searched for her and on the second day at about 11 p.m. her daughter came back. Naan Bai (PW-3), Bahadur (PW-6) & Bajrang Singh (PW-7) have also denied the adverse suggestions made on behalf of the defence to them. 18. Accused Manoj has taken specific defence that on the fateful day he was invited by the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix used to write love letters to him, but the prosecutrix has denied the same. According to her evidence, she was confined for about two days in the house of Umashankar and when she came back to her house, she lodged the report on the next day. Her medical examination shows injury over her private part which is suggestive of commission of sexual intercourse. 19. There are some discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-1), Chitki Bai (PW-2), Bahadur (PW-6) & Bajrang Singh (PW-7), they are villagers and they have been cross-examined in detail. Minor discrepancies, contradictions & omissions are natural in their evidence. But defence has not been able to bring anything substantial in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Evidence of the prosecutrix corroborated by the evidence of Chitki Bai (PW-2), Naan Bai (PW-3), Bahadur (PW-6) & Bajrang Singh (PW-7) and supported by the medical evidence inspire confidence and sufficient for drawing inference that both the appellants had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. 20. In cases of rape, corroboration is not a rule of law, but is a rule of caution and a rule of prudence. In this case, the prosecutrix, who is a village background girl, has categorically and specifically stated about the incident. 20. In cases of rape, corroboration is not a rule of law, but is a rule of caution and a rule of prudence. In this case, the prosecutrix, who is a village background girl, has categorically and specifically stated about the incident. Her evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of Chitki Bai (PW-2), Naan Bai (PW-3), Bahadur (PW-6) & Bajrang Singh (PW-7). 21. As regards the question of consent, suggestion has been made to the prosecutrix on behalf of the accused/appellants that she was having illicit relations with Manoj and on the date of incident Manoj was invited by the prosecutrix which the prosecutrix has specifically & categorically denied. Defence has not adduced any defence evidence, especially when the alleged two letters had been denied by the prosecutrix, to show that those letters had been written by the prosecutrix or that Manoj was having illicit relations with the prosecutrix. In absence of such evidence and specific denial of the prosecutrix, no inference could be drawn that the prosecutrix was consenting party and the accused persons have committed sexual intercourse on the prosecutrix with her will & consent. 22. Both the accused persons forcefully took the prosecutrix from near the video parlour to the vacant house of Umashankar where they confined her and committed rape on her one by one. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Court below has convicted & sentenced the appellants under Sections 366, 376 (2) (g) & 342 of the I.P.C. Finding of the Court below is based on legal and clinching evidence. Conviction of the appellants under Sections 366, 376 (2) (g) & 342 of the I.P.C. is sustainable under law. 23. As regards the question of sentence, the two accused persons had kidnapped the prosecutrix and after confining her, committed gang rape on her. The Court below has awarded minimum sentence under Section 376 (2) (g) of the I.P.C. It has not committed any illegality or infirmity in sentencing the appellants. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.