Judgment Z.K. Saiyed, J.—By way of this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed to release them on bail in connection with an F.I.R. being registered as C.R. No. I-101 of 2008 with Kosamba Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 376(4), 323 and 114 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(1), (12) and 3(2)(5)of the Atrocity Act. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are one Bhartiben-the prosecutrix lodged the complaint in question before the Kosamba Police Station on 31.10.2008. In the said complainant, it was alleged that on 28.10.2008 at about 8:00 p.m., the prosecutrix had gone to the temple of Khodiyar Mata, situated on the outskirts of her village to perform puja along with the boys and girls residing in her vicinity. After performing Puja, the prosecutrix played ‘Garba’ with the aforesaid boys and girls. Pursuant thereto, when the prosecutrix went near a babool tree to answer the natural call, one Mitesh Dilip Varachiya and two un-known persons came near the prosecutrix, caught hold of her and shut the mouth of the prosecutrix with handkerchief. Then, these persons forcefully took the prosecutrix in the field of one Chandubhai Varachia and made the prosecutrix lie in one tractor which was standing there. In pursuance of that the aforesaid Mitesh Dilipbhai Varachia and two un-known persons, one by one, committed rape on the prosecutrix. In the meantime, since the handkerchief slipped from the mouth of the prosecutrix, she started shouting for help and on listening that one Bhalia Sukha-cousin of the prosecutrix rushed to the spot to rescue the prosecutrix. But, the aforesaid persons beat the prosecutrix and her brother and run-away. In pursuance of that the complaint in question was lodged and the present applicants were arrested. The applicants, therefore, preferred an application for bail being Criminal Misc. Application No.1935 of 2008 before the court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat which was came to be rejected by the learned Judge on 2nd December, 2008. Hence, the present application. 3.0 Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Sr. Counsel for Mr. Gondaliya, learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and they are wrongly roped in the offence in question. Hence, the present application. 3.0 Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, learned Sr. Counsel for Mr. Gondaliya, learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and they are wrongly roped in the offence in question. He has further submitted that the offence alleged to have taken place on 28.10.2008 whereas the complaint in question was lodged on 31.10.2008 i.e. after a delay of about three days and the delay has not been explained. He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that initially an application for commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. was given and later on a complaint for the offences punishable under Section 376(4), 323 etc. were lodged by the prosecutrix, at the instance of her relatives and so called social worker, with a view to settle some personal score with the present applicants. He has submitted that the trial Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the present applicants are not named in the complaint and that no identification parade was carried out by the I.O.. He has further submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that the story put forward by the prosecution is highly improbable and does not inspire confidence. 4.0 On the other hand, Mr. Nanavati, learned APP has supported the judgment and order of the trial Court and has submitted that the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, statement of witnesses and other documentary evidence clearly suggest the involvement of the applicants in the offence in question. 5.0 Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. On perusal of the complaint lodged by the prosecutrix, it transpires that on the date of alleged incident after performing ‘Puja’ when she went to answer natural call, one Mitesh Dilipbhai Varachia and two unknown persons, whom she recognize by face, caught hold of the prosecutrix and dragged her to the nearby field and then one by committed rape on her. The story put forward by the prosecution is also supported by the evidence of two child witnesses namely Hiralben aged about 10 years and one Naresh Rajubhai aged about 8 years and by Bhalia Sukha who had rushed to the spot to rescue the prosecutrix. At this stage it was argued by Mr. The story put forward by the prosecution is also supported by the evidence of two child witnesses namely Hiralben aged about 10 years and one Naresh Rajubhai aged about 8 years and by Bhalia Sukha who had rushed to the spot to rescue the prosecutrix. At this stage it was argued by Mr. Lakhani that Bhalia Sukha is cousin of the prosecutrix, and hence, his evidence cannot be said to be credible. It is not in dispute that Bhalia Sukha is cousin of the prosecutrix, but, at the same time it should be kept in mind that on listening the shouts of help of the prosecutrix, he had rushed to the spot and had actually seen the main accused Miteshbhai Dilipbhai Varachia and two other accused persons at the place offence. Apart from that, there is no rule that the evidence of a relative cannot be taken into consideration. The evidenced of Bhalia Sukha is consistent with version of offence given by the prosecutrix, and hence, the said argument is rejected. 5.1 So far as the argument raised by Mr. Lakhani that in the present case, the prosecutrix had offered no resistance which creates the doubt about the version of offence given by her, is concerned, it is required to be noted that the absence of violent or stiff resistance by a victim, in such type of offences, may as well suggest, helpless surrender to the inevitable, due to sheer timidity. However, in any event, the same would not take the case out of the definition of rape. Especially when, it is coming from the record that while one of the accused persons was committing rape on the prosecutrix, the mouth of the prosecutrix was covered with the handkerchief and the other two accused persons had caught the hands of the prosecutrix so that she could not offer resistance, in such a circumstances it is natural that there shall not be any evident signs of resistance. Hence, the aforesaid argument raised by Mr. Lakhani requires to be rejected and is rejected. 5.2 So far as the argument raised by Mr. Hence, the aforesaid argument raised by Mr. Lakhani requires to be rejected and is rejected. 5.2 So far as the argument raised by Mr. Lakhani regarding delay occurred in lodging the compliant is concerned, it is not in dispute that the prosecutrix is a deserted wife and she has been residing at her parental home since long before the commission of alleged offence and apart from that she is a simple village girl, and hence, in such a circumstances it is natural that due to social stigma which is likely to be attached on disclosure of such a serious offence, she would not lodge the complaint in question immediately. However, later on she has lodged the complainant, categorically narrating the alleged offence. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the gravity of offence, merely by the reason of the fact that there is delay in lodging the complaint, the same cannot be treated as a ground to release the accused persons on bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument is also rejected. 5.3 So far as the argument raised by Mr. Lakhani that initially an application for commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 was given and later on the complaint for commission of offences punishable under Section 376(4) of the I.P.C. etc. was filed, is concerned, as above said the prosecutrix is a deserted wife and resident of a small village having population of hardly about 1500 people, and hence, it is unreasonable to expect that she would directly go to police and lodge the complaint on her own, without informing / consulting her near and dear once. On account of the aforesaid reasons, initially, an application for commission of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the I.P.C. was given. However, later on, after informing her relatives, the prosecutrix along with her relatives went to the police station and filed the complainant in question wherein she has categorically narrated the manner in which the entire offence took place. The aforesaid argument, therefore, has no substance and requires to be rejected and is rejected. 5.4 So far as the argument raised by Mr. The aforesaid argument, therefore, has no substance and requires to be rejected and is rejected. 5.4 So far as the argument raised by Mr. Lakhani that the accused persons are falsely involved in the offence in question and that the evidence of the prosecutrix are not corroborated, is concerned, the prosecutrix in the complaint filed by her before police has clearly stated that on the date of alleged offence one Miteshbhai Dilipbhai Varachia and two other accused person whom she did not know by name, but, do recognize by face, committed the alleged offence on her. The prosecutrix, herein, is a rustic lady, and hence, there is no reason to show as to why the prosecutrix-herself or her parents or relatives would make false allegation of commission of such a serious offence against anybody, only with a view to settle some personal score. There is not a singe reason to show as to why the prosecutrix will leave out real culprits and will falsely implicate the present applicants with the allegation that she was raped by them. Even otherwise, there is no dispute that the applicant and the prosecutrix are the resident of the same village and in the complaint also the prosecutrix has clearly stated that she knew the two persons accompanying the main accused Mitesh Dilipbhai Varachiya by face, and hence, the question of falsely involving the applicants in the offence in question by the prosecutrix does not arise. 5.5 So far as the corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix are concerned, in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. In the case on hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix are fully supported by the oral evidence of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidences in the form of medical report etc.. To do so is to justify charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. In the case on hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix are fully supported by the oral evidence of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidences in the form of medical report etc.. It is true that “Rape” is an offence which is violative of the fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and sexual offences constitute an altogether different kind of crime which is the result of a perverse mind. The perversity may result in homosexuality or in the commission of rape. Those who commit rape are psychologically sadistic persons exhibiting this tendency in the rape forcibly committed by them. Hence, a proposition of law cannot be laid down that the un-corroborative testimony of the prosecutrix is not sufficient for entering conviction for an offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. In the case on hand the evidence of the witnesses inspire confidence, and therefore, it cannot be said that the testimony of the prosecutrix is not reliable. From the record, it clearly transpires that after getting hold of the prosecutrix and after taking her to the filed of one Chandubhai Varachia, the prosecutrix was made to lie in a tractor standing there and while one Mitesh Dilipbhai Varachia was committing rape on the prosecutrix, the present applicants caught hold of the hands of the prosecutrix so that she cannot offer any resistance and in pursuance of that both the applicants, herein, also committed rape on the victim one by one which suggest clear prima facie involvement of the applicants in the offence in question. I am, therefore, of the opinion that given the present social ethos in this country, it is highly improbable that either the girl or her parents would set up a false case of rape, as is argued by the learned Mr. Lakhani, against the present applicants. Hence, the aforesaid arguments raised by Mr. Lakhani is rejected. 5.6 The cases involving sexual molestation and assault require a different approach plus a sensitive approach and not an approach which a Court may adopt in dealing with a normal offence under penal laws. Lakhani, against the present applicants. Hence, the aforesaid arguments raised by Mr. Lakhani is rejected. 5.6 The cases involving sexual molestation and assault require a different approach plus a sensitive approach and not an approach which a Court may adopt in dealing with a normal offence under penal laws. The present applicants are alleged to have involved in a heinous crime of committing gang rape on the prosecutrix and apart from that it is reported that the main accused Mitesh Dilipbhai Varachia is still absconding. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the application deserves to be rejected. 6.0 In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that there is sufficient evidence on record to show the prima facie involvement of the applicants in the offence in question. Hence, the present application deserves to be rejected and is rejected. Notice is discharged.