ORDER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE Rule. Service of rule is waived by Ms. Manisha Shah, Ld. APP on behalf of the opponent -State. 2. This group of applications is preferred by convicts of Special [Atrocity] Case No. 22 of 2008, who came to be convicted by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Patan, by judgment and order dated 6/3/2009 for offences punishable under sections 376, 376(2) (G) read with section 120B and sections 342 and 354 and section 506(2) and section 377 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. 3. The 6 appellants convicts were the accused persons before the trial Court. They are all working as teacher in the PTC Residential College at Patan. The victim is an inmate of the hostel, who took admission in the hostel on 24/7/2007. She came to be gang raped repeatedly on 4 occasions and came to be raped singularly on the 5th occasion between the period commencing from 11/9/2007 to 25/2/2008. One of the accused persons original accused no. 4 happens to be the class-teacher and others are teachers in the said college. The whole episode surfaced when the victim suddenly became unconscious on 31/1/2008 at the prayer. She was taken to Dr. Kantibhai Patel and thereafter to various other doctors. Ultimately an FIR came to be lodged on 4/2/2008 at 3.00 p.m. 3.1. On basis of the FIR, the case was investigated and ultimately charge-sheet came to be filed. After the trial, the trial Court found substance in the prosecution case and recorded conviction of all the accused persons. Accused no. 1 came to be convicted for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(G), 120B, 342 and 354 of IPC. Accused nos. 2, 3 and 5 came to be convicted for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(G), 120B, 342, 354 and 506(2) of IPC. Accused no. 4 came to be convicted for offences punishable under sections 376(2)(G), 120B, 342, 354 and 506(2) and section 377 of IPC; whereas accused no. 6 came to be convicted for offences punishable under sections 376, 342, 354 and 506(2) of IPC. They all have been sentenced primarily to undergo life imprisonment besides other punishments. 4. The appeals preferred by the appellants/applicants have been admitted. 5. Original accused nos. 2, 5 and 6 are represented by learned advocate Mr. Panchal, accused no. 1 is represented by learned advocate Mr. Pardiwala, accused no. 3 is represented by learned advocate Mr. They all have been sentenced primarily to undergo life imprisonment besides other punishments. 4. The appeals preferred by the appellants/applicants have been admitted. 5. Original accused nos. 2, 5 and 6 are represented by learned advocate Mr. Panchal, accused no. 1 is represented by learned advocate Mr. Pardiwala, accused no. 3 is represented by learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing with Mr. Kogje and accused no. 4 is represented by learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot. Ld. APP Ms. Manisha Shah represents the State. 6. These applications are pressed by learned advocates on following grounds : A. The FIR is preferred belatedly. B. The place and time when the offences are alleged to have been committed are improbable on account of the accessibility of many people at the place at the relevant time. C. The complainant had various opportunities to complain about the incident, but she does not disclose the incident nor does she make allegations against any of the accused till 30/1/2008 when she alleged to have informed Belaben Hemraj Choudhary for the first time. D. There is total lack of medical evidence to support the allegation of rape least a gang rape. E. There is no evidence in form of any pathological report or serologist's report which may support the case of the complainant about rape. F. The victim is an educated lady, who attained majority during alleged transactions. G. The victim had met her family members during Dipawali and Makarsankranti holidays but did not disclose any such episode. H. Before Dr. Kantibhai Patel, what is alleged is only an indecent behaviour and nothing beyond. Even in writing exh. 85 dated 31/1/2008 the victim makes no reference to rape or even intercourse. I. The fact that the victim was taken initially to a Psychiatrist, would show possibility of she suffering from some psychiatric disorder and she may have been suffering from delusion. J. Important witnesses including doctors are not examined by the prosecution. K. Accused no. 1 is a professor of Psychology and the victim had no personal acquaintance with him prior to the alleged incident of 11/9/2007. L. The trial Court has recorded conviction only on the basis of bare testimony of the prosecutrix and the tenor of the judgment expects the defence to disprove the prosecution case. K. Accused no. 1 is a professor of Psychology and the victim had no personal acquaintance with him prior to the alleged incident of 11/9/2007. L. The trial Court has recorded conviction only on the basis of bare testimony of the prosecutrix and the tenor of the judgment expects the defence to disprove the prosecution case. M. As per the case of the victim, there was profused bleeding after the incident, still she continued to remain seated on the bench and even attended lecturers. There is no evidence to support this version. N. Accused no. 4 suffers from 50% physical impairment. He has a very short structure and would not be in a position to perform coitus. O. The prosecution has clubbed 5 different incidents which undisputedly occurred at different places at different time and the trial is conducted together, which would vitiate the trial and the prosecution as well. P. A reliance is placed on decisions in the cases of H B Ramavat v. State of Gujarat reported in 2008 (3) G.L.R. p. 2345 and Rajoo v/s State of M.P reported in 2009(1) Crimes 123 [SC]. 6.1. It was vehemently urged on behalf of the applicants that the trial Court erred in accepting the testimony of the victim in face of all these infirmities. The appeals are admitted and are not likely to be heard in near future and, therefore, the applicants may be admitted to bail by suspending sentence, exercising powers under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [ Cr. P.C]. 6.2. The applications are opposed to by Ld. APP. It was submitted that the victim belongs to a economically and socially backward family. Her father is engaged in a masonry work. Mother is housewife, who is not educated. Brothers and sisters are also not so educated. She left her home for the first time when she took admission in the hostel on 24/7/2007 and within weeks the incident has occurred. Her case cannot be compared with any urban girl admitted to a hostel and this is clear from her conduct when she could not mustered the courage to disclose this fact to anyone. Even after the truth came to surface, she could not describe her sufference in a bold language. Her case cannot be compared with any urban girl admitted to a hostel and this is clear from her conduct when she could not mustered the courage to disclose this fact to anyone. Even after the truth came to surface, she could not describe her sufference in a bold language. The judgment, if seen, clearly indicates presence of medical evidence to support the case of the victim about rape and her traumatized condition and, therefore, it is not a case where there is no corroboration in form of medical evidence. It was submitted that all the accused persons are teachers and enjoy a special status over students. The victim was a student. It was submitted that there is no material to infer that the victim was suffering from any psychiatric disorder prior to the incident. It may be a mistake or a co-incident that she was immediately taken to a Psychiatrist. It was submitted further that the trial Court has taken into consideration all relevant aspects while accepting the evidence of the victim. The arguments, which have been advanced before this Court, have already been considered by the trial Court and, therefore, for accepting the arguments of the applicants, the Court would be required to enter into realm of appreciation of evidence and conclude that the trial Court erred in recording conviction. This can be done only at the stage of final hearing of the appeals. The applicants convicts were not admitted to bail during the trial as well and the applications may, therefore, be dismissed. 7. We have considered rival side submissions and have examine the judgment as well. 8. We are not inclined to accept any of the applications for the following reasons : A. For accepting the applications on the grounds canvassed by learned advocates for the applicants, this Court will have to appreciate the evidence and come to conclusion that the evidence of the prosecutrix is not reliable or trustworthy and conviction cannot be founded on it. This cannot be done at this stage of suspension of sentence. No glaring error in form of any legal perversity is indicated while assailing the judgment. It is not a case that there is total lack of medical evidence as is argued on behalf of the applicants. This cannot be done at this stage of suspension of sentence. No glaring error in form of any legal perversity is indicated while assailing the judgment. It is not a case that there is total lack of medical evidence as is argued on behalf of the applicants. The Court will have to weigh the evidence of the prosecutrix vis-a-vis the alleged infirmities of FIR being late, of non-disclosure of the incident to others, of not disclosing the names of some of the accused persons in the writing exhs. 84 and 85 of the selection of time and place of alleged offence being not probable to be selected by the convicts, etc. If this is done at this stage, nothing would be left to be done at the final hearing. Even during the trial, none of the applicants was admitted to bail and now there is a conviction recorded by the competent criminal Court. As such in absence of any extraordinary circumstances, there is no question of suspending the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to the applicants. 9. A strong reliance was placed on the decision rendered in the case of H.B. Ramavat v. State of Gujarat [supra], where following observations were made in para no. 9 : “9. It is the settled law that for suspending execution of sentences, the Court will look to the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of offence and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail. It is not necessary at all for the Court to re-appreciate the evidence at this stage, but prima-facie case appearing from the record. This exercise is required to be taken particularly with reference to the contention raised by learned counsels for the parties. Convict may point of the glaring infirmities in the prosecution case which would be touching to the vital aspect and the very substratum of the case of the prosecution. Considering, prima-facie, such infirmities to be resulting in acquittal, the accused in such appeals, may be admitted to bail, but however, if the appellate Court is not able to take such a view, the course which appears to be open is to reject the plea of bail after rejecting the request for suspension of sentence.” There cannot be any dispute on the principles laid down therein. If we examine the case proved against the applicants, we find that the applicants are teachers, who have gang raped a minor girl within weeks of her taking admission to the hostel. The gravity of offence can easily be judged by the punishment prescribed by law and law prescribes life imprisonment for such an offence. And last if we examine the desirability part of releasing the accused on bail, in our view there are no circumstances for releasing these applicants on bail, who may go back to the society and again enjoy the status of teachers when there is noting to assure or that they will not indulge in similar activity. If people proved to have been involved in such activity, are released on bail, it would send wrong signals to the society at large. Thus having seen the judgment, we have examined the case against accused in the manner in which the rape is alleged to have been committed and the gravity of offence and desirability part of releasing the accused on bail, none of the factors tilt in favour of the applicants. The judgment cannot help the applicants in any manner. 10. Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered in the case of Rajoo v/s. State of M.P. [supra], the emphasis was on observation made in para. 9 of the said judgment. It is observed therein that the judgments referred to in the foregoing paragraphs lay down basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspect and should be believed, the more so as her statement has to be evaluated at par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. However, subsequently in the later portion, it was observed that the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and Their Lordships respectfully agreed with them, but at the same time the said principles cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the Court. However, subsequently in the later portion, it was observed that the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and Their Lordships respectfully agreed with them, but at the same time the said principles cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the Court. It was observed that it cannot be lost sight that the rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim, but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage top the accused as well and the accused must be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. Referring to sections 375 and 376 of the IPC and sections 113A, 113B and 114A of the Evidence Act, Their Lordships observed that the presumption under section 114A is extremely restricted in its applicability. 11. There cannot be any dispute on the principles laid down in the said judgments and will have to be applied to the facts of the present case while appreciating the evidence at the stage of final hearing. For the present, it may be stated that there was prima-facie evidence against the applicants of involving them in a grave offence and, therefore, they were not admitted to bail during trial. The evidence was accepted by the competent Court and the charges therein are accepted to be proved by the prosecution and there is no material to show any extraordinary circumstances which would call for exercise of powers under section 389 of the Cr. P.C in a case where imprisonment for life is awarded to the accused persons. The offences proved against the applicants are of grave nature and will have its impact on the society as a whole. They are proved to have misused their fiduciary status of teachers. All the above factors deter us from exercising powers under section 389 of the Cr. P.C. The applications fail and are rejected. Rule discharged.