JUDGMENT JUSTICE J.C.S.RAWAT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.1999 and 1.6.1999 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 727 of 1994 whereby the appellant no. 3 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants no. 1 and 2 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code . 2 Facts of the case, in brief, are that a fard beyan of the victim PW7 was recorded by the Police on 19.10.1992 at 10.00 a.m. alleging therein that she had gone to her maternal uncle’s house at Chirkunda to see Dussehera festival in his village. According to the fard beyan she along with her companions Mala PW3 and Lalita PW6 went towards the jungle to meet natural call when appellants 1 and 2 suddenly emerged at the spot and forcibly caught hold of the victim and tried to drag her with them. In the meantime, appellant no. 3 reached at the spot and he forcibly took the custody of the victim girl from the clutches of the appellants no. 1 and 2 and took her to a dense forest. Her companions, who were with the victim girl, immediately reached to her village where they narrated the entire story about the incident to the relatives of the victim girl and others. A thorough search was made by the relatives of the victim but she could not be traced out till the morning. In the morning at about 4 and 5 a.m she was released by the appellant no. 3 and thereby she came to her house and narrated the entire story. She stated that her mouth was gagged by a cloth and then she was taken towards a jungle where she was ravished several times by the appellant no. 3. Immediately thereafter, Chirkunda PS Case No. 227 of 1992 (GR No. 4123 of 1992) was registered and the Police started investigation of the case. The investigating officer after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants herein before the court. 3. The appellants were committed to the court of sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants. The investigating officer after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellants herein before the court. 3. The appellants were committed to the court of sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellants. The appellants stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case and they denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined the victim as PW7, as also PW3 Mala Kumari and PW6 Lalita Kumari who were accompanying the victim PW7 at the time of the occurrence. The prosecution also examined PW1 Jagannath Rai (the brother of Mala Kumari PW3 ) who has deposed that when his sister informed him about the incident, he also went in search of the victim. PW2 Bhim Rai is the maternal uncle of the victim who was informed about the incident by Mala Kumari PW3 and Lalita Kumari PW6. PW4 Ramni Devi is the maternal grand mother who has stated that she was informed about the incident by Mala Kumari PW3 and Lalita Kumari PW6 and that she (PW4) had not seen the occurrence. PW5 Bholu Roy is the father of Mala Kumari PW3 and he was informed about the incident by her daughter Mala Kumari. After recording evidence of the prosecution, appellants were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied all the averments made in the evidence against them and further stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case . 6. No evidence, oral or documentary, was produced before the trial court on behalf of the appellants. After hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. According to the prosecution, it is alleged that the victim was assaulted sexually by the appellant no. 3 and it is also alleged that that appellants no. 1 and 2 had forcibly taken away the victim girl PW7 from the field. It was also stated in the prosecution case that the victim PW7 along with Mala Kumari PW3 and Lalita Kumari PW6 had gone to ease herself in fields. Meanwhile, appellants no.1 and 2 emerged at the spot and they forcibly took the victim girl with them. In the meantime, appellant no. It was also stated in the prosecution case that the victim PW7 along with Mala Kumari PW3 and Lalita Kumari PW6 had gone to ease herself in fields. Meanwhile, appellants no.1 and 2 emerged at the spot and they forcibly took the victim girl with them. In the meantime, appellant no. 3 reached at the spot, who snatched the victim from the appellants 1 and 2 and took her forcibly to a nearby forest where she was subjected to forcible sexual assault by the appellant no.3. The appellants have taken the defence that they have been falsely implicated in the case. We are not referring the name of the victim girl in the judgment. We are only naming the prosecutrix as the victim girl in view of Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code. (State of Punjab Vs. Ramdeo Singh ( 2004 SCC{Cri]307). 8. The victim girl (PW7) has stated in her evidence that about five years ago at about 5.00 p.m. she as well as Mala Kumari PW3 and Lalita Kumari PW6 had gone to attend the call of nature in the field, where appellants no. 1 and 2 caught hold of the victim girl and thereafter they took her forcibly from there. In the meantime, appellant no. 3 reached at the spot and he snatched her from the hands of the appellants no. 1 and 2, took her to a nearby jungle and forcibly committed sexual intercourse several times upon her and thereafter she was released in the morning at about 4/5 a.m. She has further deposed that she had been living with her maternal uncle in his house on the date of the occurrence. The prosecution has also led evidence of PW3 Mala Kumari and PW6 Lalita who had accompanied the victim girl PW7 at the time of the occurrence. They have deposed that the appellants no. 1 and 2 took the victim girl forcibly from the place of occurrence and thereafter the appellant no. 3 emerged at the spot and snatched away the victim girl from the hands of appellants no. 1 and 2 and took her to a nearby jungle . They immediately came back to their village and infomed about the incident. 1 and 2 took the victim girl forcibly from the place of occurrence and thereafter the appellant no. 3 emerged at the spot and snatched away the victim girl from the hands of appellants no. 1 and 2 and took her to a nearby jungle . They immediately came back to their village and infomed about the incident. PW1 Jagannath Rai the brother of PW3 Mala Kumari and PW6 Lalita Kumari, was informed by them about the incident and he made a frantic search of the victim girl, but he could not find her out. PW2 Bhim Rai is the maternal uncle of the victim and Ramni Devi PW4 is the maternal grand mother while Bholu Rai PW5 is the father of Mala Kumari PW3. They were also informed of the incident by PWs. 3 and 6. PW.1 Jagannath Rai, PW2 Bhim Rai, and PW4 Ramani Devi are not the eye witnesses of the incident. They have deposed whatever they were told about the incident by PW3 and PW6. We would like to discuss the evidence against Sapan Mallik, appellant no.3, separately. Firstly, we will take the evidence against Sapan Mallik, appellant no. 3; after conclusion of the discussion of the evidence against appellant no.3, we will take up and discuss the evidence against Ganesh Mallik and Mihir Mallik, appellants no.1 and 2, together. The main evidence against the appellant no.3 is that he committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim girl PW7. 9. At the out set, it is relevant to mention here that sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion on the right of privacy and sanctity of the victim. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self-esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. Such an offence not only causes physical injuries, but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a woman, i.e. her dignity, honour, reputation and not the least her chastity. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. Rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman, it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crisis. In this background, we can see the plight of the girl or woman to speak about the truth or lie. A woman never comes forward to say that she has been ravished until and unless there are compelling circumstances to say so. There are very few chances of false implication in the case of sexual assault. The woman who claims to have been ravished also takes a risk to be discarded from the society. So for making a false implication numerous other offences can be attempted against the wrong doer, but not the least rape. 10 The victim in a case of sexual assault is not an accomplice. Her evidence is on a higher pedestal than that of an eye witness of the case. Ordinarily, the evidence of the victim girl should not be suspected and should be believed. So, her evidence has to be evaluated at par with that of the injured witnesses. If the statement of the victim girl is reliable, no corroboration is required because it causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim. 11. We have gone through the entire evidence recorded by the trial court against the appellant no. 3. We do not find any fault with the findings recorded by the trial court with regard to the appreciation of the evidence so far as appellant no. 3 is concerned. We have also gone through the entire evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. The evidence of PW7 who is the victim girl is clear and consistent during the course of examination. PW7, the victim girl, has been cross examined at length but nothing could be elicited to discredit the credibility of her evidence. It is also a settled position of law that evidence of the victim witness is sufficient to convict the appellant in the case of rape. There is no need to seek further corroboration for the fact that the victim has been ravished by the accused appellant(s). To call for corroboration would amount to further insult to the woman who was victimized by the appellant. Thus, we find that the evidence of PW7 against the appellant no. 3 is cogent and credible. There is no need to seek further corroboration for the fact that the victim has been ravished by the accused appellant(s). To call for corroboration would amount to further insult to the woman who was victimized by the appellant. Thus, we find that the evidence of PW7 against the appellant no. 3 is cogent and credible. But in this case, the evidence of Mala Kumari PW3 and PW6 Lalita Kumri also corroborates the fact that appellant no. 3 had forcibly taken her from the fields towards the forest. The evidence of PW3 Mala Kumari and PW6 Lalita Kumari is consistent and nothing has come in their cross examination to discredit their testimony. On conspectus of various features of the case, including the genesis, the nature of incident, it can not be concluded from the prosecution evidence or from any probability arising from the record that the appellant no. 3 has been falsely implicated in the case. After going through the same, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. The legality of the findings recorded by the trial court regarding the conviction of the appellant no. 3 has not been challenged by the amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants. He has only submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial court did not commensurate with the offence and a lesser sentence may be awarded to the appellant no. 3. We will revert back to deal with this aspect later on. 12. So far as the case of appellants no. 1 and 2 is concerned, the evidence of the prosecution clearly and categorically reveals that the victim girl was taken by them by force and thereafter her custody was taken by the appellant no. 3; appellant no.1 and 2 did not play any further role and they did not accompany the victim or the accused appellant no. 3. Appellants No. 1 and 2 have only been charged under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. 3; appellant no.1 and 2 did not play any further role and they did not accompany the victim or the accused appellant no. 3. Appellants No. 1 and 2 have only been charged under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicability of Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code requires, firstly, that the accused must induce a girl; secondly, that the person induced was a girl under the age of 18 years; thirdly, that the accused has induced the victim knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to an illicit sexual intercourse; fourthly, that such intercourse must be with that person other than the accused; fifthly, that the inducement caused the girl to go there in the place or to do any act; Learned trial court while convicting the appellant has held that the victim girl was below 18 years of age. He has further held that no witness has stated that the age of the victim girl was below 18 years. Learned trial court has assessed the age of the girl to be below 18 years. There is no basis of such assessment of age. The trial court has assessed the age of the girl on surmises and presumption. It is not proved by any cogent evidence that the victim girl PW7 was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident. We cannot conclude that she was below 18 years. Thus, this ingredient no. 2 is not proved beyond all shadow of doubts. So far ingredient no.1 is concerned, there must be an inducement to take away the victim girl. The consent of the girl must have been obtained by deceitful means. Where the girl was never induced, but she was taken against her will, it will not come within the purview of seduction or inducement. Thus, there is no evidence of inducement in this case. On the contrary, the prosecution has led evidence that these two appellants no. 1 and 2 had taken away the victim girl forcibly and thereafter, appellant no. 3 forcibly took away the victim girl from appellants 1 and 2. If the two ingredients as indicated above are not proved beyond all shadow of doubts, then the appellants no. 1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted. 13. 1 and 2 had taken away the victim girl forcibly and thereafter, appellant no. 3 forcibly took away the victim girl from appellants 1 and 2. If the two ingredients as indicated above are not proved beyond all shadow of doubts, then the appellants no. 1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded to the appellant no.3 which is excessive and it does not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the offences. Learned counsel for the State refuted the contention. It is a settled position of law that the sentence should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence, The facts and circumstances of each case, mitigating and aggravating factors had to be seen while awarding the sentence. The discretion in determining the quantum of punishment is required to be exercised judicially. The Supreme Court in the Case of State of M.P. Vs. Munna Choubey [ 2005 SCC (Cri) 559] has held as under : “13. After giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances of each case, for deciding just and appropriate sentence to be awarded for an offence the aggravating and mitigating factors and circumstances in which a crime has been committed are to be delicately balanced on the basis of really relevant circumstances in a dispassionate manner by the court. Such act of balancing is indeed a difficult task. It has been very aptly indicated in Dennis Councle McGautha V. State of California ( 402 US 183 : 28L Ed 2d 711 ( 1971) that no formula of a foolproof nature is possible that would provide a reasonable criterion in determining a just and appropriate punishment in the infinite variety of circumstances that may affect the gravity of the crime. In the absence of any foolproof formula which may provide any basis for reasonable criteria to correctly assess various circumstances germane to the consideration of gravity of crime, the discretionary judgment in the facts of each case, is the only way in which such judgment may be equitably distinguished. 14.In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil Vs State of Gujarat [ 1994 (4) SCC 353 it has been held by this Court that in the matter of death sentence, the courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. 14.In Jashubha Bharatsinh Gohil Vs State of Gujarat [ 1994 (4) SCC 353 it has been held by this Court that in the matter of death sentence, the courts are required to answer new challenges and mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is-- expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Even though the principles were indicated in the background of death sentence and life sentence, the logic applies to all cases where appropriate sentence is the issue. 15.Imposition of sentence without considering the effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counter-productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. 16.In Dhananjoy Chatterjee Vs. State of W.B. (1994 [2] SCC 220) this Court has observed that a shockingly large number of criminals go unpunished thereby increasingly encouraging the criminals and in the ultimate, making justice suffer by weakening the system’s creditability. The imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the court responds to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 17. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji V. State of Rajasthan ( 1996 [2 ] SCC 175). The court must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. 17. Similar view has also been expressed in Ravji V. State of Rajasthan ( 1996 [2 ] SCC 175). It has been held in the said case that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should “respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal”. If for extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.” 14. In view of the above, the victim was ravished by the appellant no. 3. Section 376 IPC provides a maximum punishment of life imprisonment which has been awarded to appellant no.3 by the trial court. Indian Penal Code has provided a minimum statutory punishment under section 376 which is not less than 7 years. The learned counsel also pointed out that the appellant no. 3 is in custody for the last 16 or 17 years in this case. If rigorous imprisonment of 16 years is awarded to the appellant no. 3 instead of life imprisonment, it would meet the ends of justice. Thus, the conviction under section 376 IPC against the appellant is maintained and the sentence is accordingly modified to the above extent. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant no. 1 and 2 viz. Ganesh Mallik and Mihir Mallik, recorded by the trial court in S.T. No. 727 of 1994 is set aside and so far as these appellants are concerned, the appeal is allowed. These appellants (Ganesh Mallik and Mihir Mallik) are in jail. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant no. 1 and 2 viz. Ganesh Mallik and Mihir Mallik, recorded by the trial court in S.T. No. 727 of 1994 is set aside and so far as these appellants are concerned, the appeal is allowed. These appellants (Ganesh Mallik and Mihir Mallik) are in jail. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. As regards appellant no. 3 ( Sapan Mallik), learned counsel pointed out that the appellant is in jail custody for the last 16 to 17 years. The sentence of the appellant no. 3 is modified from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 16 years under Section 376 IPC. With the modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed so far as appellant no. 3 is concerned.