JUDGMENT Banerjee, J. 1. VICTIM was a resident of village Raghunathpur, Police Station Kalyani in the District of Nadia. On September 17, 1984 she came to visit her elder sister during Biswakarma Puja. In the afternoon she went out with a neighbour of her elder sister, wife of Dr. Balai Das to witness puja. While she was coming back from the house of the said neighbour, Subal Dey and Kamal Dey asked her to go with them, otherwise they would kill her by a dagger. Subal covered her mouth with his hands and Kamal pressed her hand and compelled her to ride on a cycle. One Swapan Das and another person were with them. Subsequently, she came to know that the fourth companion was Budhan. All of them took her to the jute field. She tried to shout when the accused threatened her with the weapon. Subal removed her garments and caused her to fall on the field. One by one, all of them raped her against her will. Kamal stayed back and others left. She remained in such condition for some time and then she went back to her sister's place with much pain. She disclosed the incident to Malati, her sister and her brother in-law Priyalal Mondal. She sustained injury on different parts of her body. She had severe pain on her body. Her wrist watch and the bag containing rupees twenty-five were snatched by the accused. The written complaint was lodged by the victim on the next day at Kalyani Police Station. The Police Station received the said complaint at 12.35 p.m. on September 18, 1984 as would appear from Exhibit-2. The Police arrested all the four accused. They pleaded not guilty and opted to be tried. 2. EVIDENCE P.W.1 (Victim): The victim deposed as P.W.1. She narrated the incident in detail. She was consistent on her statement as we find on a comparative study of the written complaint and her deposition. In cross-examination she reiterated that she went out with Dr. Balai Das's wife and her daughter to see Biswakarma idol. She watched the idol at the factory of Somani. P.W.2 (Dr. Debi Sankar Misra): Doctor certified that all the four accused were found potent on Medical Examination. P.W.3 (Dr. Saiba Kumar Nath): The witness was also a doctor who examined the victim to ascertain her actual age. Balai Das's wife and her daughter to see Biswakarma idol. She watched the idol at the factory of Somani. P.W.2 (Dr. Debi Sankar Misra): Doctor certified that all the four accused were found potent on Medical Examination. P.W.3 (Dr. Saiba Kumar Nath): The witness was also a doctor who examined the victim to ascertain her actual age. According to him, the age of the girl was twenty years on the date of examination. Pertinent to note, the incident occurred on September 18,1984 whereas the Ossification Test was done on September 3, 1987 meaning thereby the victim was seventeen years old on the date of the unfortunate incident. P.W.4. (Priya Lal Mondal): He was a post occurrence witness. He almost corroborated what the victim had stated. He took her to the house of Kalipada Chakraborty, member of the local gram panchayat where other villagers were present. In their presence, Kamal admitted his offence by making an extrajudicial confessiona. P.W.5 (Malati Mondal): The witness was her elder sister. She also corroborated the victim and her husband Priya Lal Mondal being P.Ws.1 and 4 respectively. P.W.6 (Jaharlal Mondal): The witness was the brother of Priya Lal Mondal. She also corroborated the other witnesses referred to above. P.W.7 (Ranjan Baidya): The witness was the another villager who was declared hostile. P.W.8 (Kala Chand Pal): P.W.8 was a tender witness. P.W.9 (Kamal Sarkar): The witness was a villager. He was a post occurrence witness. He accompanied the victim to the Police Station and scribed the FIR at the dictation of the victim. P.W.10 (Kalipada Mondal): The witness was another brother of Priya Lai. He also corroborated the victim and her relatives referred to above. P.W.11 (K.B. Ali): The witness was attached to the Kotwali Police Station. He registered the FIR lodged by the victim on September 18,1984. P.W.12 (Guru Pada Sadhukhan) and P.W.13 (Moni Mohan Bhowmick): The witness (P.W.12) escorted the accused to Ranaghat Hospital for Medical Examination whereas P.W.13, another constable escorted the victim to Sadar Hospital for her Medical Examination. P.W.14 (Kali Pada Chakraborty): The witness was declared hostile. He denied that Priya Lal had called him to make a complaint or that Kamal had made a confessional statement before him. P.W.15 (Dr. Chitta Ranjan Dey): The witness was the doctor who examined the victim on September 20,1984 being the fourth day after the incident. P.W.14 (Kali Pada Chakraborty): The witness was declared hostile. He denied that Priya Lal had called him to make a complaint or that Kamal had made a confessional statement before him. P.W.15 (Dr. Chitta Ranjan Dey): The witness was the doctor who examined the victim on September 20,1984 being the fourth day after the incident. He deposed that the victim had at least four injuries caused within seven days prior to the date of examination. He however deposed that there was no internal injury and the hymen was absent. P.W.16 (Radheshyam Das): The witness was the Investigating Officer. He narrated how the investigation was conducted by him including recording of statements made by the witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. P.W.17 (Bhusan Mondal): The witness took up the investigation at a later stage. He caused the Ossification Test done at Krishnanagar Hospital. He submitted charge- sheet. Accused The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. All of them denied the charge. 3. JUDGMENT Considering the evidence so discussed above, the learned Assistant Session Judge, Ranaghat held all of them guilty of the offence and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Pertinent to note, the incident occurred in September 1984 whereas the Section 376 had undergone a change and Section 376(2)(g) was brought into effect with effect from December 25,1983 which, inter alia, provides more stricter punishment in case of a "gang rape". 4. APPEAL Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Assistant Session Judge, Ranaghat, the appellants preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned date. Contention of the appellants Ms. Chandreyi Alam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that when the victim volunteered to disclose that it was her first experience of sexual intercourse it was unusual that no injury could be found on her private parts internally on otherwise. Such unusual event would definitely raise doubt in the mind of the Court leading to acquittal of the accused. Such suspicion was strengthened by the medical evidence when the doctor deposed that hymen was absent which was absolutely unusual in case of first experience. Ms. Alam further contended that the wearing apparels were not produced at the time of trial. No blood was found by the Investigating Officer. Such suspicion was strengthened by the medical evidence when the doctor deposed that hymen was absent which was absolutely unusual in case of first experience. Ms. Alam further contended that the wearing apparels were not produced at the time of trial. No blood was found by the Investigating Officer. There was considerable delay in lodging the FIR which would lead to suspicion in the mind of the Court that the complaint might be an afterthought and was lodged for oblique purpose. In support of her contention Ms. Alam relied on two Apex Court decisions in the case of Lalliram and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2008 Volume-X Supreme Court Cases Page-69 and in the case of Premiya alias Prem Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008 Volume-X Supreme Court Cases Page 81. 5. CONTENTION of the prosecution Ms. Minati Gomes, learned Counsel appearing for the prosecution while opposing the appeal contended that in case of allegation of rape the victim's evidence was sufficient for the Court to sign the judgment of conviction if, according to the Court, such statement was trustworthy and could inspire confidence of the Court. According to Ms. Gomes, even if the medical evidence was contrary to the victim's statement the victim's statement must be taken as sacrosanct in the case of the like nature. Elaborating her submission Ms. Gomes contended that mere penetration was sufficient and it was not unusual that the victim did not get any internal injury. It would depend upon the Constitution of the organ of the victim which could sustain the effect of penetration. With regard to the allegation of afterthought, Ms. Gomes contended that nothing came out in evidence to suggest that the victim had enemical relationship with the accused. There was not an iota of evidence to suggest that there was a possibility of lodging a false complaint by the victim. Moreover, on reading of the complaint it would appear that victim could furnish all possible details of the incident to help the Investigating Agency to proceed further. According to her, there was no unusual delay in lodging the FIR. The incident occurred on September 17, 1984 whereas the complaint was lodged on the next day morning. On the issue of medical evidence Ms. Gomes further contended that the doctor did not suggest that she was habituated in sexual intercourse. According to her, there was no unusual delay in lodging the FIR. The incident occurred on September 17, 1984 whereas the complaint was lodged on the next day morning. On the issue of medical evidence Ms. Gomes further contended that the doctor did not suggest that she was habituated in sexual intercourse. A hymen could be absent on many reason which was not unusual in medical science. Doctor could find at least four external injuries which were nail injuries as certified by the doctor. Those injuries corroborated the deposition of the victim and would help the Court to believe the victim. In support of her contention Ms. Gomes cited two Apex Court decisions reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page-316 (State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.) and 2004 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Supreme Court) Page-337 (Aman Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana). 6. OUR view In the case of Lalliram and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court observed that in the case of gang rape absence of any injury was an important factor. While observing so the Apex Court placed reliance on the fact that the testimony of the prosecutrix was self contradictory and inconsistent with the other prosecution witnesses as well as medical evidence. In the case of Premiya alias Prem Prakash (supra), the Apex Court relied on the part of the medical evidence where no injury on the private parts of the prosecutrix could be found. Such observation was made by the Apex Court in the back drop that the FIR was unusually delayed and there had been a history of enemical relationship between the accused and the P.W.2. The ratio decided in these two decision, in our view, would not help the defence in any way. In the instant case, the victim deposed that the accused threatened her with dire consequence. A minor girl, when confronted by the accused and threatened with dire consequence, would hardly be in a position to give physical resistance. If we look to the medical evidence we would find at least four fresh injuries on the body of the victim. The doctor certified those injuries as fresh injuries. The doctor also opined that those injuries could be nail injuries. In the case of rape the victim's statement must be taken in confidence unless the Court finds any inconsistent or improbable statements from her. The doctor certified those injuries as fresh injuries. The doctor also opined that those injuries could be nail injuries. In the case of rape the victim's statement must be taken in confidence unless the Court finds any inconsistent or improbable statements from her. It is well-settled principle that medical evidence should be considered as expert evidence in the form of an opinion. The medical evidence in our considered view cannot be the sole guiding factor to decide a case of the like nature. In case of State of Punjab (supra), the Apex Court observed that in the case of a like nature the normal human conduct of an Indian woman in such a situation should be kept in mind. She could not be discredited for not raising an alarm when she was threatened with dire consequence. In the case of Aman Kumar and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court observed that evidence of prosecutrix would be sufficient for conviction without corroboration. Coming back to the present case, as we have already observed, there was no enemical relationship between the accused and the victim. Victim lodged a written complaint within a reasonable period. The incident occurred in the evening on September 17, 1984 whereas the complaint was lodged in the morning on the next day. Considering the plight of the victim we are of the view that the FIR was not at all delayed. Moreover, we find from the evidence that the victim disclosed the incident to her relations being P.Ws.4, 5 and 6. They, in turn, tried to contact the local people and in the process there might have been some delay. When the victim attended the trial considerable time had lapsed in between. Even then she was consistent as we find from her evidence. If we ignore her statement and give full reliance on the medical evidence and look to the same in the way Ms. Alam looked at, it would be travesty of justice. The learned Assistant Session Judge approached the problem in a right direction. We do not find any scope of interference. With regard to sentence, we are of the view that it was an incident of 1984 when the concept of gang rape might not be prevalent although the law had undergone a change with effect from December 25,1983. The learned Assistant Session Judge imposed sentence of eight years. We do not find any scope of interference. With regard to sentence, we are of the view that it was an incident of 1984 when the concept of gang rape might not be prevalent although the law had undergone a change with effect from December 25,1983. The learned Assistant Session Judge imposed sentence of eight years. In absence of appropriate challenge, we do not find any scope of interference. 7. DIRECTION The appellants in both appeals are on bail. The appellant in C.R.A. No.364 of 1989 has died as told to us by Ms. Chandreyi Alam. Ms. Alam, however, is not in a position to produce the death certificate. So we do not take any notice of such fact. The bail granted to the appellants in both the appeals is cancelled. The appellants are directed to surrender before the Court of learned trial Judge within two weeks, in default, the surities are directed to produce the convicts/appellants before the learned trial Judge and learned trial Judge is directed to take steps for production of the convicts/appellants for suffering of the remaining part of the sentence. Result The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.