JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, J.(Oral). The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the convicts/appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 27.12.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, in Sessions Case No. 6-S/7 of 2006, holding convicts/appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, convicting and sentencing both the convicts/appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) each and in default of payment of fine, each convict/appellant shall further undergo imprisonment for one year. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has also sentenced both the convicts/appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with observation that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to give factual backgrounds of the case. The victim/prosecutrix (name not given) while returning to her house from the shop of her father, met Karan alias Arif (convict/appellant) on their stairs, who told the victim/prosecutrix that her friend was calling her. She accompanied him, but found none, however, she was caught hold by convict/appellant Arif by placing a cloth on her mouth and she was asked to accompany him. Another convict/appellant Karan Singh also accompanied him. The victim/prosecutrix was taken to a room situated beneath the Medical Store near Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla, where she was sexually assaulted simultaneously by both convicts/appellants Karan alias Arif and Karan Singh. When she regained consciousness, in the early hours at about 5 a.m., she was threatened by both accused with dire consequences and in case she divulged the incident to anyone, they would throw acid on her and kill her family members, however, the victim/prosecutrix went to her house, changed her clothes and went to school. During the day time, the victim/prosecutrix was taken by her father from the school after taking leave from the school authorities, however, the victim/prosecutrix did not enter the house and threw her school bag and ran away and spent night in an abandoned house in the nearby place, near Timber House. On the next day, the victim/prosecutrix went to the house of her sister at Sanjauli, from there she was brought to her house by her brother-in-law. On the next day, the victim/prosecutrix went to the house of her sister at Sanjauli, from there she was brought to her house by her brother-in-law. At that time also, she did not enter the house and went away. As such, she spent four days in that abandoned house, that is on 6, 7, 8 and on 9th May, 2006, and whenever she tried to come to her house convicts/appellants threatened her. On 11th May, 2006, the victim/prosecutrix went to Sanjauli bazaar, where she met her brother, who, however, informed the father and the later one came alongwith police and took the victim to his house. On 12th May, 2006, on persistent inquiry of her father, the victim/prosecutrix divulged the incident. Accordingly, a written complaint was lodged with the Police at Police Station, East, Shimla, in that reference, FIR No. 102/06 dated 12.05.2006 was registered. The victim/prosecutrix was medically examined. Police investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses, whereas, accused-respondents, through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have denied the prosecution case. 4. PW-1 (Dr. Ambika Chauhan), medically examined the victim/prosecutrix on 12.05.2006, when she disclosed that she was raped by two boys on 04.05.2006, however, PW-1 did not notice any external injuries on the person of the victim/prosecutrix and had only found hymen torned. She had taken swabs from vagina and pubic hair were cut and combed. PW-1 opined that there was penetration of vagina and she issued MLC, Ex. PW-1/A. According to the radiological age, the victim/prosecutrix was assessed between 15 to 16 ½ years and her dental age between 12 to 15 years, whereas PW-14 Dr. Sanjeev Sharma, Medical Officer (Dental) on examination of the victim/prosecutrix, assessed her age between 12 to 15 years. 5. PW-4 Dr. Neeraj Mittal, stated that Dr. Ambika Chauhan referred the victim/prosecutrix for her age determination. After examining she was assessed between 15 to 16½ years, however, PW1, Dr. Ambika Chauhan, has very categorically opined that the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. 6. 5. PW-4 Dr. Neeraj Mittal, stated that Dr. Ambika Chauhan referred the victim/prosecutrix for her age determination. After examining she was assessed between 15 to 16½ years, however, PW1, Dr. Ambika Chauhan, has very categorically opined that the possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. 6. PW-2/victim/prosecutrix, while supporting the prosecution case has stated that on 04.05.2006, at about 8:30 p.m., she had gone to the shop of her father for bringing articles and while returning back without the articles, when she reached on the stairs of her house, she came across Karan alias Arif (convict/appellant) standing near the water tank, who told her that some girl is standing up side calling her, the victim/prosecutrix went to that side but found none. In the meantime, Arif caught hold of her from her arm and gagged her mouth and asked the victim/prosecutrix to accompany him quietly otherwise he would see, however, in darkness she was taken here and there. The victim/prosecutrix was taken to the room below the Pooja Chemist Shop from the window and her hands were tied. She was sexually assaulted by both the accused simultaneously. Thereafter, she lost her consciousness and remained there on the cot the whole night. At about 5 a.m. when she regained consciousness she found both the convicts/appellants present there, threatening her that in case she discloses about the incident to anybody in the house, they would throw acid on her and kill her family members too. After about five minutes, when victim/prosecutrix came out of the room she found her house open. She went into her house, wore her school uniform and went to the school, where she remained tense, however, her father took her from the school on the ground of illness of her mother. While returning home, when she arrived on the last stair of the door of her house, her father inquired that where she remained in the night, but out of fear she threw her bag and went away and had spent the night in an abandoned house near Timber House. 7. On 6th May, 2006, the victim/prosecutrix went to her sister’s house at Sanjauli. On asking by her brother-in-law, about her presence there, she divulged that she has come from her house on account of anger, however, she accompanied him to return back to her house. 7. On 6th May, 2006, the victim/prosecutrix went to her sister’s house at Sanjauli. On asking by her brother-in-law, about her presence there, she divulged that she has come from her house on account of anger, however, she accompanied him to return back to her house. When she was about to enter the house, she thought if she was asked to give explanation, what explanation she would give. Under that impression, she went out of the house and spent three days in abandoned house. On 10th May, 2006, she went to Sanjauli bazaar, where she met her brother but from there she was taken to her sister’s house. On inquiry why she was running away from them, she did not disclose anything. Information of her presence was given by her brother to the father on telephone. The father of the victim/prosecutrix alongwith police came there and took the victim. On 11.05.2006, she did not divulge anything, but in the evening when her father came to the house after closing the shop, on his inquiry the victim/prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter, on 12.05.2006, she was taken to the Police Station, East, Chotta Shimla. An application, Ex. PW-2/A, was submitted to the S.H.O. The victim/prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and MLC, Ex. PW-1/A, was obtained and she was also sent for X-ray examination. On 13.05.2006, she had shown the place of occurrence to the police, the police seized the bed sheet and sealed these with seal ‘B’ vide memorandum Ex. PW-2/B. 8. PW-2 further stated in cross-examination that she knew the convicts/appellants for the last one year, as they used to come to their shop and sit with her mother, PW-2, however, reiterated her statement made in examination in chief by elaborating the incidence that she was not aware as to where she was taken and travelling till 1 a.m. On 04.05.2006, after about three minutes of placing of cloth on her mouth, she lost her senses, when she entered the room, she did not notice as to whether the grill of the window was cut or removed. She was raped by convict/appellant Arif for about 15 to 20 minutes and by convict/appellant Karan for about 15 to 25 minutes. She felt pain in her private part and also experienced penetration, however, there was no bleeding. She was raped by convict/appellant Arif for about 15 to 20 minutes and by convict/appellant Karan for about 15 to 25 minutes. She felt pain in her private part and also experienced penetration, however, there was no bleeding. At about 5.00 a.m., the victim came out of the room and went to her home and at about 7 a.m. she went to the school, situated at a distance of about 15 minutes’ walk. She has denied the suggestion that while coming home from the school on 04.05.2006 she had ran away with Manoj in a vehicle. 9. PW-3/Mohammad Yasin, the father of the victim/prosecutrix has stated that on 4th May, 2006, at about 9 p.m. the victim/prosecutrix had come to the shop, but returned back, however, on reaching home at about 10 p.m. on asking, his wife, he was told that the victim has not returned back from the shop. In the night search was made, but in vain. On the following day, Bhagat Singh told PW-3 that the victim/prosecutrix was seen in the company of the convicts/appellants. The victim was running followed by the convicts/appellants. Bhagat Ram further told PW-3 that convict/appellant Arif was called by him and on asking he did not disclose anything. PW-3 has further stated that he had gone to the school of the victim/prosecutrix and tried to bring the victim to the house but the moment she reached near the door of the house she threw her bag and ran away. The family members remained searching her, but in vain. On 11.05.2006, when his son telephoned him, PW-3 took the police personnel there and brought the victim/prosecutrix back from Sanjauli. PW-3 had lodged a missing report of the victim/prosecutrix at Police Station Chotta Shimla, marked as ‘A’. On 11.05.2006, on inquiry being made, the victim/prosecutrix has narrated the entire incident to PW-3. PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that prior to 09.05.2006 the matter was not reported. PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that he has been running a shop for the last 6-7 years and he had not made any statement that his daughter (victim/prosecutrix) was not under his control for the last one year, however, confronted with his statement mark A to A in Ex. PW-10/A, where it is so recorded. PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that he has been running a shop for the last 6-7 years and he had not made any statement that his daughter (victim/prosecutrix) was not under his control for the last one year, however, confronted with his statement mark A to A in Ex. PW-10/A, where it is so recorded. PW3 has further reiterated that Bhagat Singh had told him that on 04.05.2006, at about 11-12 in the night, the victim/prosecutrix was running and she was being followed by the convicts/appellants. He had seen this at the hospital ground. PW-3 has further stated that he did not disclose this incident while making report to the police on 09.05.2006 as there was a talk about marriage of the victim/prosecutrix with the convict/appellant Arif. PW-3 has volunteered that it was so done so that the matter might not proceed further. Convict/appellant Arif had refused the marriage proposal and had told that he was neither involved nor he knew about the victim/prosecutrix. PW-3 has further stated that the victim/prosecutrix was studying in Portmore School right from first standard itself, where he got recorded the date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix and perhaps the migration certificate was taken by the school authorities. In the migration certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was not written, but her date of birth is recorded in his diary. 10. PW-5/Mohammad Ayue Loon stated that the victim-prosecutrix is his sister-in-law, and victim met him on 06.05.2006 at Sanjauli and was taken to her parents’ house. 11. PW-6/Mohammad Amin, the brother of the victim/prosecutrix, met her on 11.07.2006 at Sanjauli from there PW-6 telephoned his father, who came alongwith police and brought the victim/prosecutrix back to home and on 12.07.2006 in the morning the victim/prosecutrix told that she was raped by two boys, earlier the victim/prosecutrix did not divulge anything as she was frightened. 12. PW-7/Harish Sood, the owner of the Chemist Shop, stated that between 13th and 14th May, 2006, the victim/prosecutrix came to his shop alongwith police and police seized a bed sheet from the room and he has put signatures on the recovery memo. PW-7 has, however, stated in his cross-examination that the grill of the room where alleged occurrence has taken place was not broken. 13. PW-8/Kamaljeet Singh, while working as Principal of Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Portmore, Shimla, has issued certificate, Ex. PW-7 has, however, stated in his cross-examination that the grill of the room where alleged occurrence has taken place was not broken. 13. PW-8/Kamaljeet Singh, while working as Principal of Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Portmore, Shimla, has issued certificate, Ex. PW-8/A, on the basis of admission and school leaving registered, maintained by the school, revealing that the date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix is 09.04.1993. 14. PW-9/Dr. Ravinder Mokta, has medically examined both the convicts/appellants and found them capable of performing sexual intercourse. PW-9/Constable Roop Singh, stated that he had deposited five duly sealed packets at F.S. L. Junga. PW-10 (H.C. Shiv Kumar) stated that he has recorded the missing report, Ex. PW-10/A, of the victim/prosecutrix on 09.05.2006. PW-11/Inspector Ashok Verma, and PW-12,Inspector K.D. Sharma have endeavoured to support the case of the prosecution to the extent role assigned to them in their official capacity. 15. PW-13/ASI Yodha Ram, stated that on 13.05.2006 the victim/prosecutrix had showed the place of occurrence to him and accordingly he prepared site plan, Ex. PW-13/A, indicated a building therein and on the upper portion a chemist shop and on the ground floor two rooms. The rooms were locked from outside and there was no grill on the window, but jali was found uprooted from the lower portion. The glass was not there on the frame. The window was 2½ feet in breadth and height was 1.9” and from that window a person could go inside and come outside. PW-7/Harish Sood, owner of the room was there and he had also noticed the condition of the window. In the room there was double bed alongwith bedding. Bed sheet, Ex. P-1, was seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/B and the memo was signed by Harish Sood and the victim/prosecutrix. PW-13 has, however, stated in his cross-examination that from the building of Harish Sood there are many paths. Jali was uprooted 95%. PW-13 did not notice any broken glass. The window was at a height of three and half feet from the plinth level. PW-13 conducted mock exercise to confirm about the entry and exit from the window. Nag Dev, Head Constable, had performed the mock exercise, however, no statement of mock exercise was recorded. Jali was uprooted 95%. PW-13 did not notice any broken glass. The window was at a height of three and half feet from the plinth level. PW-13 conducted mock exercise to confirm about the entry and exit from the window. Nag Dev, Head Constable, had performed the mock exercise, however, no statement of mock exercise was recorded. PW 13 has further stated in his cross-examination that as per version of the victim/prosecutrix on 4th May, 2006, she had gone to her house and had found the door of her house open and thereafter she went to the school on 05.05.2006. On 05.05.2006 the victim/prosecutrix went to her sister’s house at Sanjauli and her brother-in-law had brought her from Sanjauli. PW-13 further stated in his cross-examination that as per version given by the victim/prosecutrix, she spent time from 06.05.2006 to 9/10.05.2006 in an abandoned house, but he had not prepared any site plan showing such house. PW-13 inquired from the victim whether she made any efforts to raise alarm but she did not answer it. 16. Learned counsel on behalf of the convicts/appellants has submitted as below:- (i) The statement of the victim/prosecutrix was shaky and unreliable and not inspiring confidence, as such not trustworthy, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs. State of Orissa, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 743, wherein it was observed that the sole testimony of the victim can be a basis for conviction, provided it is safe, reliable and worthy of acceptance, reasonable to assume that no woman would falsely implicate a person in sexual offence as the honour and prestige of that woman also would be at stake, however, evidence of the prosecution should be cogent and convincing and if there is any supporting material likely to be available, then the rule of prudence requires that evidence of the victim may be supported by such corroborative material. Learned counsel also referred judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Om Parkash and another, Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) (DB) 179. (ii) The victim/prosecutrix was above 16 years, as PW-1 (Dr. Ambika Chauhan), on the basis of the report of the Radiologist, indicated the age of the victim/prosecutrix between 15 to 16½years. Learned counsel also referred judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Om Parkash and another, Latest HLJ 2005 (HP) (DB) 179. (ii) The victim/prosecutrix was above 16 years, as PW-1 (Dr. Ambika Chauhan), on the basis of the report of the Radiologist, indicated the age of the victim/prosecutrix between 15 to 16½years. (iii) PW-3 (Mohammad Yasin, father of the victim/prosecutrix) was unable to give the exact date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix and the date of birth, given in Ex. PW-8/A, was showing the date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix as 09.04.1993, which cannot be relied upon as the same is without any basis, as such the victim/prosecutrix, in all probabilities, was more than 16 years at the relevant time. (iv) FIR in respect of the incident of 04.05.2006 was lodged on 11.05.2006, that is, after the delay of eight days without any plausible explanation, making the prosecution story unbelievable. 17. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has argued that at the first instance when the victim/prosecutrix was taken for medical examination on 12th May, 2006, she divulged to the Medical Officer, in a natural course, that her age was 13 years, as such, there was no occasion to disbelieve the date of birth, recorded as 09.04.1993, as per school record, as stated by PW-8 (Kamaljeet Singh, Principal of the school), who cannot be said to have malice or any ill motive for giving different date. Mr. Sharma further submitted that PW-1/Dr. Ambika Chauhan herself has noticed that as per report of Dental Surgeon, the age of the victim/prosecutrix was between 12 to 15 years and PW-1 has also stated that age of the victim was 13 years at the time of medical examination and as per the report of the Radiologist, based on scientific analysis, as such the age of the victim/prosecutrix cannot be taken above 16 years. According to Mr. Sharma, the sole report of the Radiologist, indicating the age of the victim/prosecutrix between 15 to 16½ years cannot be said to be reliable. Mr. Sharma has further submitted that the victim/prosecutrix was studying in 7th Class and by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that while studying in 7th class she could be more than 16 years of age and for that purpose Mr. Mr. Sharma has further submitted that the victim/prosecutrix was studying in 7th Class and by no stretch of imagination it can be assumed that while studying in 7th class she could be more than 16 years of age and for that purpose Mr. Sharma has referred and relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Gajanan Hemant Janaradhan Wankhede, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 38, wherein the evidentiary value of the Headmaster of the school regarding the date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix was taken to be reliable. The relevant paragraphs are extracted as below:- 12. Undisputedly, the school records revealed the date of birth of the victim to be 4-6-1976. This was the position as indicated in the school leaving certificate (Ext. 25) and the school register. The High Court noted that in the school register the date of birth was indicated to be 4-6-1976. It also noticed that the father of the victim stated that the father of the victim stated that the girl was 14 years old. The High Court held that the correct date of birth is not recorded and only the school leaving certificate indicated that the date of birth of the victim was 4-6-1976. The evidence of the witnesses indicated that the entry was made on the basis of the horoscope. The High Court held that since the horoscope was not produced the prosecution has failed to establish its case. No reason has been indicated by the High Court to discard the documentary evidence produce i.e. school leaving certificate and the school register. 13. The headmaster of the school also deposed and produced the records before the trial court. The High Court held that the entry in the school register was not in the handwriting of the headmaster and he could not have deposed about the date of birth. There was no basis for the High Court to conclude that the entry cannot be taken to be above suspicion. On the basis of the evidence of the headmaster and the original school leaving certificate and the school register which were produced, the High Court came to abrupt conclusion that normally for various reasons the guardians do understate the age of their children at the time of admission in the school. There was no material or basis for coming to this conclusion. There was no material or basis for coming to this conclusion. The High Court in the absence of any evidence to the contrary should not have come to hold that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was not established and the school leaving certificate and the school register are not conclusive. 14. Interestingly, no question was put to the victim in cross-examination about the date of birth. The High Court also noted that no document was produced at the time of admission and a horoscope was purportedly produced. There is no requirement that at the time of admission documents are to be produced as regards the age of the student. Practically, there was no analysis of the evidence on record and abrupt conclusions, mostly based on surmises, were arrived at. The inevitable conclusion is that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable, deserves to be set aside which we direct. The respondent shall surrender to custody to serve the remainder of the sentences.” 18. Keeping in view the submissions advanced for and on behalf of the learned counsel for the convicts/appellants and the rival submissions for and on behalf of the State, in our considered view there is no occasion to disbelieve the date of birth of the victim/prosecutrix, as 09.04.1993, as divulged by PW-8 (Kamaljeet Singh, Principal), whereas, medical report also corroborates that the victim/prosecutrix was not in any case above 16 years of age. As such, the victim/prosecutrix, in our considered view, was minor at the time of the incident. Keeping in view the age of the victim/prosecutrix, oath was rightly not administered by the Trial Court while recording her testimony as the court treated her as a child witness. 19. Mr. Sharma has also submitted that PW-2/victim/prosecutrix has in a very natural manner divulged the facts and out of fear and for stigma of sexual assault she was not able to show her face in her house and to the public and for such reason, she had been hiding herself and spending as many as four days in an abandoned house. (Being in mental shock she did not divulge the incident to anybody out of threat and fear of the convicts/appellants that acid would be thrown on her and on her family members.) In our considered view we find force in the submissions of Mr. Sharma. (Being in mental shock she did not divulge the incident to anybody out of threat and fear of the convicts/appellants that acid would be thrown on her and on her family members.) In our considered view we find force in the submissions of Mr. Sharma. The victim/prosecutrix went to her sister’s house, where she also did not divulge anything and on 11.05.2006 on telephonic information of her brother, her father alongwith police came, thereafter only she divulged to her father the entire incident in such peculiar facts and circumstances, the FIR was lodged on 12.05.2006. As such in an incident of sexual assault of a minor, such delay is not fatal. 20. Mr. Sharma has also agreed that PW-2 (victim/prosecutrix) was not in love affair with Manoj, the alleged Driver. The victim/prosecutrix was taken to different places by both the convicts/appellants on 04.05.2006 by placing a cloth on her mouth and subsequently she was taken to a room where she was sexually assaulted by them simultaneously, thereafter, on 05.05.2006 the victim/prosecutrix came out of the room and she did not divulge anything to anybody in an apprehension of threat to her life and threat to the lives of her family members, she tried to hide herself. Such aspect, indicates the trauma of a minor girl who was subjected to sexual assault. In a very natural manner, she divulged the entire incident to the Medical Officer at the time of medical examination. As such, the entire testimony of the victim/prosecutrix (PW-2) is reliable, more so, when her testimony is supported by PW-3/father of the victim, PW-6/Mohammad Amin and by the medical opinion. 21. After hearing learned counsel for the parties on this point, we do not find any occasion to disbelieve the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix, in reference to the judgment referred by Mr. Sharma that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Prakash vs. State of U.P., (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 787 has very categorically observed in paragraph 13 as below:- “13. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian woman has a tendency to conceal, such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members have courage to go before the police station and lodge a case. In the instant case the suggestion given on before of the defence that the victim has falsely implicated the accused does not appeal to reasoning. There was no apparent reason for a married woman to falsely implicate the accused after scatting (sic scathing) her own prestige and honour.” 22. Mr. Sharma has also referred and relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 Supreme court Cases 550, the relevant paragraphs No. 26, 27 and 28, are extracted as below: “26. The important thing that the court has to bear in mind is that what is lost by a rape victim is face. The victim loses value as a person. Ours is a conservative society and, therefore, a woman and more so a young unmarried woman will not put her reputation in peril by alleging falsely about forcible sexual assault. In examining the evidence of the prosecutrix the courts must be alive to the conditions prevalent in the Indian society and must not be swayed by beliefs in other countries. The courts must be sensitive and responsive to the plight of the female victim of sexual assault. Society's belief and value systems need to be kept uppermost in mind as rape is the worst form of woman's oppression. A forcible sexual assault brings in humiliation, feeling of disgust, tremendous embarrassment, sense of shame, trauma and lifelong emotional scar to a victim and it is, therefore, most unlikely of a woman, and more so by a young woman, roping in somebody falsely in the crime of rape. The stigma that attaches to the victim of rape in Indian society ordinarily rules out the leveling of false accusations. The stigma that attaches to the victim of rape in Indian society ordinarily rules out the leveling of false accusations. An Indian woman traditionally will not concoct an untruthful story and bring charges of rape for the purpose of blackmail, hatred, spite or revenge. 27. This Court has repeatedly laid down the guidelines as to how the evidence of the prosecutrix in the crime of rape should be evaluated by the court. The observations made in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC 217 deserve special mention as, in our view, these must be kept in mind invariably while dealing with a rape case. This Court observed as follows : "9. 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 the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyze the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross- examination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated, eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focused on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the western world. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turnkey basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian society, and its profile. The identities of the two worlds are different. The solution of problems cannot therefore be identical." 28. This Court went on to observe at SCC pp. The identities of the two worlds are different. The solution of problems cannot therefore be identical." 28. This Court went on to observe at SCC pp. 225-26: (Bharwada case, SCC para 10) "10 .Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated, not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because- (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition-bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition-bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husband's family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocence. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the court, to face the cross - examination by counsel for the culprit, and the risk of being disbelieved, acts as a deterrent." 23. Mr. Sharma has further submitted that in the present facts and circumstances, both the convicts/appellants, charged for the offences punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 34 IPC are liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g). Mr. Sharma has also submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Alieas Chinee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 191, the conviction of both the convicts/appellants is justifiable on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix, as the testimony of the victim is worthy of credence, reliable and as such it requires no corroboration. It has further been submitted that PW-2 (victim) has not consented for sex and the sexual assault in question by both the convicts/appellants was made against her wish, despite the fact that she was minor. As such in view of the special provision provided under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, this Court shall presume that she did not give consent, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Alias Chinee (supra). Para 37, being relevant, is extracted as below: “37. Under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, 1872, which was inserted by way of amendment in the year 1988, there is a clear and specific provision that where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped, and she states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.” 24. After hearing the learned counsel for the convicts/appellants and learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State and after perusal of the medical evidence and the prosecution witnesses, we are of the considered view that on 04.05.2006 the victim/prosecutrix, a minor girl, was waylaid and a cloth was put on her mouth, thereafter, she was made to become unconscious and she was taken to a room, where she was simultaneously raped by the convicts/appellants. The victim/prosecutrix had been hiding for four days in an abandoned house out of fear, shame, trauma and under mental pressure, however, on inquiry she divulged the incident to the Medical Officer and as per medical report also, sexual assault was not ruled out. 25. We also notice that the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix is reliable, as such, both the convicts/appellants have been correctly found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for committing gang rape and for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for threatening her with dire consequences, by specifically saying that acid would be thrown on her and on her family members, in case she would divulge the incident to anyone. 26. We also do not find any occasion to interfere the verdict of convicting both the convicts/appellants for the aforesaid offences and sentencing them to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of one year and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 27. We do not find any merits in the criminal appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed.