Judgment :- Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. The appellants were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(b) and (c) r/w. Section 34 IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Briefly put, the case divulged by the prosecution through the witnesses examined before the court below, is as follows: In the district of Idukki, a Model Residential School was established for imparting free education with free boarding and lodging for the students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In August, 2001, the school was functioning at Cheruthoni. Later, the school was shifted to Kuyilimala. The appellant in Crl.A.No.2196 of 2009, who is the first accused (hereinafter referred to as A1) was the Manager-cum-Tutor and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1951 of 2009, who is the second accused (hereinafter referred to as A2), was the Physical Education Teacher of the said school. A1 and A2 were accommodated in a room, which is close to the girls hostel. The books, stationary and other items required for the daily use of the students were also stored in the said room. A1, as the manager, was the custodian of those goods and he used to supply those items to the students. A2 was assisting him in that regard and in the absence of A1, A2 would be the custodian of those goods. Allegedly, there was a standing direction that girl students shall go to the room only during day time and that too, in company. The prosecutrix (PW2) was one among the inmates of the hostel during the academic year 2001-02 and she was 12 years old during the said period. Allegedly on 9.1.2002, PW2 had her menstrual period, and after informing her mother (PW1), she was sent home. As she had complaints of pain in the abdomen, she was taken to a doctor at Muttam, who adviced her to take rest for a few days. Thereafter, she was sent back to school. But, she had persistent pain while urinating. Thereafter, PW3, who was the Principal of the residential school, called PW1 and the prosecutrix was sent back to her home with an advice to take rest for a few days. Thereafter, she was sent back to school. But, she had persistent pain while urinating. Thereafter, PW3, who was the Principal of the residential school, called PW1 and the prosecutrix was sent back to her home with an advice to take rest for a few days. After a week, though PW1 adviced the prosecutrix to go back to school, she was reluctant and on enquiry, it was revealed that she was sexually harassed and raped by A1 on four occasions viz., on 12.8.2001, 15.8.2001, 15.12.2001 and 16.12.2001 and by A2 on two occasions i.e. 7.1.2002 and 8.1.2002. It was, thereafter, she developed pain in her abdomen and she was sent home after calling PW1. PW1 gave complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Idukki, who in turn, forwarded the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thodupuzha (PW12), who recorded Ext.P1 statement of PW1. PW11, the Sub Inspector of Police, Idukki, registered Ext.P1 (a) crime on the basis of Ext.P1. PW12, who conducted the investigation, gave Ext.P13 report incorporating the relevant sections relating to the offences as well as the correct address of the accused to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P14 scene mahazar. He also prepared Ext.P7 mahazar relating to the building where the school was previously functioning. He got Exts.P8 and P9 plans prepared by PW7, the then Village Officer, Thodupuzha. Ext.P10 community certificate of A1 and Ext.P11 community certificate of A2 were obtained from PW8, the then Tahsildar, Thodupuzha. Ext.P15 certificate to show the caste of the prosecutrix was also obtained. A1 and A2 were arrested on 8.3.2002 and 11.3.2002 respectively. Ext.P6 potency certificate of A2 and Ext.P21 potency certificate of A1 were obtained from PW5, the then Assistant Surgeon, Taluk Hospital, Thodupuzha. Ext.P5 certificate was obtained from PW4, the then Assistant Professor, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, who examined the prosecutrix on 25.3.2002. Allegedly, PW2 revealed the story of rape committed by A1 and A2 to PW3 also. The statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded by PW10, the Judicial First Class Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.P2 is the said statement. PW12 completed the investigation and filed final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Idukki, which was taken on file as C.P.No.20 of 2003. 3. The statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded by PW10, the Judicial First Class Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ext.P2 is the said statement. PW12 completed the investigation and filed final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Idukki, which was taken on file as C.P.No.20 of 2003. 3. On completing the formalities, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha, where it was taken on file as S.C.No.473 of 2003. Pursuant to the summons, A1 and A2 appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty. They were defended by counsel of their choice. In the trial which followed, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as PWs.1 to 14 and Exts.P1 to P25 were proved. On the side of the defence, DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.B1, X1 and X2 were marked. 4. At the close of trial, the court found both the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(b) and (c) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-each with rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year each, in default of payment of fine for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, in default for each of the offences under Section 3(1)(xii) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court has specifically ordered that A1 and A2 are not entitled to set off for the period of imprisonment which they were undergoing from 5.5.2006 to 8.7.2009 in S.C.No.486 of 2003, which is a similar case alleging rape of another student. It is against this conviction and sentence these appeals have been preferred. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for A1 and A2 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, quite in extenso. We were taken through the depositions of the witnesses as well as the exhibits by the counsel appearing for both sides. 6. It is against this conviction and sentence these appeals have been preferred. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for A1 and A2 as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, quite in extenso. We were taken through the depositions of the witnesses as well as the exhibits by the counsel appearing for both sides. 6. The gist of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for A1 is as follows: (i) Joint trial of A1 and A2 are in violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C, as the charge against both the accused does not reveal that the alleged offences were in furtherance of common intention of both the accused especially because, the offences alleged against each accused were done by them independently on different occasions. (ii) The investigating agency was guilty of deliberate suppression of material document (Ext.X2), which is the earliest version about the alleged occurrence made by the mother of the alleged victim, which completely exonerated A1. (iii) Though the prosecutrix was got examined by a doctor of Muttam hospital before submitting Ext.X2 complaint, the result of such examination is not forthcoming. The suppression of the earliest medical opinion and findings assume much importance because of the inordinate unexplained delay occurred for the second examination of the prosecutrix by PW4. (iv) The prosecutrix though belong to Schedule Tribe community, hails from an affluent family and her not informing anybody about the alleged sexual harassment and forceful rape from August 2001 onwards appears to be improbable and revolting to commonsense. (v) The court below went wrong in placing reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had no complaints against A1 at the time of filing Ext.X2 complaint. (vi) The fact that the prosecutrix was made to give a sworn statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., which is against her own previous statement, would establish that the accusation against A1 is false. 7. The gist of argument advanced by the learned counsel for A2 is as under:- (i) The offence under Sections 376(2)(b) and (c) IPC are not attracted in the case against A2, as there is nothing in evidence to show that A2 was in management of the hostel where the prosecutrix was staying. 7. The gist of argument advanced by the learned counsel for A2 is as under:- (i) The offence under Sections 376(2)(b) and (c) IPC are not attracted in the case against A2, as there is nothing in evidence to show that A2 was in management of the hostel where the prosecutrix was staying. (ii) The offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act also is not attracted in the absence of evidence to show that the alleged rape was committed on account of racial prejudice. (iii) No circumstances are forthcoming to show that A2 committed rape on the prosecutrix and the medical evidence available does not pinpoint his guilt. (iv) Joint trial of A1 and A2 should not have been allowed by the court below. (v) There was inordinately delay in launching the F.I.R. 8. There are certain admitted facts in this case, It is an admitted fact that the prosecutrix was an inmate of the hostel run for SC/ST students only during the relevant period. It is also an admitted fact that A1 was the Manager-cum-tutor and A2 was the Physical Physical Education Teacher of the residential school. It is also proved by the birth certificate (Ext.P12) that the prosecutrix was only 12 years old at the relevant time. 9. Prosecution mainly relied on the testimony of PW2, the prosecutrix, to prove the guilt of the accused. According to her, during the year 2001, she was studying in the Model Residential School, Idukki, in VIth Standard which was initially functioning at Cheruthoni till October, 2001. Thereafter, the school was shifted to Kuyilimala. She was a resident of the hostel attached to the school at both places. The school children were provided with free food, accommodation, books, stationary and other materials which were stored in the room of the accused. According to PW2, A1 was very affectionate towards her. On 12.8.2001 and 15.8.2001 she went to the room of A1 for collecting stationary items. A1 was alone in the said room. As required by A1 she entered into the room. Then she was made to lie over the cot. The room was bolted from inside by A1. Thereafter, A1 forceably removed her dresses and raped her. Also on 14.12.2001 and 15.12.2001 at 9 p.m., A1 committed rape on her at Kuyilimala when she went to his room for collecting stationary items. 10. Then she was made to lie over the cot. The room was bolted from inside by A1. Thereafter, A1 forceably removed her dresses and raped her. Also on 14.12.2001 and 15.12.2001 at 9 p.m., A1 committed rape on her at Kuyilimala when she went to his room for collecting stationary items. 10. Regarding the rape committed by A2, her version is that on 7.1.2002 she went to the room of A2 for collecting a book. At that time A1 was absent. A2, who was present in the room, asked her to enter inside and when she entered the room, he bolted it from inside. Then, she was given a glass of water. She refused to take it and she was threatened and was made to drink the same. Soon after taking that drink she lost her consciousness. When she regained consciousness she was lying naked on the bed. She felt pain at her private parts. There she found some white discharge also. She was convinced that A2 committed rape on her. On the next day at 9 p.m., again she went to the room for collecting soap and A2 alone was there. When she entered the room he bolted the room and she was made to drink a coffee coloured liquid. Though she refused to take it, she was forced by A2 to drink it. Immediately after she had taken that, she fell unconscious. When she got consciousness she was lying on the bed with bleeding from her private parts. On the next day she was on her menstrual period. She developed pain in the abdomen. When her mother (PW1) was informed, she came to school and took her to the Government Hospital, Muttam. The doctor, who saw her, adviced her to take rest for a few days. Thereafter, she went to the school but, as the pain persisted in her private parts, the Principal informed the matter to her mother, who took her home. After a few days, when she was asked to return to the school she was reluctant. On enquiry by her mother and other relatives she revealed the gruesome act committed by both the accused. 11. Though the learned counsel for A1 and A2 would argue that the testimony of PW2 is unworthy of credit, it is relevant to note that PW2, the prosecutrix had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. On enquiry by her mother and other relatives she revealed the gruesome act committed by both the accused. 11. Though the learned counsel for A1 and A2 would argue that the testimony of PW2 is unworthy of credit, it is relevant to note that PW2, the prosecutrix had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The testimony of PW2 itself would reveal that she was affectionate to the first accused. Only due to fear, she did not divulge the incident to any person. Though the learned counsel for A2 would submit that the allegation of rape against A2 is only an inference by the prosecutrix, the circumstances revealed by PW2 would unerringly point to the guilt of A2 also. A2 alone was there in the room when PW2 went there on 7.1.2002 and 8.1.2002. PW2 was made to forceably drink some liquid as a result of which, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she was lying naked on the bed. She felt pain at her private parts and there were signs of sexual act like discharge of semen, bleeding from private parts etc. 12. The main ground of attack against the testimony of PW2 by the learned counsel for A2 is that there was inordinate delay in bringing such a shocking experience to the attention of others. The learned counsel for A1, inviting our attention to Ext.X1, which is the report of the Project Officer, ITDP, Idukki, and Ext.X2, which is the complaint preferred by PW1 before the said authority, would argue that in Ext.X2 complaint, the name of A1 is not made mention of. It was on the basis of Ext.X1 that the Project Officer made certain enquiries which revealed that A1 and A2 had committed the same offence on other students also. We notice that another crime was registered against A1 and A2 in respect of similar offences committed on another resident of the said school and the same has ended in conviction and sentence against the accused. 13. Actually, Ext.X2 would reveal that PW1 was afraid to make a complaint against the accused. In fact, in Ext.X2, she had only made a general complaint to the effect that certain untoward incidents are happening in the school. We do not see anything unnatural in her behaviour. 13. Actually, Ext.X2 would reveal that PW1 was afraid to make a complaint against the accused. In fact, in Ext.X2, she had only made a general complaint to the effect that certain untoward incidents are happening in the school. We do not see anything unnatural in her behaviour. However, she had the courage of lodging a complaint laying down certain broad allegations which led to an enquiry by the ITDP Project Officer, culminating in Ext.X1 report. 14. It has been the consistent view of this Court as well as the Apex Court that the testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences is vital, unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement. It is true that the Court while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. But, there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost at par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent it is even more reliable. In this case, the prosecutrix was only 12 years old. Both the accused were standing in a position to dominate the Will of the prosecutrix. A1 was the Manager-cum-Tutor. It has come through the evidence of PW3, the Principal of the residential school, that during the absence of A1, A2 was performing the duties of A1, thereby stepping into the shoes of A1. Therefore, we see absolutely no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for A2 that the offences under Section 376 (2)(b) and (c) IPC will not lie against A2. It has come out in evidence that A1 was not there on occasions when A2 committed rape on PW2. No fault could be found with PW2 on the ground that she did not complain to anybody till she developed some complications after the act committed by A2. The conduct of the prosecutrix in this regard was most natural, according to us. 15. No fault could be found with PW2 on the ground that she did not complain to anybody till she developed some complications after the act committed by A2. The conduct of the prosecutrix in this regard was most natural, according to us. 15. As observed by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and others [AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1393] a girl in a tradition bound non-permissive society in India, would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred, being conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society. In the normal course of human conduct, an unmarried minor girl, would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone and would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to the incident to narrate it to her teachers and others, over-powered by a feeling of shame and her natural inclination would be to avoid talking about it to anyone; so observed by the Apex Court. 16. In addition to the testimony of PW2, the prosecutrix, the prosecution also placed reliance on the medical evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. It was PW4, the then Assistant Professor of Government Medical College, Kottayam, who conducted the examination of PW2 and gave Ext.P5 certificate. On examination, vulval and vaginal infection was noticed, by PW4. Though there was no external injury, hymen was torn and vagina admitted two fingers tight. PW2 revealed to PW4 also that she was subjected to rape on different occasions by both the accused. She also disclosed to the doctor that she did not disclose the incident to anybody because of fear. 17. Ext.P5 is the certificate issued by the doctor. The learned counsel for A2 would argue that this medical evidence can be used against only one of the accused and that would cut the very root of the prosecution case especially because, both the accused were tried jointly. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that even if the medical evidence is eschewed, the testimony of PW2, which is summorised earlier, is sufficient enough to find the accused guilty of offences charged with i.e. offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(b) and 376 (2)(c). We are in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. 19. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that even if the medical evidence is eschewed, the testimony of PW2, which is summorised earlier, is sufficient enough to find the accused guilty of offences charged with i.e. offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(b) and 376 (2)(c). We are in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. 19. Coming to the question of joint trial, it was argued that the offences committed by both the accused were done independently on different dates and the mere fact that the alleged victim is the same, is not sufficient to bring them to book under Section 34 IPC. Hence, according to the learned counsel for both the accused, the consequential joint trial is in violation of the provisions contained in Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. 20. Section 223 of Cr.P.C. gives the instances where the accused could be charged and tried together. However, the proviso to the said section makes it clear that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate or Court of Session may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he or it is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together. 21. It is true that there was no application in writing by any of the accused for a joint trial in these cases. However, this Court sitting in the Appellate jurisdiction is satisfied that the accused were not prejudicially affected by the joint trial. Had the cases against the accused not been tried jointly, it would have resulted in multiplicity of proceedings which would consume much time of the Court and the witnesses. We, therefore, are of the view that the trial court was justified in trying the accused together, as no material prejudice has been caused to any of the accused on account of the joint trial. 22. Though, it was strenuously argued that the investigation was vitiated, we are not impressed by the said argument. 23. On a totality of the evidence now placed on record, we are convinced that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that A1 and A2 had committed rape on PW2 on different dates, as alleged in the charge sheet. 22. Though, it was strenuously argued that the investigation was vitiated, we are not impressed by the said argument. 23. On a totality of the evidence now placed on record, we are convinced that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that A1 and A2 had committed rape on PW2 on different dates, as alleged in the charge sheet. We, therefore, hold that the conviction under Sections 376 (2)(b) and (c) on A1 and A2 are legally sustainable. 24. True, it is proved through Ext.P15 that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Tribe community. Exts.P10 and P11 certificates would show that the accused belong to other communities. The accused are charged tried, found guilty and convicted under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also. But, we are of the definite view that for attracting the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the offence should have been committed with racial prejudice. Apart from the fact that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and that the accused belong to different communities, there is nothing on record to show that the crime was perpetrated by both the accused for the sole reason that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Tribe community. Hence, we are of the definite view that the conviction under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not legally sustainable. Hence, we set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 25. Coming to the sentence imposed, both the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(b) and 376 (2)(c). A heinous crime was committed by two persons, who were expected to look after PW2, who was an inmate of the hostel of the residential school. It was the consistent view of this Court that the punishment shall not be too lenient or disproportionately severe. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the trial court has imposed the correct sentence and we are not prepared to interfere with the same. It was the consistent view of this Court that the punishment shall not be too lenient or disproportionately severe. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the trial court has imposed the correct sentence and we are not prepared to interfere with the same. In the result, we uphold the finding, conviction and sentence on both the accused under Sections 376 (2)(b) and 376 (2)(c). We set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on both the accused under Sections 3(1) (xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. We feel that we have a duty to perform before we part with this judgment. The facts revealed in this case depict a classic example of mismanagement of an institution run by the State. The monstrous deeds of the accused were staged in the premises of a residential school established by the State for the uplift of the students belonging to socially and educationally challenged sector. Unfortunately, it has become the platform of the gruesome incidents narrated by the prosecutrix. It is also shocking that this was not the solitary instance. Another inmate of the same school was subjected to the sexual lust of the accused. We notice that the institution, where these incidents happened, accommodates teen aged boys and girls. Though female caretakers were deployed, their presence was not ensured during night time. The books and other things intended for the use of the inmates were kept in the room of the accused thereby, compelling the inmates to gravitate towards the said room even during night time. This arrangement is not conducive to moral discipline and shall not be allowed to be continued. Along with adequate measures for dealing firmly with crimes against women, children and members of the weaker, vulnerable and marginalised sections of the society, there is need for taking appropriate steps to eliminate the circumstances conducive to the perpetration of crimes in institutions and hostels run by Government or through Govt. aid for the benefit of members of such sections. Along with adequate measures for dealing firmly with crimes against women, children and members of the weaker, vulnerable and marginalised sections of the society, there is need for taking appropriate steps to eliminate the circumstances conducive to the perpetration of crimes in institutions and hostels run by Government or through Govt. aid for the benefit of members of such sections. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the Government to take the following steps to avoid such crimes in future: (i) In Care homes and Hostels where children or adults belonging to both sex are accommodated in a single institution or building, the portion set apart for females should be separated and made independent. Similarly the portion in which males are accommodated should also be separated. There shall be no opportunity for members of one portion to interact with the members of the other section; (ii) In institutions where large number of elders, adolescents and children of the same sex are accommodated, care should be taken to provide separate rooms for elders, adolescents and children; (iii) A Care Taker or Warden of the same sex as that of the inmates should be available 24 hours all through the year in such places of accommodation; (iv) Visitors or members of the opposite sex accommodated in the same institution or even administrators of the institution belonging to the opposite sex shall not be given liberty to enter into the area in which the inmates are accommodated; (v) Anyone wanting to meet the inmates, may be allowed to meet him or her in the visitors' room and that too in the presence of the Warden or Care Taker during the visiting hours, which shall be specified by notification and no such meeting shall be permitted beyond the notified hours; (vi) Inmates shall be issued provision and other materials from a conspicuous open space during day time within the specified hours and the inmates should be persuaded to collect the materials in groups; (vii) Cultivation of personal relationship by personnel belonging to the Department/ strangers with inmates of the opposite sex should be discouraged; (viii) Every chance for individual interaction with the members of the opposite sex should be avoided. If at all needed, it should be allowed in the common area or visitors' room; (ix) There shall be strict supervision of the running of such institution. If at all needed, it should be allowed in the common area or visitors' room; (ix) There shall be strict supervision of the running of such institution. Anyone who attempts to violate the guidelines should be firmly dealt with. The affairs of the institution shall be monitored by officers responsible. Any inspection including surprise inspection shall be conducted in the presence of the Care Taker or Warden; (x) The Government may also consider providing counselling facilities to the inmates. The Warden or Care Taker or other Office bearers responsible for the conduct of the institution may note the deviance or aberration in conduct or behaviour on the part of any of the inmates and such inmates should be provided counselling at the earliest; and (xi) Similarly, if any defiant behavior or aberration is noted on the part of a member of the staff, it should be reported to the higher ups and immediate steps taken to avoid developing of any intimate and unwanted relationship. The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala with the approval of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.