Judgment : 1. The appellants have challenged the conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354, 342, 324, 506 Para II read with 34 Section IPC on a trial held by the Fast Track Court at Chamarajanagar. 2. P.W.8-Ramanayaka and P.W.9–Kamala Bai are the parents of P.W.3–Gowri Bai, the victim. On 24.11.2005 at about 2.00 p.m. the parents of the victim were not in the house and her brother had gone to the school. She was alone in the house. The appellants came in front of the house of the victim and appellant No.2 asked the victim about her parents. She told that they have gone out. He came inside for a glass of water and saying so, he held hands and called appellant No.1 inside, both together dragged the victim to the land of one Neelabai near the house and the hands and legs of the victim were tied and they put cloth in her mouth and she was dragged to the ground. The first appellant threatened her to marry him, failing which they will kill her, saying so, the first appellant is said to have hit her with a stone on her mouth and at other places and put the cloth in the mouth. Before they went to bring a car it is alleged that accused No.3 brought water to the appellants. In the mid-night at about 12.00, they untied her and at that time she bite the finger of the first appellant. She escaped from the clutches of the appellants and went into the sugarcane crop and they were not able to trace her in the midnight hours. She went to the house of the first appellant to complain to his parents about her confinement, assault etc. and later her parents came and she was taken to the hospital. 3. On an intimation by the doctor, P.W.16-PSI came to the hospital and recorded her complaint Ex.P2. During the course of investigation the victim was examined by P.Ws.19 and 20 the doctors and the spot mahazar Ex.P4 was held and the articles M.Os.4 to 9 were seized in the presence of the attesting witnesses. On the arrest of the appellants and accused No.3, appellant No.1 was examined by P.W.12 Dr. Shiva Prakash who issued the injury certificate Ex.P.11. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. The clothes of the victim M.Os.1 to 3 were seized. On the arrest of the appellants and accused No.3, appellant No.1 was examined by P.W.12 Dr. Shiva Prakash who issued the injury certificate Ex.P.11. The statement of the witnesses were recorded. The clothes of the victim M.Os.1 to 3 were seized. After obtaining the extract of the Assessment Register Ex.P.5 and the RTC extracts Ex.P.6, the birth certificate Ex.P.3 was also collected and after complying necessary formalities and after securing the necessary documents, a charge sheet was laid against the appellants and accused No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354, 342, 324, 326 506 and 104 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. During the trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.Os.1 to 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They have not led any defence evidence. Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record convicted the appellants for the charges under Sections 366, 354, 342, 324, 506 Para II read with Section 34 IPC and for the main offence under Section 366 IPC, the appellants were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000 and lesser sentence for other offences. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 6. I have heard Sri Shiva Prasad, advocate for the appellants and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 7. The point that arise for my consideration is; “Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to warrant interference in their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 354, 342, 324, 506 Para II read with Section 34 IPC?” 8. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the evidence of the victim P.W.3 cannot be relied upon, as she was tutored and there are many contradictions, material omissions in her evidence and therefore he submits that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting her evidence. He also submits that the learned Trial Judge has recorded the demeanour of the witness which reveal that she has intention to falsely implicate the appellants and testimony of the victim could not have been accepted. He also submits that the learned Trial Judge has recorded the demeanour of the witness which reveal that she has intention to falsely implicate the appellants and testimony of the victim could not have been accepted. He also submits that there is material improvement made in the course of the trial by the victim for the first time and therefore her evidence could have been rejected by the Trial Court as untrustworthy. It is his further submission that after the incident, victim has married and she is leading a happy married life and so also the first appellant is married and at this juncture, in case if the appellants have undergo the sentence, much injustice will be caused to them. Hence, he submits that by setting off the sentence to the custodial period of three and half months, the appellants be acquitted. 9. Learned Counsel has brought to the notice of this Court the contradictions, improvements made in the course of the trial and requests to consider the said improvements and contradictions and to grant an order of acquittal. 10. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader has supported the judgment and order of the Trial Court and contends that the evidence of the victim is corroborated by medical evidence that the appellants have not made out any grounds to warrant interference in the conviction and sentence ordered. 11. As could be seen from the evidence of P.W.3-the victim, it appears that she is a tutored witness. The Trial Judge has recorded her conduct during the trial. From the said material placed on record it appears that the witness had by-heart the evidence to be given before the Court. Therefore, her evidence has to be cautiously scrutinized before it is accepted. 12. The mere fact that the witness is tutored itself, is not a sufficient ground to reject the evidence. In case if for other reasons the evidence of this witness is trustworthy, though it was not a case of rape, for the first time before the Court P.W.3-the victim states that she was raped by the first appellant. Though there is no mention of a knife held by the accused persons, for the first time in her evidence she states that accused 1 gave threat by a knife. So also it is stated that the accused brought poison though it is not her case. Though there is no mention of a knife held by the accused persons, for the first time in her evidence she states that accused 1 gave threat by a knife. So also it is stated that the accused brought poison though it is not her case. Though it is stated that the incident was within the period from 2.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight on 24.11.2005, in her deposition for the first time she states that it was upto 4.00 a.m. in the night. These are the exaggerations and improvements made by the witness for the first time in the trial. So far as the appreciation of evidence of a witness is concerned, it is well established principle of law that before accepting the evidence of the witness, it is the duty of the Court to remove the grain from the chaff and accept the evidence which is trustworthy. So, if this approach is made to the evidence of PW3, her version that the first appellant had a knife in his hand or she was raped by the first appellant need not be taken into consideration and rightly the Trial Court has rejected the version of the prosecutrix i.e. the victim by discarding the exaggerations made. 13. At the time when the incident took place, as stated by the victim, she was alone in the house and she was forcibly taken by the appellants to the land of one Neelabai near the house. Her hands and legs were tied with the towels. The first appellant had put the cloth in the mouth of the victim, so that she should not cry and she was assaulted with the stones. To this extent, the version of the prosecutrix is consistent with the other material placed on record. Anyhow, it is relevant to note that, the victim even did not obey the direction of the learned Judge to put her signature on the deposition. When the law does not contemplate the signature of a witness on the deposition, mere refusal and recording the refusal is not a ground to reject the evidence of the victim. She was administered oath before commencement of the evidence. The evidence was read over and explained to her. The learned Judge has put the signature on the deposition. This much of procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge itself is sufficient to consider the evidence of the victim. She was administered oath before commencement of the evidence. The evidence was read over and explained to her. The learned Judge has put the signature on the deposition. This much of procedure adopted by the learned Trial Judge itself is sufficient to consider the evidence of the victim. When the law does not provide obtaining of signature of a witness on the deposition, the refusal by the witness is not a ground to reject such evidence. 14. Anyhow, it is relevant to note that both the appellants and the victim are of the same village belonging to the same community and it is the version of the prosecution that the first appellant was intending to marry her and there was acceptance of proposal of the marriage and later the parents of the prosecutrix refused to offer the victim in marriage to the first appellant. Though the victim does not admit the acceptance of proposal by the first appellant and states that she was never willing to marry the first appellant. Anyhow, this aspect has no relevance with the crime in question. Anyhow, from the material placed on record it reveals that the victim and her parents were not willing to offer the victim in marriage to the first appellant at the relevant time and that was the reason for which the incident is said to have taken place. 15. So far as the age of the victim is concerned, Ex.P3 is the Birth Certificate issued by the Head Master-P.W.2 and it reveals that she was born on 1.7.1988, as on the date of the incident she was 17 years and 5 months old. Her age has also no relevance with this incident for the reason that the alleged act of kidnapping was due to the force adopted by the appellants and therefore the age has no relevance in the case on hand. The mere fact that, requisition though required in law was not given for getting the birth certificate Ex.P.3, it does not mean that the contents of Ex.P.3 cannot be looked into. The prosecution has examined P.W.2 to prove the contents and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, as the date of birth which was mentioned in the school register was entered at a time when there was no controversy with relation to the age of the victim. The prosecution has examined P.W.2 to prove the contents and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, as the date of birth which was mentioned in the school register was entered at a time when there was no controversy with relation to the age of the victim. Anyhow, from the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.3 it could be concluded that she was less than 18 years on the date of incident. 16. So far as the injuries sustained by the victim are concerned, the prosecution at the first instance had examined P.W.1, who has recorded the history of the incident and also the names of the appellants as the persons who were responsible for the injuries. Perusal of his evidence and the injury certificate Ex.P1 reveals the names of both the appellants as the persons who caused the injuries on the date of the incident and he found the following injuries: 1. Both lips are swollen, with angular laceration over lower lip left side mucosal laceration measures 5mm x 2mm. 2. Abrasions over writs (both) dorsum measures 0.2cm x 0.3cm, 3. Abrasions over extensor (both) aspect of ankle measures 1cm x 0.5cm. So, as could be seen from these injuries the victim had suffered injuries to her lip and so also an abrasion over the ankle. This will give an indication that the injuries might have been caused at the time when the first appellant said to have hit the victim with the stone or even at the time when the cloth was put into the mouth of the victim and when her legs were tied. 17. She was taken to the hospital by 3.00 p.m on 25.11.2005 and later she was referred to P.W.19 Dr. Mythili. She examined the private parts of the victim and was of the opinion that there was no sign of forcible sexual assault on the victim. P.W.20-Dr. Sindhu examined her on 26.11.2005 at about 11.15 a.m. and he found that the teeth were little bit loose and on the next occasion when he examined, the teeth were firm. Anyhow, perusal of the evidence of P.W.19 and P.W.20 would reveal that she had sustained injuries at the time of the incident. P.W.20-Dr. Sindhu examined her on 26.11.2005 at about 11.15 a.m. and he found that the teeth were little bit loose and on the next occasion when he examined, the teeth were firm. Anyhow, perusal of the evidence of P.W.19 and P.W.20 would reveal that she had sustained injuries at the time of the incident. If these injuries are looked into in the context of her oral version before the Court, she states that, after dragging her to the place of the incident, her hands and legs were tied, the cloth was put into her mouth and the appellants gave threat asking her to marry the first accused (first appellant) and also assaulted her with the stone. 18. That apart, after removal of the cloth from the mouth it is her version that she bite the left hand finger of the first appellant. To substantiate this fact the prosecution has examined P.W.12- Dr. Shivprakash and his evidence reveals that, on 27.11.2005 at 12.45 noon the first appellant was brought to the hospital by the police with a request for examination of the accused. On examination, the doctor P.W.12 found the following injuries: 1) Loss of nail of left thumb, nail bed is dry. 2) Loss of distal 1/3rd of nail and tooth mark present over tip of right middle finger. These injuries were said to be simple injuries. As per the evidence of P.W.12, these injuries were caused about 3 or 4 days prior to the date of examination. So, if the evidence of the victim is looked into, she states definitely that in the course of the incident she bite the finger of the first accused and he was examined by the doctor on 27.11.2005 i.e. after three days of the incident and in the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were more than three days old and he is definite that these injuries might have been caused by the biting with the teeth. So, this version of the prosecution supports the evidence of the victim. 19. It is well established principle that an injured generally does not implicate an innocent and does not leave the person who has really caused the harm. In this context, if the evidence of the victim is looked into, the injuries suffered by her and the medical evidence led by the prosecution supports the oral version of the victim. 19. It is well established principle that an injured generally does not implicate an innocent and does not leave the person who has really caused the harm. In this context, if the evidence of the victim is looked into, the injuries suffered by her and the medical evidence led by the prosecution supports the oral version of the victim. That apart, no woman goes to the police station with an allegation of such an assault or a sexual assault on her without any just cause. 20. A victim of sexual assault stands on a higher footings than that of an injured witness. Unless there are mala fides attributed on her part, there is no reason to discard her evidence. Mere exaggeration, improvements itself are not sufficient to dilute the version of the victim to an extent of her evidence which is trustworthy. 21. That apart, the prosecution has examined her parents who speak with regard to the motive for the incident and though the parents admit that initially there was a proposal to give their daughter the victim in marriage to the first accused, the fact that there was refusal later, is no justification on the part of the accused to do such a crime. 22. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.8 and 9-the parents of the victim, who state in their evidence that when they returned to the home, they did not find their daughter the victim in the house. They made a search for her and later they approached the police also and they came to know that the victim was in the house of accused 1 to complain to his parents. They went there, saw the injuries on her body, she was weeping. They later took her to the hospital and proper treatment was given. While she was in the hospital, a complaint was recorded by P.W.16-the PSI. Though the police were aware of this incident of the victim missing much earlier to the recording of the complaint by P.W.16, it appears that there is some lapse on the part of the police, but the mere fact that they knew and did not record the complaint early is not a ground to reject the first information report lodged by the victim to P.W.16- the PSI. 23. The evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 (the parents) corroborates the version of the prosecutrix and there is nothing unnatural in their evidence. 23. The evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 (the parents) corroborates the version of the prosecutrix and there is nothing unnatural in their evidence. To the extent of the absence of the victim from the house, there is consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9. 24. P.W.4 is examined to prove Ex.P.5 the RTC extract in relation to the house property of the victim. P.W.5 is the Village Accountant who had issued the RTC Extract-Ex.P.6. P.W.6 is the Police Constable who apprehended accused No.2. P.W.7 is an independent witness who is said to have seen the accused dragging the victim towards the land, but anyhow this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.10, 11, 14 and 15 are the attesting witnesses for the Mahazar Exs.P.4 to P.10. Though they have turned hostile to the prosecution, it is not a ground to reject the prosecution version. The Court can looked into the evidence of the Investigating Officer who seized M.Os.4 to 9 under the mahazar Ex.P10. It is relevant to note that M.O.4-one umbrella was found at the place of the incident. At the relevant point of time there was rain and this fact is endorsed by the seizure of M.O.4 from the place of the incident. That apart, M.Os.6 and 7 were two towels seized from the place of incident and as per the version of the prosecution each of these towels were used for tying the hands and legs of the victim. MO.8 is a wrist watch which was found at the place of incident and it is said to be the watch of the first accused. M.O.9 is a small stone with which the appellants assaulted on the face of the victim. So, the seizure of the aforesaid articles from the scene of occurrence is also a circumstance which supports the case of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 3 were the clothes of the victim and nothing incriminating is found in the clothes. Though there is some delay in lodging of the first information report, the evidence revels that after the incident the victim went to the house of the first accused to complain to his parents about the assault made by the first accused. MOs.1 to 3 were the clothes of the victim and nothing incriminating is found in the clothes. Though there is some delay in lodging of the first information report, the evidence revels that after the incident the victim went to the house of the first accused to complain to his parents about the assault made by the first accused. The people had gathered there and there was a huge hue and cry by the people to take action against the accused persons and it is at this juncture that after arrival of the parents of the victim, she was taken to the hospital. The delay in lodging the first information report is explained by the prosecution through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses. 25. It is relevant to note that, the victim was a minor and she was forcibly taken to the land, she was wrongfully confined in the land for few hours, a threat of danger to her life was given, she had sustained simple injuries. Taking a girl less than 18 years, dragging her to the land, tying her hands and legs by putting the cloth into the mouth is an act of outraging the modesty of a woman. Therefore, there is ample material from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses for the offences under Sections 366, 354, 342, 324, 506 Para II read with Section 34 IPC. 26. So far as the second appellant is concerned, he has shared the common intention with the first accused and therefore is responsible for all these offences. 27. The Trial Court in its proper perspective has appreciated the material on record and has rightly came to the conclusion to award conviction for the said offences. 28. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that as both the victim and also the accused are married, leniency be shown in the matter of sentence. Marriage occurs with every one and that cannot be a ground for reducing the sentence. But anyhow, it is relevant to note that, the appellants were prosecuting in the case since for the last eight years and to this extent, I think some leniency has to be shown as they are before the Court for the last eight years. 29. For the aforesaid reasons, to the extent of sentence the judgment and order of the Trial Court has to be modified. 30. 29. For the aforesaid reasons, to the extent of sentence the judgment and order of the Trial Court has to be modified. 30. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part confirming the conviction of the appellants for the charge under Sections 366, 354, 342, 324, 506 Para II read with Section 34 IPC. The sentence for the offence under Section 366 IPC is modified. The appellants are ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 366 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-each for the said offence. The conviction and sentence in respect of other offences is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently. They are entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. On deposit of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/-shall be paid to the prosecutrix and the remaining amount of fine shall be credited to the State. The Trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused to undergo the sentence.