JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. 1. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1994 is convicted for offence punishable under section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 1994 is convicted for offence punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 134 of 1993 vide Judgment and Order dated 22/7/1994. Hence, this appeal. Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows. 2. On 30/12/1992, the prosecutrix (P.W. 9) lodged a report at Rural Police Station alleging therein that on 29/12/1992 in the afternoon, she had carried tiffin for her father who was working as an agricultural labourer in the field of Jayprakash Kanade. While she was returning home, suddenly, accused/appellants herein emerged from the standing Jawar crop. Accused No. 2 had held her hands. He had shut her mouth by dumping a piece of her veil into her mouth and accused No. 1 had ravished her against her wish. Then they left. She was sitting on the road and crying as she was filling giddy. On the road, she met Sugla Machindra. She inquired with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix had disclosed to her that she had been ravished by the accused persons. Mahananda Birajdar i.e. P.W. 10 had offered her water. Since there was nobody to accompany to the police station, she approached to the police station on 30/12/1992 and lodged the report against the accused persons. On the basis of her statement, crime No. 60 of 1992 was registered at Rural Police Station against accused persons for offence punishable under section 376 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused were arrested on 01/01/1993. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 134 of 1993. Accused were enlarged on bail 21/1/1993. 3. P.W. 9 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed before the Court in consonance with her F.I.R. She has exaggerated the incident as far as the intimidation is concerned. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 134 of 1993. Accused were enlarged on bail 21/1/1993. 3. P.W. 9 is the prosecutrix. She has deposed before the Court in consonance with her F.I.R. She has exaggerated the incident as far as the intimidation is concerned. She has deposed before the Court that she was threatened by the accused by pointing a knife on the tip of her nose. She had stated that the accused No. 1 had assaulted her on her mouth with a Jambya and that she has sustained abrasions over her mouth. She has also deposed that accused No. 2 had thrown mud over her mouth. She has also deposed that accused No. 2 had threatened her and warned her not to inform the incident to his mother. She had thereafter stated that the accused No. 2 had also ravished her. As far as the incident of rape by accused No. 1 is concerned, her testimony has not been shattered by way of examination and therefore, her evidence appears to be a sterling testimony which would inspire the confidence of the Court. As far as the act of threatening, intimidation, assault on her by accused No. 2 is concerned, it is a material omission and therefore, accused have not been convicted for the offence punishable under section 504 & 506 of Indian Penal Code. 4. P.W. 7 Dr. Ajit Patil had examined the prosecutrix on 30/12/1992. He has deposed before the Court that he had not noticed any fresh injury on her person. Hymen was torn, but the tear was old. There was no discharge of semen. As per the C.A. report, no semen is detected. He had expressed his opinion in the certificate which is at Exhibit 30. He has deposed that she was habitual to sexual intercourse. It is elicited in the cross-examination that in a case of intercourse, injury, if any would be fresh. That there is always a possibility of injury over the private part as well as external parts of the lady, if anyone attempts to forcibly rape her. He has further deposed that he would not be able to give an exact opinion, whether there was an intercourse prior to her examination on 30/12/1992. 5. That there is always a possibility of injury over the private part as well as external parts of the lady, if anyone attempts to forcibly rape her. He has further deposed that he would not be able to give an exact opinion, whether there was an intercourse prior to her examination on 30/12/1992. 5. Prosecution has also examined P.W. 10, Mahananda Birajdar to whom prosecutrix had made immediate disclosure in respect of the rape committed on her. P.W. 10 has deposed before the Court that on the day of incident at about 3.00 pm, when she was present in her field, prosecutrix had come to her. Prosecutrix was weeping. Upon inquiry, she disclosed that accused No. 1 & 2 had committed rape upon her. Testimony of the witness has not been dented in the cross-examination. She was confronted with her statement which was recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In her statement under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, P.W. 10 had stated that the prosecutrix had disclosed to her that rape was committed upon her by unknown persons. Portion marked 'A' 'B' & 'C are exhibited which are material omissions amounting to contradictions. 6. P.W. 11 Bhavaramma Karole has been declared hostile. Other witnesses are formal witnesses in respect of recovery of clothes and spot panchanama. 7. A suggestion was given to the prosecutrix in the cross-examination as well as to the other witnesses that there are 2 political parties in the village and since the accused belongs to rival political party, they have been falsely implicated at the behest of prosecutrix. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecutrix has not deposed before the Court in accordance with her F.I.R. It is further submitted that the statement of P.W. 10 was recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which the prosecutrix had purportedly disclosed to the P.W. 10 that she did not know the identity of persons who had raped her and therefore, no liability could be fixed upon the accused for committing rape upon the prosecutrix. 9. The submission is unfounded. In the F.I.R., prosecutrix has specifically named the accused persons who had committed rape upon her. She had not been cross-examined to the extent that she had learnt the names of the accused persons from any third person or from the police. 9. The submission is unfounded. In the F.I.R., prosecutrix has specifically named the accused persons who had committed rape upon her. She had not been cross-examined to the extent that she had learnt the names of the accused persons from any third person or from the police. She had identified the accused persons in the Court. Identification in the Court is a substantive evidence, coupled with the fact that the prosecutrix has attributed specific role in the F.I.R. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted and drawn the attention of this Court to the medical certificate which is at Exhibit 30. He has submitted that doctor has specifically observed that there is no evidence of recent intercourse before he examined the victim on 30/12/1992. It is further submitted that doctor has opined that the hymen was ruptured, but it was an old tear. That there were no fresh injuries on the person of the prosecutrix. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it is the case of the prosecutrix that she was ravished on rough ground in the Jawar crop and if that is so, she would have sustained abrasions on her person as the agricultural land is a rough ground. According to the learned counsel absence of injuries, coupled with the opinion of the doctor that there are no fresh injuries on her person and there is no positive evidence that she was subjected to intercourse just before she was examined would go to the root of the matter and therefore according to the learned counsel for the appellants, appellants deserve to be acquitted of all the charges by extending benefit of doubt. It is further submitted that the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge is of the year 1994 and it would not be proper to send accused to jail after 20 years. According to learned counsel, the appellants have been on bail for the past 20 years and their family life would be disturbed and therefore, he has prayed that the fine amount be enhanced, but the appellants should be saved from going through the ordeal of substantive sentence in jail after the period of 20 years. 11. Today, the consideration should not be based on time for considering the penalty/punishment to be imposed upon the accused. 11. Today, the consideration should not be based on time for considering the penalty/punishment to be imposed upon the accused. It is not only a social offence, but, it has caused injury to the very soul of the prosecutrix. It is not a physical injury, which would be recovered by efflux of time. The prosecutrix has suffered an injury to her soul. She stood humiliated in the society and has to suffer the said trauma all through her life and therefore the accused persons are not entitled to any lenient view. 12. The accused cannot claim any leniency on the ground of passage of time, the accused would suffer substantive sentence of just seven years, but the survivor would suffer the nightmare till her last breath. Her sorrows are not for a limited period, but for lifetime. 13. Learned APP has vehemently argued and supported the Judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge. Learned APP has further submitted that the sole sterling testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charges levelled against them. 14. It is a sorry State of affairs that although, prosecutrix has specifically alleged that accused No. 2 had also ravished her, the conviction recorded against accused No. 2 is only under section 354 of Indian Penal Code. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the F.I.R., prosecutrix had not stated that the accused No. 2 had ravished her. It is only stated that accused No. 2 had aided accused No. 1 and therefore, according to him, accused No. 2 deserves to be acquitted of the charge under section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Upon perusal of the evidence of the prosecutrix, this Court is of the opinion that there is sufficient material, in fact, to convict the accused No. 2 under section 376 r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code. However, at the stage of admission, no notice of enhancement was issued. State has not filed an appeal challenging the conviction of the original accused No. 2 for offence punishable under section354 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, at present, the conviction recorded by Sessions Judge for offence punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal Code needs to be upheld. Evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of all the charges levelled against them. Justifiable reasons have been assigned for convicting the accused. Evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the accused guilty of all the charges levelled against them. Justifiable reasons have been assigned for convicting the accused. No interference is warranted. Hence, appeal being sans merits deserves to be dismissed. ORDER "(i) Appeal is dismissed. (ii) Conviction and sentence passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur vide Judgment and Order dated 22/07/1994 in Sessions Case No. 134 of 1993 is upheld. (iii) Pursuant to the order dated 16/06/2014, appellants are taken into custody. They shall undergo the substantive sentence. (iv) Appellants are entitled to the set off as contemplated under section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973." Appeals stand disposed of.