Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.05.1987 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1986 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order date 10.09.1986 passed by IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 565 of 1985 whereby the applicant has been convicted and sentenced to under go three years R.I. coupled with fine of Rs. 500/- with defaulting clause. 3. Brief facts are that according to first information report on 29.08.1985 at about 05:00 P.M., Kumari Nakisiya daughter of Kishan Lal was going for cutting fodder from her field of village Kadampur. When she reached near the field of Tara Singh she met accused Ranveer. She requested Ranveer to lift her weight for her. As soon as Nakisiya bent down to lift the weight, suddenly Ghamandi also came and both the accused dropped her on the ground by holding her legs. Both the accused closed her mouth. The victim tried to shout but she could not do so. Initially Ghamandi raped Nakisiya then Raveer Singh raped her. She tried to free herself left but she could not do so. As soon as her mouth was set free, she raised hue and cry on which Khamani, Pyara Lal and Babu Sing etc. came on the spot but the accused fled away. Nakisiya told all the story to the witnesses. In the evening when her father returned home she narrated and told all the story to her father. At About 08:45 A.M. on the next day, the matter was reported to the police station on the basis of which a case was registered against the accused. The victim was medically examined in the Government Hospital and X-ray was also taken. The I.O. took the statement of the witnesses and prepared site plan and after investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused. 4. Charge under Section 376 I.P.C. were framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined Nakisiya as PW-1. 5. The accused admitted the genuineness of charge sheet, copy of G.D., site plan, medical and radiological report of the doctor, under the provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 6. 4. Charge under Section 376 I.P.C. were framed against the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined Nakisiya as PW-1. 5. The accused admitted the genuineness of charge sheet, copy of G.D., site plan, medical and radiological report of the doctor, under the provisions of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. 6. Thus, the aforesaid documents were read in evidence in the trial without proof or signatures of the persons to whom it should be properly signed. 7. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In which he has denied the occurrence and has said that he has been implicated in this case due to animosity. 8. Learned trial court after perusing of all the evidences on record convicted the accused with the sentence aforesaid. 9. Feeling aggrieved the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1986 which was dismissed on 02.05.1987. 10. Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been preferred. 11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report, hence the whole prosecution story is belied. 12. The first information report is the backbone of the criminal case and early report of the occurrence by the informant with all the details, give it an assurance regarding its true version. It is true that in case, there is some delay in lodging the first information report, the complainant must given explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, the delay in lodging the first information report does not make the complaint case improbable, when such delay is properly explained. However, the delay in lodging the complaint may prove fatal, in case when the delay is not properly explained. In each and every case of delay, it cannot be presumed that the allegations were after thought or it was a coloured version. 13. Coming to the present case, in the first information report it has been stated that after the occurrence, the accused fled away. The victim came back to her home but her father was not at home. In the night her father came home but due to fear in the night they could not go to the police station and lodge the report. In the morning she went with her father to the police station and lodged the first information report. 14. The victim came back to her home but her father was not at home. In the night her father came home but due to fear in the night they could not go to the police station and lodge the report. In the morning she went with her father to the police station and lodged the first information report. 14. As far as the statement of the victim PW-1 is concerned, she has also stated in her statement that after the occurrence she went to her home weeping but her father was not at home. When the father came back in the night, she told all the story to her father but due to fear, the father and the daughter could not go to the police station in the night. In the morning she went with her father to the police station and lodged the first information report. 15. Thus, the version of the first information report has been supported by statement of the victim PW-1. In cases of rape it cannot be said that human nature, as it is, the kith and kin cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. 16. In cases of rape where the reputation of the family is on stake and in the present case as is evidence from the report and the statement of the victim, her father was not at home, it could not have been expected from a girl immediately after being raped by two persons to go to the police station without her father and lodge the report. 17. Thus, the delay in lodging the first information report is very satisfactorily and reasonably been explained by the victim. 18. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated as his age is only seventeen years. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the year 1986. 28 years have since passed, hence, the appeal should be disposed of and the appellant should be sentenced for a period under gone. In support he has placed reliance upon ACC 1999 (39) page 389 (Vinod Vs. State) in which in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. when there was a lapse of 15 years, the sentence has already under gone was imposed upon the appellant. In support he has placed reliance upon ACC 1999 (39) page 389 (Vinod Vs. State) in which in a case under Section 302 I.P.C. when there was a lapse of 15 years, the sentence has already under gone was imposed upon the appellant. This law does not apply on the present accused because in this case the conviction was under Section 304-II I.P.C. and the present case is the case of gang rape in which the whole life of the victim has been shattered and the reputation of her and her family has been spoiled in the eyes of the society. 19. Counsel for the revisionist has also argued that this is a case of consent. This argument has no legs to stand because victim in her statement has stated her age to be 15 years. Beside she has been subjected to lengthy cross examination but her statement remained intact. In the statement she has categorically specified that he was raped against her will. Section 114-A of the Evidence Act runs as follows:- "114-A Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape:- In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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." 20. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that the victim was a consenting party in the gang rape. 21. The scope of the revision is very limited in as much as, reappraisal of the evidence is concerned, learned lower court has reappraised the evidence which was appraised by the trial court and thus revisional court cannot again reappraise the evidence. 22. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the revisionist may be sentenced to the period already under gone by him. 22. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also argued that the revisionist may be sentenced to the period already under gone by him. In Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar & Ors reported in (2013) 9 SCC 516 , Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as under:- "The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict. Sentencing Policy: 7) The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases. 8) The factual matrix of this case is similar to the facts and circumstances of the case in Shailesh Jasvantbhai and Another vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 2 SCC 359 , wherein the accused was convicted under Section 307/114 IPC and for the same the trial Court sentenced the accused for 10 years. However, the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In this case, this Court held that the sentence imposed is not proportionate to the offence committed, hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court, observed thus: "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law, which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: "State of criminal law continues to be - as it should be -a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society." Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc." 9) This position was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat, (2009) 7 SCC 254 , wherein it was observed as follows:- "99....The object of awarding appropriate sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence, which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. 100. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system. 100. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime and the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong." In this case, the court further goes to state that meager sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counter productive in the long run and against the interest of society. 10) In Jameel vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 12 SCC 532 , this Court reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, this Court observed thus: - "15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. 16. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. 16. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence." 11) In Guru Basavaraj @ Benne Settapa vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 734 , while discussing the concept of appropriate sentence, this Court expressed that: "It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice, which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored." 12) Recently, this Court in Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand JT 2013 (3) SC 444 held as under:- "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence............" 23. Thus, in this case of gang rape, I do not think there is any ground to reduce the sentence of the revisionist. 24. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order under revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed. 25. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. 26. The certified copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned to ensure that the accused revisionist undergoes the sentence passed against him by the trial court. ——————