JUDGMENT The above noted appeals arise out of two Judgments passed in Sessions Case No. 07 of 1993 & 09 of 1993. It may be stated here that both the Appellants were arraigned together in G.R. Case No. 240 of 1991 on the file of J.M.F.C., Khaollikote initiated for offence under Section 376/34 IPC. The case having been committed to the Court of Session finally came to be tried by the Learned Asst. Sessions, Judge, Chatrapur. Both the Appellants together faced the charge & the trial thus commenced. During trial, at the stage of recording of their statements after closure of prosecution evidence. the Appellant Surya absconded for which the case was split up against him at that stage of trial & it got concluded in respect of• Appellant Nityananda. After conclusion of the trial as against Appellant Nityananda, he having been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC & sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years & to pay fine of Rs. 1000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, has preferred the appeal No. 45 of 1996. In the meantime, the Appellant Surya was apprehended & the trial continued & concluded against him. He has also been convicted for the above offence & sentenced as it was imposed upon Appellant Nityananda. So Appellant Surya has preferred the appeal No. 20 of 1997 from inside the jail. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as under; The victim here is a differently able girl being lame, with left hand remaining non-functional, being affected by polio & fingers with rickettee features being as that of a child. Father of the victim used to work as a labourer remaining .outside in order to earn his livelihood in maintaining the family members who were remaining there in the village. The victim with her other sister & mother used to permanently stay in the village. 3. On 09.07.1991, the victim during early morning hours had gone to answer the call of nature. On the way, Appellant Nityananda came & suddenly chucked a lump of sands on her eyes resulting her immediate fall being blurred of vision resulting pain. He then gagged her immediately: threatened where after committed sexual intercourse upon her against her will At this time, Appellant Surya who was at a little distance came near & the allegations stand that he also committed rape upon the victim. He then gagged her immediately: threatened where after committed sexual intercourse upon her against her will At this time, Appellant Surya who was at a little distance came near & the allegations stand that he also committed rape upon the victim. After this incident, the victim remained tight lipped for quite sometime & only when she fell ill, it came to light that she was by then having a child of five months in her womb. On query, she divulged the shocking incident to her parents. So a meeting in the village was convened wherein Appellant Surya appeared & confessed to have committed rape upon her after Appellant Nityananda. However, said meeting finally turned as an exercise in futility. Therefore, the F.I.R. being lodged, necessary case was registered & the investigation commenced The investigating officer recorded the statement of the victim, her father & other villagers, got the victim as well as the Appellants medically examined. Thereafter the investigation being completed, the charge-sheet against the Appellants was submitted putting them to trial in the Court of law. Pursuant to the same, the Appellants faced the trial which culminated as afore-stated. 4. Prosecution during trial has examined in total seven witnesses, when the defence examined none. The victim has been examined as P.W. 1. Her father has also come to the witness box as P.W. 3. The medical officer who had examined the victim as well as the Appellants is P.W. 6 & P.W. 7 is the investigating officer. Besides the above, other witnesses have been examined from the side of the prosecution as regards the happenings in the meeting convened in the village prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. 5. The Trial Court upon analysis of evidence of the victim, P. W. 1, her father as also the evidence of other witnesses & viewing the facts & circumstances of this case as those emanate from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has found the Appellants guilty for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC & they have been accordingly sentenced as stated above. 6. Learned Counsel (amicus curie) appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the finding of the Trial Court placing implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 is untenable in the eye of law. 6. Learned Counsel (amicus curie) appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that the finding of the Trial Court placing implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W. 1 is untenable in the eye of law. According to him in the present case in view of the delayed disclosure of the incident which is after about five months of the incident, the evidence of P. W. 1 ought to have been held to be untrustworthy & it ought to have held that the same do not inspire confidence. He submits that such long silence maintained by the victim & her speaking out only on being asked about the pregnancy clearly reveal that it is a case of consent, that too when no other option was left for the victim, she had to colour the consensual sexual intercourse to be one with force & without consent. Learned Counsel for the Appellants further 'submits that here the evidence of P.W.1 also suffers from infirmities that she has developed the story during trial & those are concerning the material aspect of the case, just as a measure to impress the Court for not raising any doubt with regard to her version of the incident. Therefore, he submits that the Trial Court has erred in law by holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellants that they committed rape upon the victim. In view of the above, he urges with vehemence that the Judgment of conviction & order of sentence recorded against the Appellant are liable to be set aside. Alternatively, it is submitted that in the facts & circumstances of the case & in view of the fact that these Appellants, one of whom is now aged about 85 years & another of 43 years of age must be living with family & all those members would suffer like all/thing in the event, the Appellants are sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for long period that too after having enjoyed liberty for such a long period & they will be ruined in that case. So, he urges for leniency being shown in the matter of imposition of sentence. 7. Learned Counsel for the State counters the above submission as above by placing the evidence of the victim (P. W.1) in great detail. So, he urges for leniency being shown in the matter of imposition of sentence. 7. Learned Counsel for the State counters the above submission as above by placing the evidence of the victim (P. W.1) in great detail. It is his contention that in the facts & circumstances of the case & considering the evidence of P.W.1, the conviction cannot be said to be a flawed one. According to him, the victim has deposed in the Court in a natural manner without slightest exaggeration, & the only ground to discard her evidence is her delayed disclosure of the incident which in the facts & circumstances of the case is of no significance & that too just viewing the back ground from which the victim hails, the condition of the victim both mental & physical & also other factors such as she being the burden to her family. According to him here is a case where the persons on whom she had faith & confidence being responsible members of the society have abused their position as such shattering & affecting her frame of mind & under the circumstance to muster the courage for a girl with all these disabilities at the cost of facing humiliation, inviting social stigma, hatredness & putting further burden upon all concerned, the delayed disclosure is immaterial. It is also his submission that it is a fit case for recording the conviction against the Appellants for offence under Section 376 IPC & the Trial Court did commit no mistake in finally finding them guilty of the said offence & imposing just & appropriate sentence in consonance with legal command. Therefore, he contends that the appeals are devoid of merit. 8. It is the settled position of law that the prosecutrix is not an accomplice. She stands at higher pedestal than an injured witness. If the Court of facts find it difficult to accept the version of prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence direct or circumstantial which could lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance short of corroboration is understood in the context of an accomplice would suffice (Refer:- State of Rajasthan v. Narayan; AIR 1992 SC 2004 & Aman Kumar & Another vs. State of Haryana 2004 SC 1497). The same view has also been expressed In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraparaksh Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990. SC 658. Assurance short of corroboration is understood in the context of an accomplice would suffice (Refer:- State of Rajasthan v. Narayan; AIR 1992 SC 2004 & Aman Kumar & Another vs. State of Haryana 2004 SC 1497). The same view has also been expressed In State of Maharashtra v. Chandraparaksh Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990. SC 658. In Narayan Sahu v. State of Tripura AIR 2005 SC 1452 , Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that if the prosecutrix is an adult & having full understanding, the Court is entitled to base conviction on the evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm & not trustworthy, if the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecution does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 9. Again in case of Himachal Pradeesh V. Asharam; AIR 2006 SC 381 , it has been held as under. "The evidence of prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness, The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital unless there are compelling reasons which, necessitate looking for corroboration of the statement. The Court should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict the Appellant where her testimony inspires confidence & it is found reliable". The Apex court has also held that in case of a rape, corroboration is not a matter of law but guide of prudence & that corroboration is not always necessary. The testimony of the victim is vital unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration. Court can act on the evidence of victim alone where the evidence inspires confidence. The rule of corroboration must be present in the mind of the Court & the Court must give reasons for dispensing with necessity of corroboration. The victim of rape is not an accomplice & her evidence can be acted upon, without corroboration, She stands at a higher pedestal then an injured witness. If the Court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek for some evidence which lends assurance to her evidence. Assurance short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would suffice. If the Court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek for some evidence which lends assurance to her evidence. Assurance short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would suffice. Rape leaves permanent scar & has a serious psychological impact on the victim & her family members & therefore, none would normally concoct the story of rape & falsely implicate a person. The victim's evidence can be acted upon, particularly if her version is credible & there is not even an iota of evidence to show that she has reason to falsely implicate the accused. 10. In the avail of aforesaid principles, now the rival submissions are required to be tested to find out the pregnability of the finding of the Trial Court. So at first the evidence of P.W. 1 requires evaluation to say as to if the same inspires confidence & is trustworthy or not. P.W. 1, the victim being aged about 20 years at that point of time is a physically & psychologically vulnerable girl. It is her evidence that when she was going to the village bandh to attend the call of nature, she could notice somebody to be following her. No sooner did she notice the same, Appellant Nityananda appeared before her & chucked a lump of sand on her face which led to her immediate fall. It is next stated that taking advantage of her helplessness at that time & as nobody were there nearby, the Appellant Nityananda raped her. In order to stop her from raising any hullah, she was gagged by Appellant Nityananda by putting cloth into her mouth. She has further stated that this Appellant Nityananda had then threatened to press her neck in case she makes any resistance for the said forcible sexual intercourse. She has next stated that after Appellant Nityananda enjoyed her sexually with penetration & fulfilled his sexual lust. The Appellant Surya who was then a little distance in threshing floor came & being instigated by Appellant Nityananda also went on to rape her. She has next stated that after Appellant Nityananda enjoyed her sexually with penetration & fulfilled his sexual lust. The Appellant Surya who was then a little distance in threshing floor came & being instigated by Appellant Nityananda also went on to rape her. Her further testimony is to the effect that being seriously threatened by the Appellants, she maintained silence without disclosing about this to her parents & later when she became pregnant & when it was detected that she was by then carrying a child of five months in her womb, she with much difficulty had no other option but to open out the incident to her parents. As it usually happens in rural areas the parents then convened a meeting in the village where the Appellant Surya at the end confessed to have committed rape being instigated by Appellant Nityananda. However, since the meeting did yield no fruitful result, as advised by the village gentries, F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim at Kodala Police Station. Only ground to discard her evidence as urged is that of delayed unfurling of the incident when only he pregnancy was detected which is projected as a strong circumstance favouring consensual sexual intercourse. However, it must be kept in mind that in case of sexual intercourse of such vulnerable victim, absence of consent stands as the initial presumption & the Court has to proceed accordingly. One cannot be drifted away from the ground of reality that here is a case that the victim due to her physical condition, a dependent for whole of her life upon parents & all others. She hails from rural area when all the family members are dependant upon the wage of the father who in order to maintain the family, used to go outside to work while the family consisting of mother with remaining members reside in the village. Naturally, under such the circumstances, the victim as well as her family heavily depend upon the neighbours & other co-villagers. Particularly for the victim with her physic, condition of health & her state of mind, has all the reason to accept the villagers with imposition of utmost faith & confidence so as to come to her rescue in case of difficulty. Particularly for the victim with her physic, condition of health & her state of mind, has all the reason to accept the villagers with imposition of utmost faith & confidence so as to come to her rescue in case of difficulty. By the time the incident took place she was already a heavy burden not only for the family but also to all others associated with her & under the circumstance, when she was ravished not by one but simultaneously by another, her remaining silent is not at all an unnatural or unusual conduct or a conduct against that of ordinary person with her status physic & her mental state althrough. The mental state of a girl with such infirmity would normally impel her to remain in a quandary for long whether to open out & if so, when. how & before whom at first. A girl of this age being placed like a sack loaded with goad on the shoulder of the parents & that too heavily worrying them is but normally under that situation to think for a moment not to give further prick with nails upon the body of the parents causing further pain simultaneously inviting the social stigma for all thinking for a while as to what disastrous reaction, it may carry in the community where they live & also the consequences which may be fail on all of them. So, such delayed disclosure in the present case in my considered view, is of no significance & cannot be taken as a circumstance to discard altogether the plain & simple version of P.W. 1 during the trial spoken in a natural manner. That itself cannot make her evidence untrustworthy when upon detail analysis, the same is found to be inspiring confidence being free from any such basic infirmity. Moreover. father of the victim has gone state about the disclosure made before him by his daughter P. W. 1 & that he had convened the meeting when Appellant Surya had gone & confessed the crime at the instigation of Respondent Nityananda who had not attended the meeting. It is also the evidence of P.W. 2 that P.W. 1 in sobbing state had narrated the incident before all the villagers present in that meeting. It is also the evidence of P.W. 2 that P.W. 1 in sobbing state had narrated the incident before all the villagers present in that meeting. Of course unfortunately in the case, the villagers present have not come to support the case of the prosecution by stating in so many words about the happenings in the said meeting. But that has nothing to do in placing any negative impact in doubting the testimony of P.W. 1 which otherwise inspires confidence. In view of above, the finding of the Trial Court with regard to the guilt of the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 IPC is found to be absolutely impregnable & thus wholly defensible. 11. Coming to the justification of the sentence & consideration of submission regarding reduction, it is to be borne in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal. Its no doubt true that on certain occasions, chances may be granted to the convict for reforming himself but its equally true that the principle of proportionality between an offence committed & the penalty imposed are to be kept in view. It's a complex exercise & the Court is obligated to see the impact of offence on the society as a whole, its ramifications on the immediate collective -as well as its repercussion on the victim. In Gopal Singh vrs. State of Uttarakhand; (2013) 7 SC 545, the Apex Court have expressed that just punishment would be dependent on the facts of the case & rationalized judicial discretion. Neither the personal perception of a judge nor self adhered moralistic vision nor should hypothetical apprehensions be allowed to have any play. For every offence, a drastic measure cannot be thought of. Similarly, an offender cannot be allowed to be treated with leniency solely on the ground of discretion rested in a Court. The real requisite is to weigh the circumstances in which the crime has been committed & other concomitant factors. 12. The above authoritative expression deals with sentencing a general. In the case at hand, the matter concerns with the justification of rigorous imprisonment for ten years in case of a rape committed on a physically & psychologically vulnerable girl in her teens. 12. The above authoritative expression deals with sentencing a general. In the case at hand, the matter concerns with the justification of rigorous imprisonment for ten years in case of a rape committed on a physically & psychologically vulnerable girl in her teens. Crimes against women are on rise & such crimes are affront to the human dignity of the society &, therefore, imposition of inadequate sentence is injustice to the victim of the crime in particular & the society in general. The Courts have an obligation while awarding punishment to impose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the society's cry for justice against such criminals. Public abhorrence of the crime needs a reflection through the Court's verdict in the measurement. The rights of the victim of crime & society at large, while considering imposition of appropriate punishment (State of Andhra Pradesh vrs. Bodem Sundara Rao; 1995 (6) SCC 230 ). The Apex Court have stated with anguish that crime against women in general & rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women's rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection of the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy & personal integrity but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female in State of Punjab vrs. Gurmit Singh; 1996 (2) SCC 384 . As regards the gravity of the crime of rape, it has been expressed thus:- Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. (In Surendra Singh vrs. State of U.P.: 2012 (6) SCC 297 ) 13. Gurmit Singh; 1996 (2) SCC 384 . As regards the gravity of the crime of rape, it has been expressed thus:- Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. (In Surendra Singh vrs. State of U.P.: 2012 (6) SCC 297 ) 13. In view of the above enunciation of law, the obtaining factual matrix, the brutality reflected in commission of crime, particularly in view of the vulnerability of victim, the response expected from Courts by the society & the rampant uninhibited exposure of the bestial nature of pervert minds, this Court is required to address whether rigorous imprisonment of ten years deserves modification. The grounds urged are all in seeking leniency on the base of mitigating factors. The physically disabled girl was dealt with animal passion by those who are supposed to be the repository of her faith & confidence; her dignity & purity of life & mind has been shattered. The plight is well visualized. She would pass her time with traumatic experience & unforgettable shame being not in a position to assert her honour as such for no fault of hers. It demands just punishment within legal parameters. It has to be in consonance with the legislative command & the discretion vested being rationally exercised. In the instant case besides the victim, the family is burdened with further sufferings in such a manner that the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it has created an incurable dent in the social fabric. 14. The mitigating factors projected in course of hearing are on the score that the Appellants need be visited with mercy. But this Court unhesitantly think that the fact situation of the case cannot allow the mercy to have a march over & thus there remains no room for reduction of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. The Judgment of conviction & the order of sentence passed by Trial Court are hereby confirmed. 15. Resultantly, the appeals being sans merit stand dismissed.