JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, Judge. Judgment: Accused-respondent Kalu Ram was declared proclaimed offender by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on dated 22nd October, 2008 under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Proclaimed offender appeared before Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 16th June, 2014. Judgment of conviction against proclaimed offender Kalu Ram announced in Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2006 was recalled by us vide order dated 17th June, 2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 under inherent power vested in the Hon’ble High Court to secure ends of justice on the concept of audi-alteram-partem. 2. Present appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment of acquittal dated 10.8.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge Chamba Division in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2005, titled State vs. Giana and another relating to FIR No. 11 of 2005 dated 13.03.2005 registered in Police Station Khairi District Chamba H.P. under Sections 376, 511, 341, 506/34 IPC. Brief facts of the prosecution case 3. Brief facts as alleged by the prosecution are that on dated 14th March 2005 complainant filed a criminal complaint Ext.PW2/A before the Superintendent of Police Chamba alleging that on dated 12th March 2005 at about 9 AM the prosecutrix had gone to the forest to fetch the grass for the cattle. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that on the way there is one rivulet. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that co-accused namely Giana and co-accused Kalu misbehaved with prosecutrix and blocked her path. Prosecutrix further alleged that when she tried to run away then both accused namely Giana and Kalu caught her and laid her on the ground. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that co-accused No. 2 Kalu caught the prosecutrix from her arms and co-accused No.1 namely Giana removed her clothes and salwar. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that when she cried for help, then co-accused No. 1 namely Giana pressed her neck and told that in case prosecutrix would raise alarm then he would kill the prosecutrix. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that co-accused No. 2 namely Kalu caught the prosecutrix from her arms and co-accused No. 1 namely Giana forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that co-accused No. 2 namely Kalu caught the prosecutrix from her arms and co-accused No. 1 namely Giana forcibly committed rape upon her. It is further alleged by the prosecutrix that when co-accused No.1 Giana completed criminal offence of rape upon prosecutrix, co-accused No. 2 Kalu attempted to rape her. It is further alleged by prosecutrix that independent witness namely Chet Ram saw the entire incident of criminal offence and rescued the prosecutrix from the clutches of the accused persons. It is further alleged by complainant that husband of the complainant is old person and co-accused Giana told the prosecutrix that he would commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix in future also. FIR No. 11 of 2005 was registered at Police Station Khairi, District Chamba H.P. Matter was investigated and challan was filed against co-accused Giana under Sections 376, 341, 506 IPC read with Section 34IPC and challan was filed against co-accused Kalu under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC and under Sections 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against proclaimed offender Kalu Ram under Sections 376/511 IPC and 341/506 read with Section 34 IPC on 5th October, 2005. He denied charges and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined following eleven witnesses in all in support of its case:- PW No. Name of the witness 1 Dr. Indu Dhiman. 2 Rano Devi. 3 Chet Ram. 4 Dr. Man Singh. 5 Bainsu Ram. 6 Lal Singh. 7 Ramesh Singh. 8 Constable Karam Singh. 9 ASI Ravinder Kumar. 10 ASI Rajmal. 11 HC Balwant Singh. 5.1 The prosecution also produced the following pieces of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr. No. Description of the document Exhibit 1 Application for MLC Ext.PW1/A 2 Letter dated 24.5.2005 Ext.PW1/B 3 Report of FSL/chemical report Ext.PW1/C 4 MLC of the prosecutrix Ext.PW1/D 5 Complaint filed by the prosecutrix to learned S.P. Chamba H.P. Ext.PW2/A 6 Recovery memo of salwar Ext.PW2/B 7 Application for medical examination of the accused Ext.PW4/A 8 MLC of co-accused Giana Ext.PW4/B 9 MLC of co-accused Kalu Ext.PW4/C 10 Recovery memo Ext.PW5/A 11 Recovery memo Ext.PW6/A 12 Copy of R.C. Ext.PW8/A 13 FIR Ext.PW9/A 14 Site plan Ext.PW10/A 15 Arrest memos Ext.PW10/B & Ext.PW10/C 16 Statement of Lal Singh. Ext.PW10/D 6. Ext.PW10/D 6. Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and accused examined two defence witnesses namely Mangat Ram DW-1 and Mohinder Singh DW-2. 7. Learned Sessions Judge Chamba acquitted both the accused persons by way of giving them benefit of doubt. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge State of Himachal Pradesh filed the present appeal on the following grounds of appeal. It is pleaded that impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is contrary to law and the proved facts and based on conjectures and surmises. It is further pleaded that the learned trial Court did not appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the State. It is further pleaded that there are no material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutrix and the complaint filed by her which goes to the root of the case. It is further pleaded that the minor contradictions in the criminal case did not effect the merits of the criminal case in any manner. It is further pleaded by the State that evidence could not be narrated by the witnesses in mechanical manner and minor contradictions are bound to come in the criminal case. It is further pleaded by the State that testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated by Chet Ram PW3 in positive, cogent and reliable manner and it is further pleaded that in fact it was a criminal case and charge under gang rape should have been framed by the learned trial Court. It is also pleaded that husband of the prosecutrix was not eye witness of the incident and his testimony was not material for the just decision of the case. It is further pleaded that delay in lodging the FIR was not intentional and delay has been explained by the prosecution in a satisfactory manner. It is pleaded that the prosecutrix had no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is further pleaded that absence of marks of any abrasion, laceration and contusion on the thighs and external genetaea did not effect the merits of the present case. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 9. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent/proclaimed offender Kalu Ram at length and also perused the entire record carefully. 10. Prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 9. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent/proclaimed offender Kalu Ram at length and also perused the entire record carefully. 10. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was justified in finding that co-accused Kalu Ram was entitled for benefit of doubt. 11. In present case the State has filed appeal against acquittal of both accused persons and appeal filed against proclaimed offender was not segregated by the Hon’ble High Court. In order to avoid repetition we will not discuss the oral and documentary evidence in detail which is already discussed in Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2006 against another co-accused Giana because the facts and evidence as stated in appeal filed against Giana Ram are same in nature and are narrative facts only and same narrative facts will be treated as evidence against Kalu Ram proclaimed offender in present judgment also in order to avoid repetition of narrative facts. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-accused Kalu Ram that testimony of prosecutrix against co-accused Kalu Ram did not inspire confidence is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the testimony of prosecutrix recorded in Court. PW2 prosecutrix has stated in positive manner that on dated 12th March, 2005 at about 9 AM she had gone to fetch grass from the nearby Koel forest and she has stated that there was rivulet between two hillocks and when she reached at rivulet she met both the accused present in Court and then accused started outraging her modesty. She has stated that co-accused Kalu Ram proclaimed offender caught hold her both arms and co-accused Giana removed her clothes and thereafter co-accused Giana raped her. PW2 has stated that she raised hue and cry and on arrival of Chet Ram accused persons Giana and Kalu Ram fled away from the spot. PW2 prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that if Chet Ram did not arrive at the spot then Kalu Ram proclaimed offender would have also raped her. Prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that co-accused Kalu Ram took active part in the commission of criminal offence of rape. PW2 prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that if Chet Ram did not arrive at the spot then Kalu Ram proclaimed offender would have also raped her. Prosecutrix has specifically stated in positive manner that co-accused Kalu Ram took active part in the commission of criminal offence of rape. There is no evidence on record to prove that prosecutrix has hostile animus against co-accused Kalu Ram proclaimed offender at any point of time. Testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of prosecutrix against proclaimed offender Kalu Ram in present case. It was held in case reported in AIR 1996 SC 922 titled Bodhisattwa Gautam vs. Subhra Chakraborty that rape is not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is crime against entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushes her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which on coming to know of the rape looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is therefore the most hatred crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victims most cherished fundamental rights mainly right to Life contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is well settled law that in rape cases direct evidence is not available. It is also well settled law that testimony of victim in case of sexual offence is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the Court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault alone to convict accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. In present case testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence and is reliable. It is well settled law that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every rape case. (See AIR 1996 SC 1393 titled State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others.) It is well settled law that normally no woman would come forward to make a humiliating statement against her honour of having been raped unless it was true. (See AIR 1996 SC 1393 titled State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others.) It is well settled law that normally no woman would come forward to make a humiliating statement against her honour of having been raped unless it was true. It is also well settled law that prosecutrix in a rape case is not an accomplice and therefore the rule requiring corroboration of accomplice’s evidence does not apply to her testimony. Even statement of prosecutrix does not require corroboration as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is well settled law that corroboration is not a sine qua nonfor conviction in rape cases. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of proclaimed offender Kalu Ram that testimony of prosecutrix is not corroborated by any oral evidence is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons aforesaid mentioned. PW2 prosecutrix aged 35 years has specifically stated when she appeared in the witness box that Chet Ram also arrived at the spot. Hence testimony of Chet Ram is very material in present case. We have also carefully perused the oral testimony of Chet Ram recorded in Court. PW3 Chet Ram has specifically stated when he appeared in Court that he saw that prosecutrix was lying on the ground and accused Giana was committing rape on prosecutrix and her salwar was lying there and co-accused Kalu had caught hold the hands of prosecutrix when co-accused Giana was committing rape upon prosecutrix. PW3 Chet Ram has specifically stated in positive manner that co-accused Kalu Ram had played an active role in the commission of offence of rape by way of caught holding the hands of prosecutrix. Testimony of prosecutrix that co-accused Kalu Ram proclaimed offender had caught hold her hands when co-accused Giana was committing rape upon her, is corroborated by testimony of PW3 Chet Ram. Testimony of PW3 Chet Ram is also trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 Chet Ram who is eye witness of the offence of rape. There is no evidence on record to prove that PW3 Chet Ram has hostile animus against co-accused Kalu Ram proclaimed offender at any point of time. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 Chet Ram because the same is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. 14. There is no evidence on record to prove that PW3 Chet Ram has hostile animus against co-accused Kalu Ram proclaimed offender at any point of time. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 Chet Ram because the same is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the proclaimed offender that seizure memo qua recovery of salwar of prosecutrix Ext.PW2/B and broken bangles of prosecutrix Ext.PW6/A are not proved against co-accused Kalu Ram is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Recovery of salwar of prosecutrix and broken bangles of prosecutrix at the place of incident is proved in testimony of prosecutrix which inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of prosecutrix in the present case qua recovery of salwar of prosecutrix and bangles of prosecutrix. 15 Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of proclaimed offender Kalu Ram that as per MLC of prosecutrix there was no injury on the body of prosecutrix and upon vagina of prosecutrix and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the MLC of prosecutrix. The incident took place on 12th March, 2005 and medical examination of prosecutrix was conducted on 16th March, 2005. It is proved on record that at the time of commission of rape by co-accused Giana co-accused Kalu Ram caught hold both the hands of prosecutrix. In view of the fact that both hands of prosecutrix were caught hold by co-accused Kalu Ram, it was not possible for prosecutrix to resist the offence of rape in presence of two male persons. It was held in case reported in 1989 (2) Sim.L.C.269 titled Jitoalias Ajit Kumar vs. State of H.P. that uncorroborated evidence of prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the accused under Section 376 IPC if testimony of prosecutrix inspires confidence of Court. It was held in case cited supra that sole testimony of prosecutrix of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule could be acted upon. It was held that corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in western world but not on Indian soil. It was held in case cited supra that identities of two worlds are different. It was held that corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in western world but not on Indian soil. It was held in case cited supra that identities of two worlds are different. It was held in case cited supra that condition and psychology of women in Indian society and in the western society are differentiated. It was held in case cited supra that in the western society a female may level false accusation as regards sexual molestation against a male for several reasons but Indian female cannot do so for fear of her future life and status in the society. In the present case prosecutrix is a rustic villager and is illiterate village lady and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of prosecutrix. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that prosecutrix had any hostile animus against accused persons prior to incident of sexual assault. It is well settled law that injury on the body and vagina of prosecutrix is not sine qua non for conviction under Section 376 IPC if testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. In present case testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. Testimony of prosecutrix is corroborated by eye witness namely PW3 Chet Ram in positive, cogent and reliable manner. It is well settled law that medical evidence is only advisory evidence in nature. It was held in case reported in (1996)2 SCC 384 titled State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others that testimony of prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of entire case and trial court must be alive to its responsibility and should be sensitive while dealing with the cases of sexual molestation. (Also see (2000)5 SCC 30 titled State of Rajasthan vs. N.K.See (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and another See (1992)3 SCC 204 , titled Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey and another.) It was held in case reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 titled Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat that accused cannot take benefit of absence of injury in rape cases if testimony of prosecutrix is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. (Also see AIR1973 SC 343 titled Rahim Beg and others vs. The State of U.P. Also See AIR 1973 SC 501 titled Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Also See AIR 1952 SC 54 titled Rameshwar vs. The State of Rajasthan). 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the proclaimed offender Kalu Ram that there was no discovery of spermatozoa on any part of body of prosecutrix and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that discovery of spermatozoa in private parts of prosecutrix is not must to establish penetration. It was held in case reported in (1994) SCC 728 titled Narayanamma vs. State of Karnataka that there are several factors which may negate the presence of spermatozoa. In present case it is proved on record as per medical certificate placed on record that both accused were capable of performing sexual intercourse. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the proclaimed offender Kalu Ram that as per medical certificate of prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that age of prosecutrix at the time of commission of sexual assault was 35 years. It is also proved on record that prosecutrix was married woman and we hold that in view of the fact that prosecutrix was married woman it is not expedient in the interest of justice to dismiss the appeal filed by State simply on the ground that as per medical certificate placed on record prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse. It is well settled law that married woman is under legal obligation to perform sexual intercourse with her legally married husband. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of proclaimed offender Kalu Ram that there is material contradiction in the testimony of prosecutrix qua the fact of words “Hai-Hai” (Sound of terror) and “Bachao-Bachao” (Save Save) in present case and on this ground appeal filed by State be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that words “Hai-Hai” and words “Bachao-Bachao” are not contradictory to each other but both words “Hai-Hai” (Sound of terror) and words “Bachao-Bachao” (Save-Save) are used by rustic female illiterate villager when she forcibly raped in furtherance of common intention by two male persons having healthy body in order to save her from sexual assault from clutches of rapists. 19. No other point is urged before us. We hold that learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence against co-accused Kalu Ram. Hence we accept the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Case No. 31 of 2005 against co-accused Kalu Ram. We hold that co-accused Kalu Ram has caught hold the hands of prosecutrix when co-accused Giana was committing rape upon prosecutrix and he has actively participated in commission of offence of sexual assault. Hence we also convict co-accused Kalu Ram under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC. We also hold that co-accused Kalu Ram has voluntarily obstructed the prosecutrix from proceeding in direction in which prosecutrix was having right to proceed and we also hold that proclaimed offender Kalu Ram threatened the prosecutrix with dire consequences in case she narrated the incident of sexual assault to anybody. We hold that it is proved on record that co-accused Kalu Ram has also committed the offence under Section 341 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC in furtherance of common intention intentionally and voluntarily. In view of above stated facts we convict proclaimed offender Kalu Ram under Sections 511 read with Section 376 IPC and under Section 341 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 20. Be listed for hearing both convicted persons on quantum of sentence on.