JUDGMENT : S. Pujahari, J. 1. The appellants being convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada, Mayurbhanj in S.T. Case No. 6/186 of 2009-08 for commission of offence under Section 376 (2)(g) of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- i.d. to undergo R.I. for two months, have preferred this criminal appeal challenging the same. 2. Prosecution placed a case before the trial court that on 23.3.2008 the victim (P.W.5) left her house along with one Champa (not examined) to village Ragdha to leave Champa in her village. Then one Babu Singh (appellant No.2) also accompanied them. On their way, they met the appellant No.1 Bhika Mandi @ Marandi and in his motor-cycle all of them to village Ragdha. After leaving Champa in her village when the victim (P.W.5) and the present appellants were coming back, they took liquor in a Dhaba at Palbani. There from in a auto rickshaw the appellant No.1 Bhika Mandi @ Marandi took the victim (P.W.5) to a ‘Nala’ blowing in the back side of the house of one Kudu Budha where he committed rape on her. Appellant No.2 Babu Singh also went there and said to have committed rape on the victim. The victim became senseless. Thereafter, they left the victim in the bari land of Sambari Hembram (P.W.1) where from she was rescued and brought to the District Head Quarters Hospital, Baripada. The victim regained her sense in the hospital on the next day and after regaining her sense, she lodged a report in the Baripada Town Police Station vide Ext.4 in writing. Pursuant to which Baripada Town P.S. Case No. 88(33) of 2008 was registered and police found substance in the F.I.R. on investigation and placed charge-sheet against the appellants for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. On the basis of the aforesaid report, cognizance was taken by the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada. 3. Placing reliance on such materials, the trial court framed charge against the appellants. The appellants having pleaded not guilty to the above charge in the trial court, prosecution examined as many as fifteen numbers of witnesses besides exhibiting certain documents to bring home the charge. The appellants who have taken a plea of denial and false implication did not adduce any independent evidence in their defence. The appellants having pleaded not guilty to the above charge in the trial court, prosecution examined as many as fifteen numbers of witnesses besides exhibiting certain documents to bring home the charge. The appellants who have taken a plea of denial and false implication did not adduce any independent evidence in their defence. On conclusion of the trial, relying on the evidence of the victim (P.W.5) so also the corroborative evidence of P.W.13 as well as the medical evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 and the investigating officer P.W.10, the trial court returned the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated earlier. 4. The same has been assailed in this appeal to be unsustainable in the eye of law inasmuch as the trial court erred in appreciation of the evidence of the victim (P.W.5) with regard to sexual assault on her. 5. Drawing notice of this Court to the evidence on record, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that since in this case the evidence of the victim (P.W.5) was full of material contradictions and there was no convincing evidence with regard to the fact that any of the appellants to have committed rape much less a gang rape on the victim, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable. 6. In response, learned counsel for the State drawing notice of this Court to the evidence on record and also the impugned judgment submits that such contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is without any substance inasmuch the testimony of the victim (P.W.5) proves the case against the appellants. Besides the same, the other evidence on record also corroborates her such testimony of sexual assault on her and as such there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this appeal. Hence, this criminal appeal challenging the same is devoid of merit and as such liable to be dismissed, submits the counsel for the State. 7. Hence, this criminal appeal challenging the same is devoid of merit and as such liable to be dismissed, submits the counsel for the State. 7. In State of H.P. v. Asha Ram, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 766 the Hon'ble Supreme Court placing reliance on a number of earlier decisions such as in the decisions of Rafiq v. State of U.P., (1980) 4 SCC 262 ; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 ; Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992) 3 SCC 204 ; Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635 ; State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30 have held as follows: "It is now a well-settled principle of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The evidence of a 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 her statement. The courts should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is also a well-settled principle of law that corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under the given circumstances. Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case." (Paras 5 and 15 to 20) (quoted from placitum) Section 114A of the Evidence Act gives rise to a presumption in favour of the prosecution with regard to absence of consent in course of sexual assault in a gang rape if the victim says that she was sexually assaulted without her consent. 8. 8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to appreciation of evidence of the victim in a case of rape when the case in hand is addressed, it appears that the victim (P.W.5) deposed that when she was returning from village Ragdha along with the accused persons she was taken in an auto rickshaw to the Bari of Kudu Budha and there appellant No.1-Bhika Mandi @ Marandi committed rape on her and she became unconscious. On the next day she regained her sense at D.H.H. Baripada. Such evidence of the victim (P.W.5) in her cross-examination remains untrammelled as except minor contradictions which are very trivial in nature inasmuch as the same relates to as to when the accused persons joined to her while proceeding to village Ragdha and also with regard to the fact that whether she took Handia or liquor and also giving direction with regard to the auto rickshaw, nothing substantial has been brought out to corrode the credibility of her evidence that both the accused persons compelled her to take Handia then she was taken to the Bari of Kudu Budha and committed rape on her. The victim (P.W.5) as such deposed that she was sexually assaulted against her will and without her consent by the appellant No.1-Bhika Mandi @ Marandi. The aforesaid evidence of the victim (P.W.5) also gets corroboration to the fact that the victim was left near the house of P.W.1 by the accused Bhika Mandi @ Marandi and other persons were along with him is revealed from the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 in a very categorical manner deposed in the court that while she was in her house at about 1.00 P.M. four to five persons including appellant no.1-Bhika Mandi @ Marandi came with a lady in an auto rickshaw to her Bari land and left the place leaving the lady. The aforesaid evidence of P.W.1 also gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 to whom she intimated the same in or about the time of occurrence regarding the victim (P.W.5) being left in unconscious in her Bari. So also it reveals from the evidence of P.W.2 that he had intimated the police and the police came and shifted the victim (P.W.5) to D.H.H., Baripada. So also it reveals from the evidence of P.W.2 that he had intimated the police and the police came and shifted the victim (P.W.5) to D.H.H., Baripada. P.W.13 (Manas Kumar Deo) the then S.I. of Baripada Town Police Station deposed that on receipt of a telephonic message, he went to the spot and near a bush in ward no.26 of Baripada Town he found the victim (P.W.5) was lying unconscious in half naked condition and immediately brought her to the D.H.H., Baripada for treatment and intimated the aforesaid fact to the I.I.C., Baripada Town P.S. Evidence of the victim (P.W.5) discloses that after she regained her sense, she herself lodged the report before the police vide Ext.4 which corroborates her version on sexual assault. The I.I.C. of Baripada Town P.S. who has been examined as P.W.10 deposed that he registered Baripada Town P.S. Case No. 88 of 2008 on the report of the victim (P.W.5) and investigated into the case and the victim (P.W.5) was medically examined during the course of investigation. Medical examination report of P.W.7 discloses that the victim (P.W.5) had sustained injuries on her person and also on her private part. It is further disclosed from her evidence that as there was injury on the private part of the victim, possibility of recent sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. Evidence of P.W.8, Assistant Surgeon of D.H.H., Baripada discloses that accused Babu Singh was capable of having sexual intercourse. Evidence of P.W.9 also discloses that accused Bhika (Gita?) Marandi was capable of having sexual intercourse. 9. From the materials available on record it would go to show that the evidence of the victim emerges that there was absence of consent in this case when she was sexually assaulted by the accused Bhika Mandi @ Marandi as she was administered liquor and thereafter she was taken to a place where she was sexually assaulted by Bhika Mandi @ Marandi. It also emerges from the evidence of the victim (P.W.5) that when the victim (P.W.5) was with the accused Bhika Mandi @ Marandi, accused Babu Singh also with him and active participant in the incident preceding to sexual assault. No doubt, no material is there that the accused Babu Singh committed sexual assault on the victim (P.W.5) as such there is no clear and cogent evidence with regard to the fact that sexual assault has been made by him. No doubt, no material is there that the accused Babu Singh committed sexual assault on the victim (P.W.5) as such there is no clear and cogent evidence with regard to the fact that sexual assault has been made by him. But, he was also equally responsible for commission of rape inasmuch as even though he has not committed rape both of them appears to have shared the common intention in commission of rape on the victim (P.W.5) and pursuant to their such common intention it appears that the rape was committed on the victim by Bhika Mandi @ Marandi and Babu Singh aided and assisted by remaining present with accused Bhika Mandi @ Marandi at the time of commission of such rape. 10. Hence, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record this Court also finds that there are clear, cogent and convincing evidence against the appellants to have committed the gang rape on the victim (P.W.5). Therefore, finding of conviction in this regard needs no interference. 11. So far as the sentence imposed is concerned, the same being minimum also needs no interference inasmuch as no adequate and special reasons are there in favour of the appellants, to reduce the same. 12. Resultantly, this criminal appeal fails and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court are confirmed. This criminal appeal stands dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed.