JUDGMENT : The appellant Ajit Singh @ Toni suffered conviction under Section 376 (2) (g) and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years in each count and further convicted under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the victim-informant and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The present appellant along with two other accused persons namely Soni Kumar Ajwani @ Soni @ Gurucharan Singh and Jaswant Singh were tried in the above case and after trial, Jaswant Singh was acquitted but Soni Kumar Ajwani @ Soni@ Gurucharan Singh and the present appellant were convicted as aforesaid. The said Soni Kumar Ajwani @ Soni @ Gurcharan Singh had separately preferred an appeal but during pendency of the appeal, he died and so his appeal has abated. 3. The prosecution case, which is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Punam Kumari (Devi), recorded by A.S.I. of Lower Bazar Police Station on 25.06.1991 at 6:30 p.m. at the place of occurrence i.e. North Samaj Street, Tharpakna, in the house of one of the accused Soni @ Gurucharan Singh, in short, is that on 25.06.1991, the informant came to Ranchi from Jamshedpur to obtain her original B.Sc. Examination Certificate from Ranchi University. She got down from the bus at about 10.00-11.00 a.m. at Kantatoli, Ranchi and boarded a tempo bearing no. BIN-9506. The said tempo driver after alighting other passengers drove his tempo on different streets on the pretext to take her to Ranchi University and on enquiry, the driver told the informant not to worry as Ranchi University is far away. After roaming on several streets, the tempo driver called a man, who was on a cycle, to accompany him and informed the said man that the female occupant i.e. informant would go to Ranchi University. The said man left his cycle in a nearby shop and sat by the side of the tempo driver and he used to address the tempo driver as Soni and they were talking in Punjabi. After sometime, the tempo driver left his friend. When the tempo driver stopped his vehicle in front of a house, she realized that the said house was not the Ranchi University. After sometime, the tempo driver left his friend. When the tempo driver stopped his vehicle in front of a house, she realized that the said house was not the Ranchi University. On enquiry, the tempo driver informed that an employee of Ranchi University, who issues Provisional Certificate lives in his house. It is also alleged that the tempo driver thereafter pulled her in a room of the said house where one Sardar Ji, having turban on his head, was standing there from before. The informant when tried to raise alarm, she was threatened by the tempo driver showing fear of stabbing chhura and thereafter the tempo driver and the Sardar Ji, who was there from before, pushed her on a Toshak lying on the floor. It is also alleged that tempo driver gagged her mouth and after undressing her, Sardar raped her and thereafter, the tempo driver also ravished her on the point of knife and revolver. They had thrown her Saari, petticoat and blouse in front of a latrine and locked her inside the room and went away. The informant started weeping and tried to open the back door and the staple got opened. The informant after wrapping herself in a quilt lying there, went to upper floor of the house and narrated the story to the inmates but they ignored her. Thereafter, while she was passing through the passage of the house for coming to road, she found her Saari, petticoat and blouse in front of the latrine which she put on and came to the road. The passersby after hearing her cry informed the police and when the police came, she narrated the entire occurrence. 4. The police in course of investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses, got the victim’s statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., referred her to doctor for her examination, seized the alleged Toshak, one bed sheet with stain mark, one blue coloured underwear having some stain, one knife from the alleged room of the house of the accused Soni Kumar Ajwani @ Soni @ Gurucharan Singh and also seized the alleged tempo bearing no.- BIN 9506, which was standing outside the place of occurrence. 5. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the present appellant and two other accused persons. 5. After completion of investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the present appellant and two other accused persons. Charges were framed against this appellant Ajit Singh @ Toni and another accused Soni Kumar Ajwani @ Soni @ Gurucharan Singh under Sections 363, 366, 376, 342 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. In the eventual trial that followed, the prosecution in support of its case had examined ten witnesses including the victim girl (P.W. 8), Dr. (Mrs.) Rita Lal as P.W.7, the I.O. Ajoy Kumar Verma as P.W. 9 Prosecution has though examined P.W.1 Shyamdeo Prasad, P.W. 2 Barun Roy, P.W. 3 Md. Kalim, P.W. 4 Md. Nasim Khan, P.W. 5 Md. Halimuddin, P.W. 6 Vijoy Kumar Thakur and P.W. 10 Jitendra Pandey but they were all declared hostile. Prosecution besides the ocular evidence adduced some documentary evidences also including the Medical Report of the victim dated 27.06.1991 as Ext.-1, X-ray Plate and X-ray report as Exts.-2 and 3 respectively, the fardbeyan of the informant Punam Kumari as Ext.-4 and her signature on the fardbeyan as Ext.-4/1, formal F.I.R. as Ext.-5, Seizure list dated 25.05.1991 as Ext.-6 showing seizure of one Toshak, one bed sheet, one blue underwear with stain like semen, one white bed sheet with stain like semen and Ext.-6/1-signature of one of the witness Narendra Kumar Pandey, a Sub-Editor of daily Hindi newspaper ‘Aaj’. It further appears from the record that the defence had not examined any oral evidence but had brought Ext.-A i.e. written order of the Officer-in-Charge of Lower Bazar Police Station dated 25.04.2000 and Ext.-A/1- Command. 7. The trial court while negating the plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded finding of guilt of the appellant under Section 376(2)(g), under Section 366 and also under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that all the sentences given under different counts will run concurrently. 8. 7. The trial court while negating the plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded finding of guilt of the appellant under Section 376(2)(g), under Section 366 and also under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and directed that all the sentences given under different counts will run concurrently. 8. Three fold contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant and foremost of them was absence of sign of rape in medical report and that barring sole testimony of the prosecutrix, there has been no evidence of other witnesses to lend assurance to the accusation attributed to the appellant and that apart if her evidence was to be given any credence, she was not even conversant with the appellant preceding the date of incident. Learned counsel further submitted that no T.I. Parade was ever conducted to identify the appellant rather for the first time after almost 8 years, the prosecutrix identified the appellant in court during her evidence. It was also contended that all other witnesses have turned hostile. 9. A brief resume of the narrations made by the prosecution witnesses may be brought on record to appreciate the contentions raised. Reiterating her earlier version, Punam Kumari, the victim (P.W.8), giving vivid description from the stage where she boarded the bus at Tata in the morning for Ranchi and reached at Kantatoli Bus Stand at 10.00-11.00 a.m. and after getting down from the bus, boarded a tempo for Ranchi University and how the tempo driver Soni Kumar Ajwani @ Soni @ Gurucharan Singh after roaming on different streets of Ranchi stopped the tempo in front of a house, where one Sardar Ji was there from before and further stated in trial that the tempo driver pulled her in a room and he along with one Sardar Ji bolted the room from inside and, thereafter, she was ravished one by one firstly by Sardar Ji and thereafter by the tempo driver. This witness was subjected to cross-examination at length but she constantly stood the test of cross-examination. The witness during cross-examination has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, she had come to Ranchi for the first time and thereafter she has come today to give her evidence in Court. She further stated that during course of rape, she had resisted but the appellant and other co-accused assaulted her. The witness during cross-examination has stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, she had come to Ranchi for the first time and thereafter she has come today to give her evidence in Court. She further stated that during course of rape, she had resisted but the appellant and other co-accused assaulted her. Even she had sustained injury on her private part, on neck and chest. The witness has further stated that she was taken to police station where test identification parade was held and she identified one of Sardar Ji. In paragraph 15 of her cross-examination, she states that in police station, there were several Sardar Jees but she could not give the number as to how many they were. During her evidence, she identified the appellant and the tempo driver in court. It is pertinent to mention here that no T.I.P. chart was produced in Court and from the order sheet of the case record also it appears that no direction was given by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for conducting any T.I. Parade. 10. The doctor (P.W.7), who clinically examined the prosecutrix on 26.06.1991, has stated in her evidence that there were few scratch marks on both the cheeks of the victim, which may be caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of the injury was within 24 hours but no spermatozoa was found and no foreign hair was found on her private part. The witness did not find any positive evidence of rape. The age of the prosecutrix was assessed about 20 years on the date of examination. 11. The I.O. of the case was examined as P.W. 9 and he has confirmed that he had recorded the re-statement of the victim girl in hospital during her treatment. The witness during cross-examination has stated that though he had seized Toshak, bed sheet with semen like stain and other articles but the same were never sent to F.S.L. for examination. From the evidence of I.O. and informant, it appears that no suggestion was given by defence to either of the witnesses that the fardbeyan was not recorded at the place of occurrence which is the house of one of the co-accused Soni rather the address given by him in indemnity bond filed by the co-accused Soni for release of the Tempo used in the offence, fully tallies with the address given in fardbeyan. 12. 12. In the statement of the appellant-accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., only the bald statement had been made by the appellant-accused that he was innocent. No explanation had been given by the appellant as to why the prosecutrix had deposed against him and involved in such a heinous crime. 13. From the evidence of the victim, it is clear that she has very vividly given the description of rape committing on her, which seems to be truthful and natural. The defence has also not brought on record any reason of false implication of the appellant. Even, it has nowhere come in evidence that the victim was anyhow known to any of the accused or there was any previous rivalry between the victim and the accused persons prior to the present incidence rather it has come in her evidence that on the fateful day, she had come to Ranchi for the first time. So far identification of the appellant is concerned, there is no evidence on the record to show that any T.I.P. was conducted but the prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that she identified the appellant in police station and this fact has been confirmed by the Investigating Officer in his evidence at paragraph 19 where he has stated that the victim identified Sardar Ji in Police Station. Even if proper T.I.P. was not conducted by investigating authority, the accused should not get the benefit of defective investigation. During evidence in Court, P.W. 8, the victim, had identified the appellant and other accused in Court. A victim cannot forget the face of a person even after a long interval who had ravished her completely. While judging culpability of the accused, what is required to be judged was the reliability of the prosecutrix. 14. So far medical evidence is concerned, even if the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of the prosecutrix, the evidence of prosecutrix cannot be thrown out, if it was found to be free from blemishes. In such facts, it has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the version of the prosecutrix deserves to be given proper respect and accepted unless it is found highly improbable. The Hon’ble Supreme court has observed in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 as follows:- “Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. The Hon’ble Supreme court has observed in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 as follows:- “Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. In view of these and similar factors, the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to book. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated.” 15. In the instant appeal, as has been stated herein before that victim girl (P.W.8) has specifically stated in her evidence that she had been taken to a house and there she was undressed and forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by the present appellant and another co-accused one after other. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, even in absence of corroborative evidence, if the evidence given by the prosecutrix is trustworthy and reliable and in case of no inimical term or acquaintance with the appellant-accused, the conviction can be made on the basis of deposition given by the prosecutrix. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, even in absence of corroborative evidence, if the evidence given by the prosecutrix is trustworthy and reliable and in case of no inimical term or acquaintance with the appellant-accused, the conviction can be made on the basis of deposition given by the prosecutrix. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant-accused for the offence of rape committed upon the prosecutrix. 17. Having critically analyzing the evidences available on the record and regard being had to the attending circumstances of the case, the finding of the guilt and sentence recorded by the court below did not leave even little scope for interference and as far sentences awarded to the appellant, that too, did not appear to be harsh or excessive warranted interference by this Court. 18. The appeal being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.