JUDGMENT S. PUJAHARI, J. - Since both these criminal appeals have been directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.2010 rendered by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. Case No.189/61 of 2009, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment to avoid any conflicting finding. 2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Sundargarh has convicted the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. 3. Prosecution case against the appellants as embodied in the impugned judgment of the Court below reveals that on 19.08.2008 at about 5 p.m. while the victim, a 12 years old female child, changing her school uniform on arrival home from school, and was alone in the house, her elder brother (P.W.2) having been to river for taking evening bath; the appellants along with another, namely, Kanha @ Manoranjan Pandey (a juvenile in conflict with law) surged into the house. Without providing any opportunity to the victim either to escape or to make loud noise to attract the passerby, appellant – Ranjan Bhoi gagged her mouth forcibly, laid her on a cot of that house, removed her inner garments, mounted on her body and forcibly thrusted his male organ inside the female genitalia of the victim. When the victim struggled to escape, Manoranjan Pandey caught hold of her hands to facilitate appellant – Ranjan Bhoi to commit the sexual intercourse. After appellant – Ranjan Bhoi satisfied his lust, he allowed Manoranjan Pandey to commit sexual intercourse against the victim. Appellant – Ranjan Bhoi caught hold of the victim to facilitate sexual assault by Manoranjan Pandey on the victim. During that turbulent period, appellant – Pinku @ Bhismananda Dharai all through stood guard near the front ingress of the room for facilitating his associates to commit sexual assault one after the other without any fear. At that juncture, the brother of the victim, namely, Deepak Sharma (P.W.2) reached home from river after taking bath and at his sight the appellants took to their heels. At that juncture, the brother of the victim, namely, Deepak Sharma (P.W.2) reached home from river after taking bath and at his sight the appellants took to their heels. Once Deepak Sharma (P.W.2) entered the house he found Manoranjan Pandey still wearing his trouser who too made good his escaped in a flash. P.W.2 found his sister crying. Being asked, she narrated before him that appellant – Ranjan Bhoi and Manoranjan Pandey committed forcible sexual intercourse with her while appellant – Pinku @ Bhismananda Dharai stood guard at the door to facilitate the aforesaid persons to satisfy their sexual lust. P.W.2 immediately sent intimation to his parents and divulged the incident before the neighbours. Around 6.30 p.m. when the victim’s parents arrived she disclosed before them as to what had happened and how she was sexually ravished by the appellant – Ranjan Bhoi and juvenile in conflict with law - Manoranjan Pandey and how appellant – Pinku @ Bhismananda Dharai helped them to commit sexual assault by keeping watch near the door. Since it was raining, no information could be lodged at the Police Station on that night. On the next morning P.W.2 got the report scribed by his friend (P.W.8) and lodged the report at Sundergarh Police Station whereafter investigation was taken up, the victim was medically examined, incriminating materials were seized, appellants and Manoranjan Pandey were arrested and subsequently on completion of investigation charge-sheet was laid against the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC. The case against Manoranjan Pandey was separately dealt with by the competent forum as he is a juvenile in conflict with law. On the basis of the materials placed, the learned trial court framed charge against the appellants under the aforesaid Section, it was read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all and exhibited documents marked as Ext.1 to Ext.12 besides the wearing apparels of the victim and the juvenile – Manoranjan Pandey were also produced and marked as M.O.I to M.O.V respectively. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found the appellants guilty under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found the appellants guilty under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that there being no allegation that appellant – Pinku @ Bhismananda Dharai had committed sexual act against the victim; there being delay in lodging of F.I.R. and the version of the victim when studded with material infirmities not considered by the trial court, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are bad in law and cannot be sustained the judicial scrutiny. 6. Repelling such submission, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State would contend that admittedly, the victim being below sixteen years of age and when her evidence inspires confidence whether or not appellant – Pinku @ Bhismananda Dharai committed any sexual act, but he having helped his associates to commit rape on a minor victim girl, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be called in question. 7. Keeping in mind the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully sifted the evidence of the victim (P.W.1), her brother – Deepak Sharma (P.W.2), the scribe of the F.I.R., Pranab Kumar Hati (P.W.8), a person of that locality, namely, Jasoda Nag (P.W.5), the Medical Officers (P.Ws.6 and 7), the Investigating Officer (P.W.11) and also scrutinized the documents marked as Exts.1 to 12. 8. P.W.7 is the Medical Officer who had the occasion to examine the person of the victim on 20.08.2008 at 6 p.m. on police requisition. She found the followings :- “(1) There were 5 to 6 streak parallel abrasions of size 4” x ½” x ¼” transversely placed – ½ cm apart from each other on vental aspect of left forearm suggesting forcible act. (3) On examination of her genitalia, her lebia, minora and majora are intact, swollen, tender and inflamed. Pubic hair sparse black in colour, whitish discharge coming out from the vagina. Posterior commissure and fourchette intact and normal. Her hymen was ruptured. Tears at 3 ‘O’ clock, 6’O’ clock & 4 ‘O’ clock position present. 1 ½ fingers easily admissible. Her vaginal canal in intact, red, inflamed and tender on touch. Service nulliparous. Pubic hair sparse black in colour, whitish discharge coming out from the vagina. Posterior commissure and fourchette intact and normal. Her hymen was ruptured. Tears at 3 ‘O’ clock, 6’O’ clock & 4 ‘O’ clock position present. 1 ½ fingers easily admissible. Her vaginal canal in intact, red, inflamed and tender on touch. Service nulliparous. From the above findings, I opined that the recent sign and symptom of sexual intercourse is present whose probable time will be within 4 to 5 days of the examination made by me. (6) Her age was within 12 to 14 years as per the ossification test. (8) Presence of red, inflamed and tender vagina and admissibility of 1 ½ fingers, her rupture of hymen and presence of 3 tears at 3 ‘O’ clock, 6’O’ clock and 9 “O” clock position and red, swollen and inflamed lebia majora and minora, signify recent sign and symptom of sexual intercourse. (2) I have also personally done the ossification test and pathological test. Ext.6 is the requisition of police-cum-examination report along with the ossification test report and pathological test report of the examinee Nitu Sharma containing 12 sheets. Ext.6/1 is my signature on Ext.6. Ext.6/2 is the signature of the examinee Nitu Sharma who had signed in my presence on Ext.6 giving her consent to be examined by me.” Nothing substantial brought on record in cross-examination by the defence to ignore the Ext.6. 9. P.W.2, the brother of the victim and first informant has narrated in great details as to what he noticed on arrival home around 5 p.m. after taking bath in a nearby river. He has noticed appellants – Pinku @ Bhismananda Dharai and Ranjan Bhoi standing in front of his house and started running on his sight. When he rushed inside, he found the juvenile in conflict with law - Manoranjan Pandey in the process of wearing his pant but started running. When he entered the room he found his sister (P.W.1) crying and being asked she narrated as to how finding her alone the appellants and Manoranjan Pandey entered into her house where appellant – Ranjan Bhoi and Manoranjan Pandey sexually assaulted her. When he entered the room he found his sister (P.W.1) crying and being asked she narrated as to how finding her alone the appellants and Manoranjan Pandey entered into her house where appellant – Ranjan Bhoi and Manoranjan Pandey sexually assaulted her. This witness has also stated that she immediately sent information to their parents, and how the victim narrated the incident before them, how he approached P.W.8 to get the report scribed and what prevented him for not lodging the report in that night. He has proved the report (Ext.2). This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing substantial has been elicited to discard his version outright. P.W.1, the victim aged about 13 years and reading in Class-VIII testified the entire events in great details. Her evidence reveals that on arrival of P.W.2 she immediately divulged what had happened. Subsequently, after arrival of her parents she also narrated as to how she was sexually ravished. The victim was also subjected to very lengthy cross-examination where in paragraph-16 she has narrated the nature of injuries sustained by her. P.W.8, the scribe of the F.I.R. deposed that on 20.08.2008 during morning hours P.W.2 appeared before him and divulged as to how her sister was sexually ravished by those persons and how he got the report scribed. This witness also proved the report (Ext.2). This is the core of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to inculpate the appellants with the offence alleged. 10. On a careful analysis of the evidence of the victim, I find immediately on arrival of her brother (P.W.2) and subsequently on arrival of her parents she had narrated what had happened. This is the immediate post occurrence conduct of the victim in disclosing about the incident before her parents which is admissible in evidence under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res gastae. This conduct of the victim and the version of P.W.2 also admissible in evidence under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape the victim made a complain relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complain was made, are also relevant and otherwise it is also a corroborative evidence under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape the victim made a complain relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and the terms in which, the complain was made, are also relevant and otherwise it is also a corroborative evidence under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, the medical evidence coupled with the evidence of the victim and her brother leads to one and only conclusion that the victim is less than sixteen years of age as on 19.08.2008 when she was allegedly ravished. With reference to X-ray report of ossification test, the doctor has opined giving error margin of two years that the victim was in between 12 to 14 years old. This finding of Radiologist is in tune with the age reflected in the F.I.R. and deposed to by P.Ws.1 and 2. Moreover, there is no contrary material to hold that the victim is more than sixteen years of age, even though documentary evidence like birth certificate or school admission register have not been produced. But, since the victim belonged to a lower strata of the society, it would not be proper to reject the testimony of the victim and her brother relating to her age for non-production of birth certificate or school admission register. There is absolutely no variance in the age given in the F.I.R., deposed to by P.Ws.1 and 2 and opined by the doctor. There is also no specific challenge to the evidence of the victim, her brother as well as the doctor who has given the report as to the probable age of the victim. The doctor had the occasion to examine the person of the victim as well. All such evidence coupled with the surrounding circumstances leads to one and the only conclusion that the victim was under sixteen years of age at the time of occurrence. The victim being under sixteen years of age, the question of ‘consent’ or “no consent” does not hold good. In the case of Satish Kumar Jayantilal Dobgal vrs. State of Gujurat, (2015) 61 OCR 261 (SC), it is held that consent of prosecutrix below sixteen years of age cannot be treated as mitigating circumstances. On this, Clause Sixthly of Section 375 of IPC would got attracted holding her consent for sexual intercourse as immaterial and inconsequential. In the case of Satish Kumar Jayantilal Dobgal vrs. State of Gujurat, (2015) 61 OCR 261 (SC), it is held that consent of prosecutrix below sixteen years of age cannot be treated as mitigating circumstances. On this, Clause Sixthly of Section 375 of IPC would got attracted holding her consent for sexual intercourse as immaterial and inconsequential. Otherwise, the evidence of the victim which is duly corroborated from the version of P.W.2 and opinion of the doctor is found inspiring confidence having a ring of truth around. She has no axe to grind against the appellants and there is no reason as to why a girl of her age would depose falsehood. Here, the charge being under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, which contemplates “gang rape”, a species of rape, once it is established that the accused persons had acted in consert and entered the house of the victim and thereafter even if one of them raped the victim then all of them can be held guilty under Section 376 of IPC in terms of Explanation (1) to Clause (g) of Section 376(2) of IPC irrespective of whether she had been raped by one or more of them. It is not necessary that the prosecution should adduce clinching proof of complete act of rape by each one of the accused on the victim or each one of the victims where there are more than one. (See- AIR 1989 S.C. 1475 – Promod Mahto vrs. State of Bihar). 11. Reverting back, the evidence of the victim unerringly reveals that while appellant – Ranjan Bhoi committed rape on the victim, appellant – Pinku @ Bhismananda Dharai stood guard on the front ingress to facilitate appellant – Ranjan Bhoi to commit sexual act waiting for his turn. After appellant – Ranjan Bhoi, Manoranjan Pandey committed rape on the victim. At that moment when P.W.2 arrived, all of them escaped en masse. Her testimony is found reliable and trustworthy. Her version is also proved from the evidence of P.W.2 and the medical report (Ext.6) had also corroborated her statement. The victim here had immediately narrated the incident before P.W.2 who found her crying. The version of the P.W.2 could be accepted as corroborative piece of evidence as held in the case of State of Karnataka vrs. Manjanna, AIR 2000 S.C. 2231 . 12. The victim here had immediately narrated the incident before P.W.2 who found her crying. The version of the P.W.2 could be accepted as corroborative piece of evidence as held in the case of State of Karnataka vrs. Manjanna, AIR 2000 S.C. 2231 . 12. That apart, the evidence of the victim is more reliable than that of an injured witness. She has testified apparently being aware of the danger of being ostracized by the society and may be considered by the neighbours to be an accomplice. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and the Evidence Act no where says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by material particulars. Here, the evidence of the victim being above reproach, the conclusion of the trial court that the appellants have committed offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC cannot be tampered with. 13. The explanation for delay is inherent in the evidence, the reasons furnished being not challenged. Once the victim had narrated the events before the neighbours including her parents and brother, chance of concoction, fabrication after due deliberation is ruled out. It is well settled law that mere delay in lodging F.I.R. in a case of rape is not an unusual feature. Often it is inherent. Delay stood explained from the conduct of the victim and surrounding circumstances. 14. The learned trial court has discussed all such aspects in great details in the backdrop of settled law. It is a well reasoned and well written judgment. The learned trial court has reached to an inescapable conclusion that the victim is reliable and her evidence is sufficient to attract culpability against the appellants. That being also, the cul-de-sac conclusion of this Court, the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC does not call for any interference. 15. Since the appellants have committed a serious offence like “gang rape”, the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court being the minimum, that does not call for any second opinion, particularly when there is no mitigating circumstances shown to impose sentence less than the minimum prescribed under law. However, this Court is of the view that the default sentence imposed for non-payment of fine may be reduced to one month in the peculiar facts and circumstances. However, this Court is of the view that the default sentence imposed for non-payment of fine may be reduced to one month in the peculiar facts and circumstances. Accordingly, the appellants shall undergo R.I. for a period of one month instead of three months as imposed by the trial court for non-payment of fine of Rs.3000/-. The extent of substantive sentence of imprisonment shall remain unaltered. 16. With the aforesaid modification of default sentence, both the Criminal appeals stand dismissed. L.C.R. received be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment. Appeals dismissed.