JUDGMENT : All the aforesaid appeals, since arising out of the common judgment and order, were heard together and are being disposed of by this Common judgment and order. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction dated 12.6.2013 and order of sentence dated 25.6.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2012 (arising out of a case registered as FIR Case No.32(3)2012 BPR P.S.) whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting all the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 3(I)(II) and (XII) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, did find the appellant, L. Rojit Singh, guilty of the offences punishable u/s 324/367/392 and 376 of the IPC and also u/s 25(I-C) of the Arms Act whereas other appellants namely Chungkham Ibomcha Singh, Salam Bijen Singh and Kshetrimayum Kennedy were found guilty for the offences punishable u/s 367/376/392 read with Section 34 of the IPC and accordingly convicted them. Further, the court vide its order dated 15.6.2013 sentenced each of the appellants for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) of IPC with a default clause to undergo imprisonment for six months and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default for 6 month for each of the offences punishable u/s 367 and 392 of the IPC. The appellant, L. Rojit Singh, was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000 with a default clause to undergo imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable u/s 324 of the IPC and further for imprisonment of 3 years for the offence punishable u/s 25(I-C) of the Arms Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution as is emerging out from the evidences of PW-1 Sathailung Kamei, PW.2 Thingbaijam Munal Singh, the victim PW-3 and PW-6 Saikhom Munal Singh, is that on 21.3.2012 at 7.30 AM PW 1 Sathailung Kamei, a Driver left Leimatak village with the truck owned by Munal (PW-2) of Irom Meijrao loaded with timbers to come to his place. He was being accompanied by his co-driver Bangsina Pamei and his sister in-law, the victim(P.W.3) who was carrying three bags of U-morok over the truck to be delivered to said Munal Singh, PW-2. He was being accompanied by his co-driver Bangsina Pamei and his sister in-law, the victim(P.W.3) who was carrying three bags of U-morok over the truck to be delivered to said Munal Singh, PW-2. At 10 AM they reached at a place known as Chingning Khun. They, by leaving the truck there, proceeded to village Thanil Khun, a place of the sister in-law of PW-1. There, they remained upto 9 PM. They came back to the same place where they had left the truck. There they met with Munal Singh, (PW-6) driver of another truck who was trying to change the deflated tyre of his truck. PW-1 helped him out. Thereafter, they left the place at 1 AM on 22.3.1992 along with three other trucks. Truck driven by Munal Singh, PW-6, was ahead of all of them. After going to some distance, he stopped the truck near a Petrol Pump for getting fuel. With the contribution made by other three drivers, Munal Singh was able to get fuel for his truck. Meanwhile, one Santro Car reached there. Two persons got down from it. One was having stick and fire arm. He asked them as to how much money they have paid to Forest Department. When they said that they have not paid, the accused (Rojit Singh) started assaulting PW1 as well as Munal Singh, PW-6. He even took out his fire arms and threatened them to kill. The accused (Ibomcha Singh) forcibly took Rs.4000/- from PW-1 from whom, he also took a mobile and Mobile and also other drivers. Meanwhile, accused Rojit Singh boarded on the truck and started searching something. In that course, he saw PW-3, sister in-law of PW-1, sitting on the truck to whom he asked to get down. Thereupon, the accused, Rojit Singh, asked from PW 1 as to who she was (PW-1). PW-1 said that she is his wife but PW 3 on being quizzed disclosed that she happens to be the sister in-law. Upon it, Rojit Singh became quite angry and started assaulting PW-1 as well as PW-3 as a result of which, PW-1 started bleeding and lost consciousness. Thereupon, Rojit asked the 2nd Driver to bring down bags of Umorok. He was wearing same type of Pant and Jacket which police personnel used to wear. The accused got the bags of Umorok loaded in their car. Thereupon, Rojit asked the 2nd Driver to bring down bags of Umorok. He was wearing same type of Pant and Jacket which police personnel used to wear. The accused got the bags of Umorok loaded in their car. The victim, PW-3, was made to sit forcibly on the lap of one person, sitting in front who was holding stick. They proceeded ahead during which he started touching her private parts. When she resisted, the accused persons sitting behind asked her to obey the command of that fellow on whose lap she was forced to sit. She again and again made requests to let her go as she is quite old and is mother of 4 children. They did not pay any heed to her request. They brought her to a place where she was made to get down from the car and then took her behind a building near a toilet. There, the accused person caught her hands and legs and raped her forcibly. Even at that time she did tell them that she is under the period of menstruation and asked them not to do anything. They told her not to bother about as it would be more pleasurable and enjoyable. They stripped off her clothes and raped her one by one. The person who first raped was the same who had stick and fire arm with him. Thereupon, she was asked to put on dress, she did it but did not get that piece of cloth which she was using on account of having menstruation. She was then made to sit in the vehicle and then started moving ahead. She suspected that now she would be killed and therefore she almost became unconscious. However, when she came to full sense, she could hear accused talking themselves that they have reached Mayang Imphal. There the accused persons pushed her down over the flank of the road where bunches of bamboos were there. Since she was not knowing anyone of that place, she became frightened and became unconscious. Fortunately, when she regained consciousness she saw a headlight of a vehicle coming towards her. The driver, seeing her, stopped the car and then it was found that it was PW-1 who was there with the vehicle. They immediately picked her up and also two bags of Umorok which had been dumped by the accused persons there. 4. Fortunately, when she regained consciousness she saw a headlight of a vehicle coming towards her. The driver, seeing her, stopped the car and then it was found that it was PW-1 who was there with the vehicle. They immediately picked her up and also two bags of Umorok which had been dumped by the accused persons there. 4. Before PW-1 came over there, he, as has been stated above, had lost consciousness upon being assaulted by the accused person. When he regained consciousness, he was told by the co-driver about his sister in law (PW-3) being taken by the accused person. He immediately proceeded to Irom Meijrao, place of his owner, Munal Singh. On the way when he found CDO, BPR, he reported him about the incidence but they advised him to report to Nambol Police station. When he reached there, he came to know that matter has been reported and then he proceeded to the place of his owner, Munal Singh (PW-2) and in the way he found his sister in-law (P.W.3) on the road side to whom he picked up and then proceeded to the house of Munal Singh (PW-2). When they came to the house of Munal Singh, the victim had had altercation with PW 1 as she told him that he was he who told lie to them and therefore all that happened. Meanwhile, driver Munal Singh, PW-6, reached there and informed them that he has reported the matter to Nambol PS. Thereupon, PW-1 took his sister in-law to Nambol PS. PW-2 and PW-6 also proceeded to the police station. In the way they met Bimol Singh, the owner of the truck which was being driven by Munal Singh, PW-6. He informed them to go to the Bishnupur P.S. Thereafter, PW-1 took his sister in-law, PW-3 to the Police station where PW-2 and 6 also came. There the victim and other persons were asked to wait for some time. After some time PW 3 gave statement which was reduced in writing (Ext.p/2) on the basis of which a case was registered as FIR NO.32(3)12 BPR PS u/s 326/384/376/511/34 of the IPC and also u/s 25(I-C) of the Arms Act against 3/ 4 unknown persons. 5. There the victim and other persons were asked to wait for some time. After some time PW 3 gave statement which was reduced in writing (Ext.p/2) on the basis of which a case was registered as FIR NO.32(3)12 BPR PS u/s 326/384/376/511/34 of the IPC and also u/s 25(I-C) of the Arms Act against 3/ 4 unknown persons. 5. After the victim gave statement, the Officer in-charge (PW-22) of the Police Station suspected hands of some persons, who in the previous night, had come to the quarter of SI Ningombam Tikendro, PW-4 on Santro Car. When I.O. asked about the person who had come to his residence, police disclosed the names of the persons who had dinner with him and was asked to bring them at the police station. As directed he brought Rojit Singh to the police station to whom victim saw and lost her temper by saying that he is the person who committed rape upon her. Some discrepancy appear to be here as according to the I.O. (PW-22) when they could know the names who had dinner at the residence of Tiken Singh, PW-4, he constituted a raiding party to which PW-7, PW-9, PW-11 were the members. They came to the house of accused Rojit who was present there to whom S.I. Tiken Singh (PW-4) identified. He before them as well as I.O(PW-22) confessed that after having dinner when they were returning, they found the victim to whom they picked up and committed rape one by one. He was arrested and thereupon when search was conducted in presence of PW-7, PW-5 (mother of the accused N. Rajendro Singh), one Santro Car and also one bag of Umorok were recovered which were seized under Ext.p/9. That apart, one .99 mm Pistol with magazine, under wear, T-shirt, Pant and Jacket similar to that of police dress were also seized under Ext.P/10. Thereupon, Rojit Singh was sent to Police station whereas the raiding party proceeded to the place of other accused persons where they apprehended all the 3 accused persons. On search being made the accused, S. Bijen Singh, was found in possession of a Mobile set which was seized under Seizure Memo Ext.p/11 whereas the accused Ch. Ibomcha was found in possession of Rs.2500/- which was also seized under Ext.P/12. On search being made the accused, S. Bijen Singh, was found in possession of a Mobile set which was seized under Seizure Memo Ext.p/11 whereas the accused Ch. Ibomcha was found in possession of Rs.2500/- which was also seized under Ext.P/12. After completion of the formalities relating to arrest and seizure, they were brought to Bishnupur District Hospital for medical check up and then they were brought to Police station and was kept in police lock up along with other accused, Rojit Singh. On the next day, i.e. on 23.3.2012, the I.O. took the accused person on police remand. On that day at about 11.20 all the accused persons were brought to the Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS for medical examination. On that day victim (PW - 3) was also brought to the RIMS but before she was brought to RIMS, she a day before had been taken to Dr. Gurumayum Lakshmikanta Sharma, PW 8, at District Hospital Bishnupur for medical examination. He asked the police team to take her to Forensic Medical Department, RIMS. But before that certain belongings such as one wrapper, one chuni, one full shirt, one panty, inner wearing, were produced by the victim (PW-3) which were seized under Seizure Memo (Ext.P/8/15) for sending them to Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical examination. At RIMS, the accused Rojit Singh was examined by Dr. Kh. Pradipkumar, PW - 10 who found multiple bruises on different parts of his body. However, he, in his report (Ext.P/10/20) opined that no definite opinion can be given as to whether accused performed recent sexual intercourse. However, it was opined that nothing to suspect about his potency. Similarly, 3 bruises were found on the person of the accused, Chungkham Ibomcha Singh. In his case also, the same opinion with respect to potency and recent sexual act was given under his report (Ext.PW/10/21). In case of Bijen Singh also one bruise was found on his left leg and swelling on left parital region. However, in case of Ksh. Kennedy Singh no injury was found. Similar was the opinion with respect to those accused persons which is evident from report (Ext.PW-10/22, PW10/10/23 respectively). In case of Bijen Singh also one bruise was found on his left leg and swelling on left parital region. However, in case of Ksh. Kennedy Singh no injury was found. Similar was the opinion with respect to those accused persons which is evident from report (Ext.PW-10/22, PW10/10/23 respectively). It be stated that the Doctor also collected different swabs from each of the accused which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its chemical examination but nothing positive was found by PW 18, Scientific Officer, posted at Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. On the same day, PW-10 also held medico legal examination upon the victim and found as follows: "There was pain during walking. Injuries: Tenderness on nape of neck, both wrists and left arm, (ii) Abraded contusion on medial aspect of right thigh, 19 cm. Above knee joint, 3.5 cm to 1.5 cm, red. On genital examination pubic hair was 4 to 5 cm. Black. There was redness and tenderness on medial aspect of both side of labia-minoris. There was also redness and tenderness on four chettee and posterior commissure, there was multiple old tears present on the hymen, the vaginal canal admit three finger." Accordingly the Doctor submitted his report, Ext. P/4. Urethra and vaginal swabs which were collected, were handed over to the I.O. for its chemical examination by Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL for short). Apart from these materials, one panty, inner wear, full shirt and chuni were also sent before the FSL. The chemical examinations of it were done by PW-18. On examination seminal stain could be detected on the panty (S7 laboratory mark), one inner wear (S8 laboratory mark) also on Urethra Swab (S9 laboratory mark) as well as vaginal swab (S10 Laboratory mark). However, it was reported that stains were insufficient and contaminous to further establish blood group. 7. The I.O., PW 22, conducted spot verification at Pump House at Khwairakpam which was identified by the victim as the place where the accused had assaulted her and PW-1. Accordingly, sketch map was drawn. Thereupon, they proceeded to Kakuai village and reached Primary school, backyard of it was identified by the victim as the place where rape had been committed. There multi coloured cloth was found which was seized in presence of witnesses. On 28.3.2012 the I.O., PW/22 was asked to hand over investigation to an officer to the rank of Dy. Thereupon, they proceeded to Kakuai village and reached Primary school, backyard of it was identified by the victim as the place where rape had been committed. There multi coloured cloth was found which was seized in presence of witnesses. On 28.3.2012 the I.O., PW/22 was asked to hand over investigation to an officer to the rank of Dy. SP as there appears to be commission of offence under the ST & SC(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, investigation was taken over by Maibam Rameswar Singh, PW 24, who got the statement of the victim and PW/1, recorded u/s 164 CrPC by PW 25. He also got T.I. parade of the accused persons held by PW 26. According to PW/26, the victim identified all the four accused persons and accordingly PW-26 prepared a TI chart (Ext.P/7). The second I.O. also got TI parade of the vehicle held during which victim identified the vehicle. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. u/s 324/392/376/34 of the IPC and also u/s 25(I-C) of the Arms Act as well as u/s 3(I)(II) (XI) ST & SC (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. On submission of the charge sheet, the Court took cognizance of the offences against the accused persons. When the case was committed to the court of sessions, all the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable u/s 324/367/376/392/34 of the IPC and also u/s 3(I)(II) (XI) ST & SC (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. Apart from that, accused Rojit Singh was also charged u/s 25 (I-C) of the Arms Act. 8. Thereupon the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether 27 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution case, when the accused persons were questioned u/s 313 of the Cr.PC over the incriminating evidence appearing against them, they simply denied it. No specific plea relating to their defence has been taken. 9. Thereafter, learned trial court, having placed its implicit reliance on the witnesses particularly the victim (PW - 3) getting corroboration from medical evidence and also from objective finding and also from other circumstances such as recovery of incriminating material, from the possession of accused persons recorded the order of conviction which reads as follows : "90. 9. Thereafter, learned trial court, having placed its implicit reliance on the witnesses particularly the victim (PW - 3) getting corroboration from medical evidence and also from objective finding and also from other circumstances such as recovery of incriminating material, from the possession of accused persons recorded the order of conviction which reads as follows : "90. In the conclusion, the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that accused L. Rojit Singh committed the offence under section 324,367,367,392 IPC and under section 25(I-C) Arms Act and also commission of the offence under section 367,376 and 392 read with section 34 IPC by the three co accused persons namely Chungkham Ibomcha Singh, Salam Bijen Singh and Kshetrimayum Kennedy Singh. 91. However, commission of the offence under section 3(1)(ii & xii) SC ^ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the accused persons is not proved as there is no evidence of the accused persons using their position of not being a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and using that position to exploit the prosecutrix sexually. 92. Accordingly accused L. Rojit Singh is convicted of the offence under section 367,376 and 392 IPC and under section 25(I-C) Arms Act and the other co-accused persons namely Chungkham Ibomcha Singh, Salam Bijen Singh and Kshetrimayum Kennedy Singh are also convicted of the offence under section 367,376 and 392 read with section 34 IPC." 10. It would be significant to note that though the conviction was recorded u/s 376 simpliciter beside other offence against the convict, Rojit Singh, whereas other convicts were convicted u/s 376/34 IPC beside other offences they were sentenced for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. 11. The appellants, being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, have preferred these appeals. 12. Mr. N. Kumarjit Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants, Kh. Kennedy, Ch. Ibomcha and learned counsel Mr. S. Lakhikanta, appearing for the accused, Rojit Singh and Bijen Singh, would submit that the testimony of the victim, PW 3 is full of discrepancies, contradictions and also embellishment and thereby she cannot be taken to be a fully trustworthy witness and hence her evidence is never worth of evidence. Kennedy, Ch. Ibomcha and learned counsel Mr. S. Lakhikanta, appearing for the accused, Rojit Singh and Bijen Singh, would submit that the testimony of the victim, PW 3 is full of discrepancies, contradictions and also embellishment and thereby she cannot be taken to be a fully trustworthy witness and hence her evidence is never worth of evidence. By elaborating this point the learned counsel submits that the victim, PW3, in her original Ezahar(Ext.P/2) had disclosed that only one of the accused committed rape upon her whereas she, in her statement made u/s 164(Ext.5) and also in her evidence, has attributed allegations about she being raped by all the appellants and this fact alone is sufficient to discard the testimony of the victim. Not only that even before the Doctor, PW 10, who had examined her, the victim had stated that she was raped by one whereas the other accused person did molest her which is evident from the report, Ext.P/4 of PW.10. Even the I.O., PW-22 and PW 11 have testified that when the victim came to police station, they disclosed to them that she was raped by only one person. Mr. Kumarjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, other than Rojit, submits that on scrutiny of the evidences, it would appear that only appellant, Rojit, committed rape upon the victim and thereby the Court committed illegality convicting the appellants other than the appellant Rojit Singh and hence impugned judgment and order is fit to be set aside so far as the appellants other than Rojit Singh is concerned. Further submission, which was advanced on behalf of all the appellants, is that the I.O. during investigation did take various swabs from each of the appellants which were chemically examined by the Scientific Officer, PW-18 but no stain or foreign body was found and thereby indulgence of the appellant in sexual act gets ruled out. In furtherance to this submission, it was further submitted that according to PW-18, some seminal stain was detected from some of the apparel of the victim but in absence of any DNA profile being done, either from blood samples or from swab (either of the victim or the accused persons) prosecution can not be said to have proved culpability of the appellant even if seminal stain was detected from the apparel of the victim. All these facts were never considered by the learned Sessions Judge, while recording judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the right perspective and thereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel, in support of their submission that in case of gang rape the Court should place its reliance on the evidence of prosecutrix only when it happens to be a sterling quality, have referred to decisions rendered in case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 , Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011)77 SCC 130, Mohd. Ali @ Guddu v. State of U.P. (2015)7 SCC 272 , Narendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012)7 SCC 171 , Narayan @ Naren v. State of Rajasthan: (2007) 6 SCC 465 , Vimal Suresh Kambleg v. Chaluvera Pinake appal SP & 2 Ors (2003) 3 SCC 175 . 13. As against this, Mr. Y.Ashang, learned PP(HC) appearing for the State submits that as per the case of the prosecution while the victim was coming to Irom Meijrao on a trucks being driven by Santhalun Kamei,PW1 in a group of other trucks, the other truck going ahead which was being driven by PW2, was stopped on account of petrol being exhausted so that he may get petrol filled in the truck. At that point of time, a Santro Car arrived there and from it 2 persons got down who first assaulted the victim and also the PW.1 and took away the victim forcibly by their Car. Before that they did snatch mobile and money from truck drivers, PW-1, PW- 6 and also from PW-3. They also took away 3 bags of Umorok. This accusation gets proved form the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 as they are quite consistent on that point. Further case is that the victim was raped by the accused person which gets proved from the evidence of PW-3 getting corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-10 who had examined the victim and found the evidence being there of recent sexual intercourse. Not only that the testimony of PW-3 gets corroboration from other number of circumstances and thereby trial court was absolutely justified in recording judgment of conviction and order of sentence which in the facts and circumstances never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 14. Not only that the testimony of PW-3 gets corroboration from other number of circumstances and thereby trial court was absolutely justified in recording judgment of conviction and order of sentence which in the facts and circumstances never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 14. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that as per the case of the prosecution, as has been testified by PWs-1, 2, 3. PW-1, Santhalun Kamei, the driver left his village on 21.3.2012 with its truck loaded with timber for bringing to the place of the owner of the Truck, Munal Singh (PW-2). On the truck the victim was carrying 3 bags of Umorok (a kind of chilli) for bringing it to said Munal Singh. At 10 AM they reached Ching Khun where they having left the truck there came to a village to see some relatives. When they came back to that place, they found Munal Singh, PW 2 changing the deflated tyre of his truck. They left the place at about 1 AM on 22.3.1992 along with three other trucks. Of them, the truck which was being driven by Munal, PW.2, was ahead of all other trucks. He stopped the truck near a petrol Pump to get petrol filled. At that point of time one Santro Car arrived at. Two persons got down from it. One of them was having fire-arms. They snatched mobile of other drivers as well as a sum of Rs.4000/- and Rs.2500 from PW-1 and PW-3 respectively. Meanwhile, appellant, Rojit Singh, boarded on the truck and started searching something. In that course, he found the victim sitting on the truck and asked her to get down. When she got down, the appellant, Rojit, asked Santhalung Kamei, PW-1, as to who she is. He replied that she is his wife but when Rojit asked from the victim about the relationship, she disclosed that she happens to be his sister in-law and then Rojit started assaulting PW- 1 and the victim as a result of which PW-1 started bleeding and lost consciousness. He replied that she is his wife but when Rojit asked from the victim about the relationship, she disclosed that she happens to be his sister in-law and then Rojit started assaulting PW- 1 and the victim as a result of which PW-1 started bleeding and lost consciousness. Thereupon, as per the testimony of PW-3, they got all the three bags of umorok unloaded form Truck and got it loaded in car and then all the appellants made PW-3 to sit on the lap of one person on the front seat of the car and then they started proceeded ahead during which course the person on whose lap she was made to sit, started touching her private parts to which PW-3 resisted but the person sitting behind her asked her to obey the command of the said accused. They asked her to do on the point of Revolver. The victim even made request to them to let her go as she was quite old and is mother of 4 children but the accused persons did not show any mercy, rather they took her to a place and got the vehicle stopped and all of them took her behind a building where they committed rape one by one. Even though she told them that she is under the period of menstruation. Before she was raped, the accused persons had made her naked. After the appellants committed rape, they asked to put on her clothes which she did but did not find a piece of cloth which she was using on account of having menstruation and as such it remained there. The appellants got her boarded on the car and brought to a place where she was thrown out of the car and they also dropped two bags of Umorok there. Meanwhile, PW-1 after regaining consciousness started from the place where he had been assaulted. In that course while he was passing through the place for coming to the home of Munal Singh (PW-2), he found PW-3 on the road to whom he picked up and brought to the place of PW-2. 15. After the appellants had taken the victim along with them, PW- 2 left the place and came to Nambol PS to inform about the incidence but the Nambol PS told him to report to the Bishnupur PS. 15. After the appellants had taken the victim along with them, PW- 2 left the place and came to Nambol PS to inform about the incidence but the Nambol PS told him to report to the Bishnupur PS. Thereupon, he came to village of his owner, Bimol Singh at about 4 P.M. to whom he told about the incidence. Bimol Singh asked him to go to the house of Munal. When he came there, he found PW 1 as well as PW-3 there. Thereafter, all of them, i.e. PWs-1,2,3 and 6 left the village for coming to the place of Bimol Singh who was found on the way and asked them to go to Bishnupur police. Accordingly, they came there and PW-3 gave statement which was reduced in writing, Ext. P/2. 16. It is also the case that after the PW 3 gave statement, she as well as other witnesses were asked to be there and it is said that one accused was brought to the police station to whom when the victim saw she became quite enraged and disclosed that he is the person who committed rape upon her. Here, some discrepancies seem to be there as according to PW-3 and also PW4, Rojit Singh was brought to P.S. at about 4 pm, but according to PW 22, the I.O., when he got information from PW-4, that appellants had dinner at his quarter on the night of the occurrence and had come with the Santro Car, raided the place of Rojit Singh and arrested him. This discrepancy being not on material point will have hardly any adverse impact on the case of the prosecution. 17. Be that as it may, the I.O., PW 22 after arresting the appellant, Rojit, seized the Santro Car (Ext.MO-7) as well as 1 bag of Umorok (Ext.P/5- 9). Further he seized a pistol (Ext.MO-8), Jacket (MO-13), Pant(MO 11) under Ext. PW/5/10. The I.O. also arrested the other three appellants and from the possession of the appellant, Bijen Singh, mobile was recovered which was seized under Ext. PW-7/11 and a sum of Rs.2500 was recovered from the possession of Ibomcha Singh which was seized under Ext. PW 7/12. Thereupon, the I.O. proceeded to make inspection of the place of occurrence accompanied by victim and other police personnel. PW-7/11 and a sum of Rs.2500 was recovered from the possession of Ibomcha Singh which was seized under Ext. PW 7/12. Thereupon, the I.O. proceeded to make inspection of the place of occurrence accompanied by victim and other police personnel. The victim did identify the place from where she had been picked up and also the place where she had been raped from where a piece of cloth was seized. The victim, for the medical examination, was first taken to one Dr. Gurumayum Lakshmikanta Sharma, PW 8 who referred the case to RIMS. However, in his presence chuni, full shirt, Panty and inner wear were seized on being produced by the victim. 18. Thereupon, the victim was brought before the doctor, PW-10, who, on examining the victim, did notice the injuries as under:- "Tenderness on nape of neck, both wrists and left arm, (ii) Abraded contusion on medial aspect of right thigh, 19 cm, above knee joint, 3.5 to 1.5 cm, red. On genital examination pubic hair was 4 to 5 cm black. There was redness and tenderness on medial aspect of both side of labia-minor-as. There was redness and tenderness on fourchette and posterior commissure, there was multiple old tears present on the hymen, the vaginal canal admit three fingers..." The Doctor, PW-10, upon such finding, did opine that there is evidence of recent sexual intercourse and is accustomed to sexual intercourse, sign of use of force present and there was no presence of sexually transmitted disease. Accordingly, the Doctor issued the Injury Report(Ext. P/4). Further, we do find that PW-18, Scientific Officer of FSL, Pangei when did make chemical examination of the apparel of the victim such as Panty, inner wear, also Urethra as well as vaginal swab seminal stain could be detected but it were so insufficient and contaminated that it was difficult to establish blood group. 19. P/4). Further, we do find that PW-18, Scientific Officer of FSL, Pangei when did make chemical examination of the apparel of the victim such as Panty, inner wear, also Urethra as well as vaginal swab seminal stain could be detected but it were so insufficient and contaminated that it was difficult to establish blood group. 19. Thus, we do find that the testimony of PW-3, the victim gets corroboration not only by the medical evidence but also by the objective finding of the place of occurrence from where piece of cloth (meant to be used during menstruation) was recovered and further from the possession of one of the appellants Rojit Singh one bag of Umorok and also Santo Car were also recovered which Car was identified by the PW-3 in T.I. Parade and that she even identified the accused person during test identification parade and thereby there appears to be no reason not to place reliance on her testimony that she was assaulted, robbed of her bag of Umorok and was kidnapped by the appellant which facts also get corroboration from the testimony of PWs-1, 2 and 6. 20. However, the question which arises is as to whether it was the Rojit only who raped her or it were also the other appellants who too committed rape upon her? 21. It be reiterated that as per the evidence of PW-3, it were all the appellants who committed rape upon her but the initial statement made by the victim on the basis of which O.E.(Ext.P/2) was drawn shows that it was only one accused, who later on was identified as Rojit, committed rape. Not only the victim had made such statement in her O.E., she seems to have stated such fact before the Dr. PW/10, who in his report, has also recorded when it was narrated by the victim. In such circumstances, we are unable to accept the version of the prosecutrix that all the appellants committed rape upon her, rather what emerges from the evidence of PW-3 and other circumstances is that it was Rojit who committed rape. But the question again thus arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, rest of the appellants deserve to be absolved from the accusation of rape? But the question again thus arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, rest of the appellants deserve to be absolved from the accusation of rape? In order to have answer, we need to refer to the provision as contained in Section 376 of the IPC which runs as under: "376. Punishment for rape.-(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section(2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own fie and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years. (2) Whoever- (a) being a police officer commits rape- (i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which he is appointed; or (iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or (b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him; or (c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law for the time being in force or if a women's or children's institution takes advantage of his official position ad commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution; or (d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (e) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or (f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or (g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. Explanation 1.- Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of this sub-section. Explanation 2. - 'Women's or children's institution' means an institution, whether called an orphanage or home for neglected women or children or a widows' home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. Explanation 3. Explanation 2. - 'Women's or children's institution' means an institution, whether called an orphanage or home for neglected women or children or a widows' home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children. Explanation 3. - 'Hospital' means the precincts of the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation." 22. A plain reading of section 376 (2) (g) with explanation 1 thereto shows that where a woman is raped by one or more of a group of person acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the person shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within the meaning of Section 376(2)(g) IPC. In other words an act of gang rape has to be in furtherance of their common intention before deeming fiction of law can be enforced against the accused. Here it would be pertinent to refer to a decision rendered in a case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana: (2003) 2 SCC 143 wherein it was held that the prosecution must adduce evidence to show that more than 1 accused has acted in concert and in such an event, if rape had been committed by even one of the accused, all will be guilty irrespective of the fact that she has not been raped by all of them. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused. The provision embodies a principle of joint liability and the essence of that liability is in existence of common intention. That common intention presupposes prior concert as there must be meeting of minds which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders which is revealed during the course of action. 23. Thus, the essence for fixing joint liability is the common intention which could be determined from the conduct of the offenders. That common intention presupposes prior concert as there must be meeting of minds which may be determined from the conduct of the offenders which is revealed during the course of action. 23. Thus, the essence for fixing joint liability is the common intention which could be determined from the conduct of the offenders. Coming to the fact of the case, it be recorded, as has been noticed above, that a Santro Car when came near the petrol pump, 2 persons got down, one of them assaulted the victim as well as the PW-1 and then as per the testimony of PW-3 all the persons made her to sit forcibly on the lap of one accused sitting on the front seat. That fellow (identified as Rojit Singh) started touching the private parts of the victim to which she made resistance but the other appellants sitting behind(all identified in course of T.I. parade) asked PW-3 on the point of Revolver to obey the command of that fellow, though she made appeal to them not to do anything as she is quite old and is mother of 4 children, but none sitting in the Car had mercy on her so as to ask the other colleague to leave her. Rather, all of them took her to a place behind a school and there one of the accused, Rojit Singh, committed rape. Further, it appears from the evidence of PW-3 that while she was being raped by one, other persons did catch hold of her legs and hands. After the said appellant, Rojit Singh got his lust satisfied, did drop the victim by the side of the road. All these conducts of the appellants go to establish about sharing of common intention and thereby even if the prosecution has failed to establish that all the accused persons did commit rape, the other accused person who did other acts than the act to commit actual rape would also be liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) of the IPC. 24. It be recorded that the trial court has also come to the said finding and therefore it found appellant Rojit Singh guilty for the offence u/s 376 simpliciter whereas other appellant have been found guilty for rape with the aid of section 34. 24. It be recorded that the trial court has also come to the said finding and therefore it found appellant Rojit Singh guilty for the offence u/s 376 simpliciter whereas other appellant have been found guilty for rape with the aid of section 34. Accordingly judgment of conviction was recorded but the sentence which was passed is in terms of section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. against all besides conviction and sentence for other offences. Under the circumstances we do record the conviction of all the appellants u/s 376(2)(g) instead of 376 recorded against the appellant, Rojit Singh, and 376/34 for rest of other appellants which would never be prejudicial to the appellants as the charges which were framed do have all the ingredients which attract offence u/s 376(2)(g) of the IPC. Further, we do find that in the facts and circumstances, as stated above, the trial court has rightly convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable u/s 367 and 392 of the IPC and also for the offences punishable u/s 324 of I.P.C. and 25(I-C) of the Arms Act against the appellant, Rojit Singh. 25. Coming now to the point of sentence, we do find that all the appellants have been inflicted with the life imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) of IPC. However, it be recorded that it is the only Rojit Singh, who had committed rape upon the victim whereas other three appellants in furtherance of their common intention of victim being raped did commit certain acts as enumerated above but not the act of actual rape and thereby taking into account the age of the appellants- Imocha, Bijen and Kennedy, who on the date of conviction were aged about 37, 34 and 33 respectively, deserve lesser punishment in the facts and circumstances as stated above. Accordingly end of justice would be met if they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g). Accordingly, they are sentenced beside the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial court. So far as quantum of sentence of other offences for which they were convicted is concerned, it shall remain intact. So far as appellant, Rojit Singh, is concerned, sentence awarded against him by the trial court shall remain intact and thereby it is affirmed. 26. Accordingly, they are sentenced beside the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial court. So far as quantum of sentence of other offences for which they were convicted is concerned, it shall remain intact. So far as appellant, Rojit Singh, is concerned, sentence awarded against him by the trial court shall remain intact and thereby it is affirmed. 26. Thus, Cril (Jail) Appeal No.6/13 preferred by Rojit Singh is hereby dismissed with modification of order of conviction whereas other appeals, i.e. Cril.(Jail) Appeal Nos-2, 3 and 7 of 2013 are also dismissed but with modification of the order of conviction and sentence as indicated above.