JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. All these criminal appeals have arisen out of judgment and order dated 05.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge V, Dehradun. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Though, criminal jail appeal no. 29 of 2006 has been filed by accused/appellant Mehboob Hasan from jail, which was received by this Court through Superintendant, District Jail, Dehradun, he is already an appellant in criminal appeal no. 264 of 2014, as the same has been filed on his behalf and on behalf of co-accused/appellant Sanu Ahmad @ Sonu by their counsel. 2. Above-noted criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.163 of 2012, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellants Deepak Chaudhary, Muntzir, Sanu Ahmed @ Sonu, Mehboob Hasan, Atul Trivedi and one another under Sections 342, 376(2)(g) and 323 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC). Under Section 342 IPC, all the convicts have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each; under Section 376(2)(g), they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each, and under Section 323 IPC all the convicts were sentenced to undergo one year R.I. Convict Sanu Ahmed @ Sonu has also been convicted under Section 506 IPC and has been sentenced to three years’ R.I. along with a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Remaining convicts were acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. All the convicts were acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently by the trial court. 3. Briefly put, prosecution story is that on 20.06.2012 prosecutrix lodged a report at P.S. Patel Nagar, Dehradun stating therein that she is preparing for M.B.A. One month back, she came in contact with the accused Dipesh Pandey, who sent her with the appellant Atul Trivedi saying that he will help her in finding a suitable job. Thereafter the appellant Atul Trivedi took her to Dehradun and arranged her stay in a rented house at Brahampuri. The prosecutrix alleged that she was confined in a room and time to time the accused/appellants used to come and commit rape with her and also used to beat her. Thereafter the appellant Atul Trivedi took her to Dehradun and arranged her stay in a rented house at Brahampuri. The prosecutrix alleged that she was confined in a room and time to time the accused/appellants used to come and commit rape with her and also used to beat her. She alleged that somehow she called at Helpline No.100 and narrated the entire incident. Sometimes later, she could know names of the accused persons. On the basis of report, chik F.I.R. was prepared and case crime no.121/2012 was registered against the accused/appellants in respect of offences punishable under Sections 342, 376(2)(g), 323, 506 and 120-B of IPC. On the same day i.e. on 20.06.2012, prosecutrix was medically examined by PW2 Dr. Archana Pandey, Emergency Medical Officer, District Women Hospital, Dehradun. The medical officer advised vaginal smear examination and x-ray of the prosecutrix, whereafter, supplementary report was prepared wherein it was opined that the prosecutrix is more than 18 years and no definite evidence of rape can be given. The investigation of the case was handed over to PW8 Sub Inspector Priyanka Rawat. On 21.06.2012, statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the spot and prepared the site-plan, arrested the accused persons and upon completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants in respect of offences punishable under Section 342, 376(2)(g), 323, 506 and 120-B of IPC. The case of charge-sheeted accused Joya Vishwas was separated and registered as Case no. 4350 of 2012. 4. On receipt of charge sheet, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun, committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial, after giving necessary copies to the accused persons as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. On 05.02.2013, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 376(2)(g), 342 and 323 of IPC against the accused/appellants. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Main accused Dipesh Pandey is reported to have been absconding. 5. On denial of guilt, trial begun. In order to prove its case, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Head Constable Gajpal, PW2 Dr. Archana Pandey, PW3 S.I. Yogesh Kumar, PW4 Constable Manju, PW5 Constable Anant Kumar, PW6 prosecutrix (name withheld), PW7 Shaukat Ali and PW8 S.I. Priyanka Rawat. Main accused Dipesh Pandey is reported to have been absconding. 5. On denial of guilt, trial begun. In order to prove its case, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Head Constable Gajpal, PW2 Dr. Archana Pandey, PW3 S.I. Yogesh Kumar, PW4 Constable Manju, PW5 Constable Anant Kumar, PW6 prosecutrix (name withheld), PW7 Shaukat Ali and PW8 S.I. Priyanka Rawat. 6. Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C in the form of questions, in reply to which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, accused/appellants got examined DW1 Sanjay, DW2 Constable Santosh Kumar and DW3 Aakiya. 7. The trial court, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of evidence, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as above. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Amicus Curiae has contended that the trial court has passed the impugned judgment and order without proper appraisal of evidence. It is further contended that oral evidence of the prosecutrix is not supported by the medical evidence, and the trial court has convicted the appellants only on the basis of solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and submitted that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, after proper appraisal of evidence, leaving no scope of interference by this Court. 10. Before further discussion, it would be apt to mention here that on 20.06.2012, prosecutrix was medically examined by PW2 Dr. Archana Pandey, who upon examination of the prosecutrix, found the following injuries on her body and accordingly prepared the medical report (Ext.A3) and supplementary report, which are reproduced hereunder: Medical report “One scratch healing on L forearm. Small scratch on R forearm. Superficial slight scab on L wrist. Old scars small on R middle finger and palm. Small old scar on anterior surface neck. No other mark of injury on body or private parts seen. Breast well developed Axilliary and pubic hair well developed. P/V : Vagina admits 2 finger. Vaginal smear made and sent for spermatozoa and gonococci. Adv. 1. Vaginal smear for spermatozoa & gonococci 2. UPT 3. X-ray wrist, elbow & knee joint for age estimation Supplementary report will be given after above reports Supplementary report “1. Vaginal smears are negative for spermatozoa 2. P/V : Vagina admits 2 finger. Vaginal smear made and sent for spermatozoa and gonococci. Adv. 1. Vaginal smear for spermatozoa & gonococci 2. UPT 3. X-ray wrist, elbow & knee joint for age estimation Supplementary report will be given after above reports Supplementary report “1. Vaginal smears are negative for spermatozoa 2. Urine pregnancy test is negative …… - age of prosecutrix is more than 18 years. - there is no definite evidence of rape.” 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available or record. 12. The most vital evidence in the case in hand is of the prosecutrix/victim herself. PW6 prosecutrix (name withheld) has stated that in the year 2011 she was doing M.B.A. from IIPM College, Delhi but due to death of her father, she could not complete her course. She further stated that there is no one in her family except her mother, who is also suffering from Blood cancer. She stated that she got acquainted with the accused Dipesh Pandey (non-appellant) through internet. He offered a job to her in a hotel at Lucknow. On 10.05.2012, accused Dipesh Pandey sent her railway ticket, whereafter, she went to Lucknow and reached there on 13.05.2012. Accused Dipesh Pandey met her at the railway station. He took her to Nawab Inn Hotel where she was offered Receptionist job and she was told that her monthly salary would be Rs.30,000/-. PW6 deposed that she worked there for 15 days and thereafter she refused to work, whereupon accused Dipesh Pandey offered her another job in Dehradun, but she refused to go to Dehradun, then accused Dipesh called co-accused/appellant Atul Trivedi, who took her to Nawab Inn Hotel. In the evening, accused Dipesh Pandey and Atul Trivedi took her to Dehradun in a car. She stated that Atul Trivedi and Dipesh Pandey gave her beating on the way. They reached Dehradun at 4:00 A.M. where the accused persons arranged for her stay in a house comprising of two rooms. She stated that she does not know the exact address of the house but it was near Sunrise Tailor. In that house, there was one girl named Joya. Dipesh Pandey left the house leaving the prosecutrix. In the evening, accused Deepak Chaudhary and Mehboob came and asked the prosecutrix that as her mother is suffering from blood cancer, she can earn money. In that house, there was one girl named Joya. Dipesh Pandey left the house leaving the prosecutrix. In the evening, accused Deepak Chaudhary and Mehboob came and asked the prosecutrix that as her mother is suffering from blood cancer, she can earn money. When she asked how she can earn so much money, they told that a man will come and she has to establish physical relations with him. PW6 outrightly refused to do so, whereupon the accused persons, locked her in a room without food and water. These persons used to leave Joya during night and thereafter she herself returns in the morning. PW6 further stated that the accused persons snatched her money, mobile phone and ID card. She also stated that on 20.06.2012, accused Deepak Chaudhary, Mehboob and Atul Trivedi came along with three other persons in the night. These persons were Deepak Chaudhary, Mehboob, Atul Trivedi, sonu and two others. All of them were inebriated and forcibly tried to establish physical relation with her. Accused Deepak Chaudhary, Atul Trivedi and one another (prosecutrix indicated towards a person wearing cap in the open court) stripped her and committed rape with her. She stated that accused persons left a mobile in the room, from which she dialed number 100 and informed the police that accused persons have committed rape with her. Clarifying her earlier statement, PW6 stated that out of seven persons, three persons committed rape with her. Out of said three persons, she knows the names of two and the name of the third person is not known to her, but she could recognize her by face. Rest of the persons molested and stripped her. After some time two police van came there. She saw the police van from the window. Accused Sonu placed revolver on her head and enquired whether she had made phone call to the police? On her refusal, accused Sonu went inside to inform other accused persons that police had reached there. Sonu left the door unbolt by mistake. Prosecutrix opened the door and ran towards the road near Sunrise tailors and asked for help from police. Deepak Chaudhary, Joya, Sonu, Mehboob, Atul Trivedi and others (the names of other persons were not known to her) tried to escape, but were arrested from the spot. PW6 was medically examined on the next day. PW6 recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. Deepak Chaudhary, Joya, Sonu, Mehboob, Atul Trivedi and others (the names of other persons were not known to her) tried to escape, but were arrested from the spot. PW6 was medically examined on the next day. PW6 recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. PW6 stated that she is present today for recording her statements in the court. She had come from Vardhman, West Bengal alone for said purpose. 13. In her cross-examination, PW6 stated that police enquired from her on 20.06.2012, at 12:00 noon. The enquiry was also made at the place where she was held captivity. Thereafter, PW6 was brought to the police station. Police enquired PW6 for five minutes outside the house and she told everything to the police. PW6 got scribed the FIR with the help of a policeman and appended her signatures before handing over the same to the police. PW6 stated that she had never been to Dehradun prior to the said incident. She came to Dehradun for the first time on 12.06.2012. PW6 not even once contacted her mother over phone during her stay of seven days in Dehradun, as her mobile was with the accused persons. PW6 worked as Receptionist in the hotel Nawab Inn owned by accused Dipesh Pandey for 20-25 days. She was not interested in coming to Dehradun. Dipesh was involved in immoral trafficking and also coerced PW6 to adopt said profession. Dipesh even did not pay her salary. PW6 further stated in her cross-examination that she came to Dehradun in a car with Dipesh Pandey, Atul Trivedi and one driver Gaurav. They left Lucknow at 9-10 P.M. and reached Dehradun at 4-5 A.M. She tried to raise alarm on the way, but Dipesh Pandey and Atul Trivedi gagged her. PW6 also stated that she could not move her hands and feet or beat the doors of the car, as she was sitting in between accused persons. PW6 was beaten on the way. PW6 also stated that she stayed in the house of accused Mehboob for eight days. She was held captive there. She tried to beat the door from inside many a times, but nobody came there for her rescue. Accused persons were arrested in her presence. PW6 along with police personnel went to the room where she was kept hostage after the arrest of the accused persons. She was held captive there. She tried to beat the door from inside many a times, but nobody came there for her rescue. Accused persons were arrested in her presence. PW6 along with police personnel went to the room where she was kept hostage after the arrest of the accused persons. PW6 never tried to raise an alarm, as Sonu always kept her on gun point. She could not know the reason why said facts were not scribed. PW6 again stated in her cross-examination that rape was first committed on her in Mehboob’s room. Atul Trivedi, Deepak Chaudhary, Mehboob, Sanu accompanied with two other persons were present there. She does not know the name of these two persons, but they are present in the court. A lady called Joya was also with them. PW6 further stated that Atul Trivedi, Deepak Chaudhary and, on seeing the other accused present in the court, that these people committed rape with her. On being asked, the accused disclosed his name as Javed. In her cross-examination, PW6 stated that all these persons have not committed rape with her in a single day, but did so in 2-3 days. Victim denied the suggestion that she had not mentioned date, time and place of incident in the report, as the said incident never occurred. Victim stated that she did not disclose the time and date of incident to the Investigating Officer, she had only disclosed the place of incident. The statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of PW6 (victim) were recorded on 21.06.2012. Victim stated that she had disclosed the names of the rapists in her statement under Section 164 to the Magistrate, but did not disclose the time and date. Victim had also not disclosed the place where the rape was first committed on her in her statements under Section 164. Victim stated that if the same is not written in her statement under Section 164, she could not tell the reason for that as she was very upset and frustrated on that day. Victim stated that it is true that she does not know the names of all the accused. Victim also stated that on the day of arrest of the accused persons, none of the accused committed rape with her. Victim stated that it is true that she does not know the names of all the accused. Victim also stated that on the day of arrest of the accused persons, none of the accused committed rape with her. Victim further stated that rape was committed on her on 19.06.2012 and her medical was conducted on 20.06.2012 at 10-11 A.M. Lastly, victim stated in her cross-examination that she has no case pending against her anywhere in India. Victim denied the fact that she is levelling false allegations against the accused. 14. Victim was cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused Sanu Ahmad and Muntzir, wherein she stated that in the report (Ext.A7) scribed by her there is no mention of any date and time. Undergarments of the victim were seized after rape. On being asked by the learned defence counsel about the name of the company of bra and panty, victim told that her panty was of Jockey company and she did not know the make of the company of bra. Victim expressed her inability to disclose the colour of bra and panty, but then told that bra must have been of pink colour. She could not disclose the colour of the panty. Victim further stated in her cross-examination that she had seen the persons who committed rape on her on that day and had seen them today in the court also. Victim also stated that test identification of the accused persons was conducted by the police in the police station in her presence. One girl and six boys were present for the test identification parade. The T.I.P. was got conducted at 01:00 A.M. on 20.06.2012. PW6 was cross-examined at length, but nothing has come in her cross-examination to suggest the falsity of her evidence. 15. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.A8) before the Magistrate on 21.06.2012, PW6 (victim) stated that Dipesh and Gaurav committed rape with her, when she expressed her inability to continue the job in Hotel Nawab Inn, Lucknow, owned by Dipesh Pandey. On the same night, Dipesh Pandey, Gaurav and Atul Trivedi forcibly took her to Dronpuri, Dehradun. There she was kept in the house of Deepak Chaudhary. Three persons were already present there. The names of all these persons are fake. After dropping her, Dipesh and Gaurav returned back in the car. On the same night, Dipesh Pandey, Gaurav and Atul Trivedi forcibly took her to Dronpuri, Dehradun. There she was kept in the house of Deepak Chaudhary. Three persons were already present there. The names of all these persons are fake. After dropping her, Dipesh and Gaurav returned back in the car. Thereafter, Javed, Sonu, Mumtej, Kamal and Deepak committed rape on the victim. They held her captive there. After 10-15 days, a girl named Joya came there. When victim asked her for help, she told that she is doing this work on her own will and had got license for the same. On 04.06.2012, the accused persons changed the room and came to Brahampuri. Two-three people used to came there daily for doing paid sex. Deepak Chaudhary used to keep the money. On 19.06.2012, in the night, Deepak Chaudhary, Javed, Sonu, Mumtej, Kamal, Atul Trivedi @ Noor took drinks. They left their mobile in the room and went to sleep in the adjoining room. Mumtej and Sonu were with the victim. Victim dialed number 100 from the washroom, secretly. Victim disclosed the address of the place as Sunrise Tailors, Brahampuri, which she somehow managed to peep through the gap of the main gate earlier. Police reached there shortly and arrested the accused persons. The gate was unlocked by Kamal on being asked by the landlord. Deepak used to threaten the victim at gun point that if she dare to step outside she would be killed. Somehow, the victim made a phone call to the police and the police rescued her from there. 16. PW1 Constable Gajpal is a formal witness. He has proved the Chik F.I.R. (Ext.A1) and G.D. entry (Ext.A2). 17. PW2 Dr. Archana Pandey is the medical officer who had conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix. In her deposition, she has reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the medical report which are not being repeated here for sake of brevity. 18. PW3 Sub Inspector Yogesh Kumar has stated that on the relevant date he was on patrolling duty. He received information from police station that he has to conduct a raid. After receiving this information, when he reached at the police station, PW8 S.I. Priyanka Rawat was present there, who told him that incident of rape has taken place with a victim. He received information from police station that he has to conduct a raid. After receiving this information, when he reached at the police station, PW8 S.I. Priyanka Rawat was present there, who told him that incident of rape has taken place with a victim. Thereafter, he alongwith S.I. Priyanka Rawat and the police party proceeded for the place of incident and met the prosecutrix. She took the police party to the exact place of incident, where the accused persons were standing. Policy party arrested them and prepared the arrest memo. This witness was cross-examined, but nothing has come in his cross-examination to the rescue of accused persons. 19. PW4 Constable Manju Singh has stated that as per the instructions of Investigating Officer, she had taken the undergarments of the prosecutrix into her possession and the I.O. had sealed them and had prepared the specimen of seal. This witness has proved Ext.A6. 20. PW5 Constable Anand Kumar was with PW 3 Sub Inspector Yogesh Kumar at the relevant date and time. He has corroborated the statement of PW 3 S.I. Yogesh Kumar. 21. PW7 Shaukat Ali has stated that the house is of his relative who is residing in Rajasthan. When the house was being constructed, accused Javed and Muntazir came and asked him to give this house on rent as they are in urgent need. They told that they will shift in the house during construction. He further deposed that accused Sanu, Muntazir and Mehboob had come on 09.6.2012. Initially they had come with their sister, who stayed in the house for 4-5 days, thereafter she went away. Thereafter, on 12.6.2012, accused Mehboob came with the prosecutrix, who told him that her father has died and she has come here in search of job. Accused persons had taken two rooms on rent, where the prosecutrix was residing with them. In his cross-examination, PW7 stated that the house belongs to his brother-in-law (sadhu). He had got constructed the said house. PW7 also identified accused Javed by name, who was present in court at the time of his cross-examination. The name so disclosed by PW7 was found to be true on being asked by the court. On being asked by the defence, PW7 clearly mentioned that police arrested all the accused persons from inside the house. PW7 was cross-examined at length, but nothing adverse has come in his cross-examination. 22. The name so disclosed by PW7 was found to be true on being asked by the court. On being asked by the defence, PW7 clearly mentioned that police arrested all the accused persons from inside the house. PW7 was cross-examined at length, but nothing adverse has come in his cross-examination. 22. PW8 S.I. Priyanka Rawat is the Investigating Officer of the case. She has stated that during the course of investigation, she has recorded the statement of witnesses; arrested the accused persons; inspected the place of incident and prepared the site-plan, taken into possession undergarments of the prosecutrix, got conducted medical examination of the prosecutrix, and also got recorded statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW8 was cross-examined at great length on behalf of the defence. Statement of this witness is reliable and trustworthy. Nothing has come out from her cross-examination which shakes her testimony. 23. In defence, DW1 Sanjay, DW2 Constable Santosh Kumar and DW3 Aakia, mother of accused/appellant Muntzir were got examined. In his examination-in-chief, DW1 stated that accused Javed (non-appellant) used to work in his shop. Javed worked for 10-15 days in his shop and left the job before 20.06.2012. On being asked by learned D.G.C. in cross-examination, DW1 stated that Javed had stopped working 5-6 days prior to 20.06.2012. DW2 stated in his examination-in-chief that he went to Lucknow for enquiry about accused Dipesh Pandey, on being asked by the Investigating Officer. This witness stated that he had taken the record of Dipesh Pandey from the hotel in his possession and handed over the same to the Investigating officer. He also stated that Dipesh Pandey visited the hotel with the victim. DW2 stated that he handed over the photocopies of Driving License and PAN card of Dipesh Pandey to the Investigating Officer. DW2 further stated that the victim did not work in Hotel Nawab Inn and he was unable to find any record in this regard. This witness was not cross-examined, despite opportunity being given to D.G.C. DW3 stated in her examination-in-chief that Muntzir is her son. She visited Muntzir on 19.06.2012. Police took Muntzir on 20.06.2012 on the pretext of conducting some enquiry from him. DW3 further stated that his son has been falsely implicated by the police. On being cross examined, DW3 stated that Muntzir used to do the work of making furniture (carpenter). She visited Muntzir on 19.06.2012. Police took Muntzir on 20.06.2012 on the pretext of conducting some enquiry from him. DW3 further stated that his son has been falsely implicated by the police. On being cross examined, DW3 stated that Muntzir used to do the work of making furniture (carpenter). When DW3 visited Muntzir, he was alone in Brahampuri. She does not know about the owner of the house. DW3 stated that she is acquainted with PW7 Shaukat. He is a hawker. Her son took the house two or three months back. She visited the house ten times. She stated that the landlord used to stay on the upper floor. 24. Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants Sanu Ahmad @ Sonu and Mahboob Hassan @ Kamal argued that the First Information Report is delayed as there is no mention of date and time of occurrence and appellants have been falsely implicated in the crime. However, on going through the evidence on record, I found that there is sufficient explanation for delay in lodging the FIR as it has come in the evidence of PW6 (victim) that the accused-applicants kept her in confinement for many days and committed rape on her. Victim lodged the FIR, as soon as she succeeded in freeing herself from the captivity of the accused/appellants with the help of the police. It is true that there can be no compromise on basic legal principles, but, unnecessary weightage should not be given to minor errors or lapses. If courts gets carried away by every mistake or lapse of the investigating agency, the guilty will have a field day. The submission relating to alleged discrepancy in timing and date of the occurrence does not help the accused/appellants in any way. The argument advanced on behalf of appellants that they were falsely implicated in the crime also does not help them as the victim hails from West Bengal and she was brought from Lucknow against her wishes. Why will the victim implicate the accused/appellants in a false case when she had no enmity with them and she is also not a resident of Dehradun. It is pertinent to mention here that a woman will never stoop too low so as to implicate someone in a false rape case when her own reputation is at stake. Why will the victim implicate the accused/appellants in a false case when she had no enmity with them and she is also not a resident of Dehradun. It is pertinent to mention here that a woman will never stoop too low so as to implicate someone in a false rape case when her own reputation is at stake. Thus, it can safely be said that the evidence adduced by the victim is trustworthy and inspire confidence in the prosecution story. Further more, if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the Court is entitled to base a conviction of her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality on the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 25. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) appearing on behalf of appellant Deepak Chaudhary made a submission that no test identification parade of any of the accused/appellant was conducted before the Magistrate. In the opinion of this Court, there was no requirement of conducting test identification parade in the case in hand because the victim had addressed accused-appellants Deepak Chaudhary, Mehboob Hasan, Atul Trivedi and Sanu Ahmad @ Sonu by name. Victim also stated in her evidence that the names of two other accused are not known to her, but they were arrested before the victim. Moreover, the victim identified these two accused in the court. It has also come in the evidence of the victim that she is unable to write Hindi and she had not written the report herself. The report was got scribed by the help of some police personnel and the victim identified all the accused persons at the time of their arrest. The victim identified two of the accused, namely Muntazir Ahmad and Javed Ali in the court. 26. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/appellants kept the prosecutrix/victim under wrongful confinement, committed gang rape on her and voluntarily caused hurt to the victim. This Court is in complete agreement with the learned trial court that the charge of offences punishable under Sections 342, 376(2)(g) and 323 IPC are proved on the record as against all the accused/appellants. This Court is in complete agreement with the learned trial court that the charge of offences punishable under Sections 342, 376(2)(g) and 323 IPC are proved on the record as against all the accused/appellants. The same is also true in respect of the charge of offence punishable under Section 506 IPC against the accused/appellant Sanu Ahmed @ Sonu. The testimony of the witnesses is natural and reliable. There are no material contradictions in their statements which create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution story. It is settled law by a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy or credence and reliable and for that no corroboration is required. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused/appellants is just, proper and legal, in the above circumstances of the case. Therefore, all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 27. All the appeals are hereby dismissed. The accused-appellants are in jail. The Registry of this Court is directed to send the lower court record back to the trial court to make the accused/appellants serve out the sentence awarded against them.