JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. The appeals are directed against judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in Sessions Case No.204 of 2012 arising out of Sessions Trial No.74 of 2012 convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellants is to the effect that on 9.3.2012 around 11.00 a.m. the victim aged about 17 years had gone out to bring back a cow which had been tethered for grazing. When she went to the spot, she could not find the cow. She proceeded further and upon coming near a canal she found the cow. While she was untying the rope of the cattle, the appellants, namely, Bablu Sarkar and Liton @ Ajabul Sarkar caught hold of her. They removed her wearing apparels and laid her in the ditch and Liton committed rape on her while Bablu hold her hands. She suffered bleeding injuries and upon returning home reported the incident to her mother. Subsequently when her father returned home, he was apprised of the incident and he lodged written complaint with the police station resulting in registration of Tapan P.S. Case No. 79 of 2012 dated 9.3.2012 under Sections 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. 3. In the course of investigation, the victim was medically treated and her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and disposal. 4. Charge was framed against the appellants under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeals. 5. Nobody appears for the appellants. 6. Ms. Amita Gaur is requested to appear as amicus curiae and assist this court. Ms. In conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeals. 5. Nobody appears for the appellants. 6. Ms. Amita Gaur is requested to appear as amicus curiae and assist this court. Ms. Gaur argued that the evidence of the victim (P.W.2) is most artificial and does not inspire confidence. The incident allegedly happened in a ditch adjoining a village, however, nobody witnessed such incident. Allegation of forcible rape is patently absurd. It is argued that the appellants particularly Liton @ Ajabul Sarkar was falsely implicated as there was an amorous relationship between him and the victim which was not liked by her parents. She also submitted that the injuries on victim are not indication of gang rape and the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal. 7. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 is natural and convincing. Her version is not only supported by her parents but also by the medical evidence of P.W.3 who found injuries on her back and blood was oozing out from her private parts. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. P.W.2 is the victim and the most vital witness in the instant case. She deposed on 9.3.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. she had gone out to bring back the cow which had been tethered on the bank of Bangkuri pond. She could not find the cow and started searching along the bank of the canal. Ultimately she found that the cow was tied to a wild tree on the bed of the canal. The canal was totally dry. She went down to the bed of the canal to untie the rope. At that time, the appellants, Liton and Bablu caught hold of her. Liton gagged her mouth and Bablu stuffed her mouth with an orna and both of them dragged her into the bed of the canal where Liton committed rape on her while Bablu held her hands. When Bablu was about to rape her she wrested herself out of the clutches of Liton and cried out loudly. Thereupon the accused persons ran away towards Sarifabad village. The place was vacant and nobody came to her rescue. Blood was oozing out from her private parts. She sustained bruises on her chest, elbow and leg. When Bablu was about to rape her she wrested herself out of the clutches of Liton and cried out loudly. Thereupon the accused persons ran away towards Sarifabad village. The place was vacant and nobody came to her rescue. Blood was oozing out from her private parts. She sustained bruises on her chest, elbow and leg. Her wearing apparels were also torn. She returned home and narrated the incident to her mother. When her father returned after offering the namaj, he was informed about the incident. Her father narrated the incident to her uncle Momiruddin. They informed the police over telephone. She was taken to Kaldighi Hospital by police. She was examined by a doctor. She put her signature on the medical report (Ext.6/1). Police came to their house and seized her wearing apparels. She identified the wearing apparels in court. She put her signature on the seizure list. She made a statement before the Judge in Balurghat Court. 9. In cross-examination, she stated that on the eastern side of the canal village Sarifabad is situated and on the western side of the canal there is village Chachlapara. She knew some of the boys of village Sarifabad but did not know their names. There is no house between the canal and her house. Her father had gone out to fetch the cow after hearing the incident. She denied the suggestion that she had a love affair with Liton who has been falsely implicated over such issue. Her deposition is corroborated by her parents, her father (P.W.1) and her mother (P.W.4). 10. P.W.1, father of the victim, deposed that he had tethered the cow by the bank of Bangkuri pond. After returning home he proceeded to the Masjid to offer namaj and informed his wife to tell their daughter to bring the cow from the bank of the pond. Accordingly, her daughter had gone to bring the cow. The canal was on the eastern side of the pond. The cow had gone into the canal. As his daughter had bent down to untie the cow, the appellants accosted his daughter. Liton gagged her mouth. They forced her on the ground. Then Liton raped her. Somehow his daughter escaped from their clutches and ran to their house. She narrated the incident to her mother. When he returned after offering namaj, he found his daughter weeping. As his daughter had bent down to untie the cow, the appellants accosted his daughter. Liton gagged her mouth. They forced her on the ground. Then Liton raped her. Somehow his daughter escaped from their clutches and ran to their house. She narrated the incident to her mother. When he returned after offering namaj, he found his daughter weeping. On enquiry, his wife narrated the incident to him. He informed the incident to the local people. He went to the police station at 5.30 p.m. Daroga Babu asked him to submit written complaint. Tathagato Mukherjee scribed the complaint as per his statement. He proved the written complaint (Ext.1). His daughter was taken to hospital. Police seized wearing apparels of his daughter and other articles under a seizure list. He signed on the seizure list (Ext. 2/1). Police seized the admit card of his daughter under seizure list. He signed thereon (Ext.3/1). He proved the admit card (Ext.4). 11. P.W.4 is the mother of the victim and has substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W.s1 and 2. 12. P.W.3 is the Medical Officer posted at Gangarampur S.D. Hospital. He examined the victim on 9.3.2012 at 9.15 p.m. The victim stated that she had been ravished by the appellants while she had gone to retrieve the cow on 9.3.2012 at about 11.00 a.m. He found multiple scratch marks and abrasions over left and right shoulder, upper back, left hand near elbow and other parts of the body. He found fresh tear of hymen at 7 O’ clock with slight bleeding. He proved his medical report. He opined that if the victim is forcibly raped on a hard substance, such injuries may be caused. 13. P.W.9 was the staff nurse who was present at the time of medical examination of the victim. She proved her signature on the medical report. 14. P.W. 8 was the lady home guard who took the victim to the medical hospital. 15. P.W.10 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 16. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer of the case who investigated the crime and submitted report. 17. From the aforesaid evidence on record, we note that version of P.W.2 with regarding to forcible rape on her by the appellants is corroborated by her parents (P.Ws.1 and 4). P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer of the case who investigated the crime and submitted report. 17. From the aforesaid evidence on record, we note that version of P.W.2 with regarding to forcible rape on her by the appellants is corroborated by her parents (P.Ws.1 and 4). Not only that P.W.3, the Medical Officer, who examined the victim soon after the incident, found multiple scratches, abrasions on her back and recent vaginal tear with bleeding. It has been argued that there is variation in the version of the incident as narrated before P.W.3. Therein the victim claimed that both the appellants had raped her. However, in her deposition she alleged that it was appellant Liton who had raped her while Bablu had held her hands. Such variation with regard to the genesis of the incident in my opinion is a minor one. Version of the victim (P.W.2) is substantially corroborated in the history of sexual assault as narrated before P.W.3 and noted in the contemporaneous medical report (Ext.3). Admit card of the victim (Ext.4) shows that she was a minor and the plea that there was a love affair between the petitioner Liton and the victim has not be probabilised by the defence. 18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants is upheld. 19. Coming to the sentence imposed on of the appellants, I note that the offence is undoubtedly a heinous one. A minor girl aged about 17 years had been subjected to gang rape. However, I also note that the appellants were in their early 20’s at the time of commission of the offence. In order to balance the gravity of the offence and the young age of the offenders, I am of the opinion that the maximum sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants may be modified and they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months more. 20. With the aforesaid modification as to sentence, both the appeals are disposed of. 21. The period of detention suffered by appellants during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. 20. With the aforesaid modification as to sentence, both the appeals are disposed of. 21. The period of detention suffered by appellants during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Ms. Gaur as amicus curiae to this Court for disposing of the appeals. 23. Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once. 24. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. : I agree.