JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi, Lakhan Saini and Bhagwan Singh were tried by the Court of Special Judge, Woman Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Jaipur, for the offence of gang rape falling within the ambit of Section 376(2)(g) IPC. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.10.2013 held all the above three accused guilty of offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Having convicted the appellants of above said offence, the trial Judge vide a separate order dated 19.10.2013 sentenced each of the appellants to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default thereof to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. Aggrieved against conviction and sentence, Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.835/2013, Lakhan Saini has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No.134/2014, whereas Bhagwan Singh has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No.44/2014. All the three appeals have been directed against the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, hence, we shall decide all the appeals together. 3. Prosecution case in the present case has been aptly summed up in the charge formulated against the accused-appellants. The charge stated that on 23.12.2011 between 3.30 to 4.20 PM in a house situated at Sector-5, Sanganer, accused performed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. 4. Prosecutrix, admittedly, is more than 18 years of age. In her deposition she has disclosed her age as 25 years. 5. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of statement (Ex.P.1) made by the prosecutrix to Subodh Kumar (PW.11) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur. 6. Prosecutrix in her statement (Ex.P.1) made to the In-charge, Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur, stated that she alongwith her husband and children were staying at Village Bambala falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sanganer. Her husband was working at a jewelry shop called Radhika Jewelers. Her husband used to leave the house at 10.00 AM. Ravi is a ladies tailor and is running a shop in the name and style of Mangesh Tailor. On the day of occurrence at 12.30 PM she had gone to a company to give pieces of cushion cover. After handing over the pieces of cushion cover, she went to Haldighati Marg. There Ravi met her as Ravi was called by her. On the day of occurrence at 12.30 PM she had gone to a company to give pieces of cushion cover. After handing over the pieces of cushion cover, she went to Haldighati Marg. There Ravi met her as Ravi was called by her. From there on his bike, she came to Sanganer Bazar and purchased some items from there. Then Ravi offered her to eat something. He took her to a house situated at Sector 5 and told her to go inside the house. She told Ravi that the place is not looking like a restaurant. Ravi told her to go inside the room. When she entered, Ravi bolted the room from inside. Inside the room, Bhagwan and Lakhan were already present there. At that stage, Ravi told her to surrender to satisfy their lust, otherwise, she will face the consequences. Saying so, Ravi started giving beating to her and gave slaps on her face. Bhagwan and Lakhan went outside the house and Ravi bolted the door from inside. Then Ravi performed wrong act with her. Thereafter Ravi opened the door and Bhagwan and Lakhan also came inside the room and again closed the door and they also performed wrong act. The accused also made her photographs on mobile. She came out of the house and relayed the incident to the police on Phone No.100. In the end, prosecutrix stated that all the accused committed wrong act with her against her wishes. 7. Prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants examined eleven witnesses, namely prosecutrix (PW.1), Sunil (PW.2), Santra (PW.3), Narayan Lal (PW.4), Dr. Mohammad Iqbal (PW.5), Brij Mohan (PW.6), Chhote Lal (PW.7), Dr. O.B. Nagar (PW.8), Dr. Rajesh Kumar Verma (PW.9), Mohan Singh (PW.10) and Subodh Kumar (PW.11). Thereafter the statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They denied all incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. No evidence was led in defence. 8. Prosecutrix herself appeared as PW.1. She reiterated as to what was stated by her in the FIR. She gave more particulars as to how she was subjected to rape and was given beating. In crossexamination, she admitted that Bhagwan and Lakhan caught hold of her hand and feet and Ravi had removed her clothes. 9. Sunil (PW.2) is husband of the prosecutrix. He deposed in court that his wife had disclosed him that she was subjected to rape by the accused. 10. In crossexamination, she admitted that Bhagwan and Lakhan caught hold of her hand and feet and Ravi had removed her clothes. 9. Sunil (PW.2) is husband of the prosecutrix. He deposed in court that his wife had disclosed him that she was subjected to rape by the accused. 10. Santra (PW.3) on 23.12.2011 was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Sanganer. On that day she was working as Incharge also. She deposed that the prosecutrix came to her and thereafter on the basis of her statement, formal FIR (Ex.P.2) bearing No.950/2011 for offence under Section 376(2)(g) IPC was registered. 11. Narayan Lal (PW.4) is a student and was tenant of the house where the offence was committed. This witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. 12. Dr. Mohd. Iqbal (PW.5) examined Lakhan Saini, Bhagwan Singh and Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi. Doctor opined that all the three accused were capable to perform sexual intercourse. 13. Dr. O.B. Nagar (PW.8) medico legally examined the prosecutrix and stated that she had not noted any external or internal injury on the body of the prosecutrix. She further stated that she had not found any blood inside the private parts of the prosecutrix. 14. Dr. Rejesh Kumar Verma (PW.9) had taken blood and sputum samples of the prosecutrix. 15. We need not refer to the testimony of the witnesses who had participated in investigation as entire case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the prosecutrix who appeared as PW.1. 16. Shri Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant Lakhan Saini, has submitted that no injury has been found on internal or external parts of the body of the prosecutrix and thus, it cannot be said that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by three persons. Learned counsel has further submitted that no bruises or abrasions were found on the person of the prosecutrix to prove that the prosecutrix had resisted the forcible sexual intercourse. Learned counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 17. Shri Kapil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for accused Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi has submitted that the prosecutrix herself had accompanied the accused to the place of occurrence. She went to meet the accused Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi and from there she went on motorcycle to the market and she agreed to take meals with the accused. Thus, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 18. Ms. She went to meet the accused Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi and from there she went on motorcycle to the market and she agreed to take meals with the accused. Thus, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. 18. Ms. Alka Bhatnagar, learned Public Prosecutor, has defended the judgment rendered by the trial court. 19. It is true that the prosecutrix in the present case accompanied Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi. Mere consent of a woman to accompany a man to the market, in no way, is sufficient to infer that she was a consenting party to perform sexual intercourse also. A woman is entitled to say 'No' and a man has to respect the 'No' of a woman. In the present case, accused Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi took the prosecutrix to a room where already two accused namely Lakhan Saini and Bhagwan Singh were there. Therefore, all the three accused had planned to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix. It has come in evidence that all the three accused had over powered the lady. It has also come in evidence of the prosecutrix (PW.1) that two accused caught hold of her hand and feet and the third accused had committed rape. In these circumstances, sufferance of injury is not necessary. Immediately after the occurrence the prosecutrix lodged the FIR. 20. At this juncture, learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the court below has acted very harshly to award the sentence of life imprisonment upon the accused-appellants. Learned counsels have stated that the prosecutrix was aged 25 years. She herself accompanied the accused Ravindra Kumar @ Ravi and therefore, it is not a case where life imprisonment should have been awarded by the trial court. 21. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the firm view that mitigating and aggravating circumstances ought to be balanced in the present case. Considering the age of the prosecutrix and the fact that no injuries were caused to her and the accused later have not misused the video clipping purportedly made at the place of occurrence, we are of the view that ends of justice shall be fully met in case sentence of life imprisonment is reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. 22. Consequently, we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court upon the accused-appellants to ten years rigorous imprisonment. 22. Consequently, we reduce the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court upon the accused-appellants to ten years rigorous imprisonment. However, we maintain the sentence of fine and default clause. The fine, if so realized, shall be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. 23. A further direction is issued to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme formulated by the State of Rajasthan to give effect to the mandate of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. 24. With the above modification in sentence, while affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants, with a direction to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to victim, all the three appeals stand disposed of. 25. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority for compliance.