JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. A brutal sexual reprisal of a tribal girl whose only fault was to choose a life partner from a different religion is the factual matrix of the present case. 2. The victim (P.W. 1) had fallen in love with one Khaleque Sk.(P.W. 8) under whom she was working as a daily labourer. On the fateful day Khaleque had visited her residence in the absence of her mother who had gone out to visit a relation. Both of them were having tea when appellant no. 1 intervened and challenged their relationship on the ground that Khaleque belonged to a different religion. They were dragged out of the house and taken to the residence of village 'Morol' Balai Maddi (Appellant no.2) and tied with a rope to a palm tree. Appellant no. 12 Debraj Mondal took photographs of the incident. Brothers of the victim came to the spot. Ransom was demanded from them which they could not pay. Balai Maddi asked them to come on the next day to attend the trial and the couple was detained for the night. At night the victim was shifted to the kitchen of Balai Maddi which was situated outside his house. Balai told the other appellants to enjoy the victim as her brother would not be able to pay the fine. From 11.30 p.m. to 4 a.m. she was raped by the appellants one after another. Subsequently, brothers of the victim and Khaleque arrived and the kangaroo court commenced. Rs. 3,50,000/- was demanded from Khaleque and Rs. 3,00,000/- was demanded from the victim which they were unable to pay. Brothers of the victim offered Rs. 3,000/-only. Finally, both of them were released. The victim returned to her residence along with her brother, Shital (P.W 6). Later on, she informed the incident to her sister in law, Savitri (P.W 4) and mother Rashmoni (P.W 7). Shital was also informed of the incident of rape and on the next day the victim lodged an FIR against the appellants resulting in registration of Labpur P.S case no. 14/14 dated 22.1.2014 under sections 341/376D/506 IPC. In the course of investigation incriminating articles were seized. Upon intervention from superior authorities, the appellants were arrested and put up for T.I parade examination. Khaleque identified the appellant nos. 7 and 13, namely Sunil Kisku and Debraj Mondal during such examination. 14/14 dated 22.1.2014 under sections 341/376D/506 IPC. In the course of investigation incriminating articles were seized. Upon intervention from superior authorities, the appellants were arrested and put up for T.I parade examination. Khaleque identified the appellant nos. 7 and 13, namely Sunil Kisku and Debraj Mondal during such examination. Camera used by Debraj to take photographs was seized and sent along with other articles for CFSL examination. 3. In conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and the case, being a sessions triable one, was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bolpur Birbhum for trial and disposal. 4. Charges were framed under Sections 342/323/376D/364A/506 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of the trial, prosecution examined 31 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents to prove its case. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. They, however, did not examine any witness to probabilise their defence. 6. In conclusion of trial, learned Trial Judge, by judgment and order dated 19.09.2014 convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323/342/376D of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the commission of offence under section 323 IPC and to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of offence punishable under section 342 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months more, all the sentences to run concurrently. 7. Mr. Ganguly, learned senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Sinha for the appellants argued that the version of the victim (P.W 1) suffers from gross contradictions and/or embellishment. Injuries described by her in the course of deposition have not been noted by the treating doctors including P.W 26, the gynecologist who examined her. No injuries were found in her private parts or buttock or back of chest as alleged by her. Absence of injuries in her private parts clearly improbabilises the prosecution case of gang rape by 13 persons. No injuries were found in her private parts or buttock or back of chest as alleged by her. Absence of injuries in her private parts clearly improbabilises the prosecution case of gang rape by 13 persons. Exaggeration is writ large in the version of P.W 1 who did not lodge an FIR immediately after being released from custody. There is delay of two days in lodging the FIR which in the factual background runs against the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Explanation of delay is not convincing. 8. It was strenuously argued that there is no corroborative evidence supporting the version narrated by P.W 1. No damaged articles were seized from her residence. There is no independent witness with regard to attack on the residence of P.W 1 prior to the incident. There are contradictions with regard to the time and quantity of money demanded from P.W 1 and P.W 8 by the appellants. Interpolations were made in the FIR by incorporating a demand of Rs. 27,000/- from the victim. Manner in which the alleged sexual assault occurred is highly improbable. Kitchen room was surrounded by the residences of the appellants and other persons. This clearly renders the versions of P.W 1 artificial and improbable. P.W 8 did not identify all the appellants in court as well as during T.I parade examination. Hence, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal. He relied on authorities in support of his contentions. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing with Ms. Chatterjee for the State submits that the version of the victim is corroborated by Khaleque (P.W.8) and her relations. Medical evidence also shows extensive injuries on her body and she was admitted in hospital for more than a week, clearly supporting the prosecution case of gang rape. Variations in the depositions of witnesses are minor and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Medical evidence does not improbabilise the prosecution case of sexual attack on the victim. Prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. P.W.1 is the victim and the most vital witness in the instant case. She deposed she was working as a mason under Khaleque (PW 8). They developed intimacy towards each other. On 20.1.2014 around 5 p.m. PW 8 came to her house. She offered a cup of tea to him. 10. P.W.1 is the victim and the most vital witness in the instant case. She deposed she was working as a mason under Khaleque (PW 8). They developed intimacy towards each other. On 20.1.2014 around 5 p.m. PW 8 came to her house. She offered a cup of tea to him. She requested PW 8 to bring the sacks of paddy inside the room. PW 8 accordingly removed the sack of paddy from the courtyard to her room. At that time one Jalha Maddi intervened and asked why she had allowed a Muslim to come to her house. When she stated that she wished to marry him, the appellants threatened to kill Khaleque and asked him not to come to her house. The appellants damaged articles and assaulted both of them. Village 'Morol' Balai Maddi asked them to come to his residence. Both of them were tied with rope around palm trees. Debraj Mondal took photographs. At 6/6.30 p.m. her brothers came to the spot. The appellants demanded 3,50,000/- from them. They expressed inability to pay the sum. Thereafter, her brothers were asked to come on the next day to attend the trial. Balai told the other appellants that as her brothers were unable to pay the money, they were free to enjoy her. Khaleque was kept bound to the palm tree. Victim was shifted to the kitchen room situated outside the house of Balai Maddi. Thereafter, the appellants ravished her one after another. She started having convulsions. She requested them to release her but they refused. Her trauma continued till 5.30 am. In the morning she was taken back to Khaleque who was tied to a palm tree and the appellants threatened them to keep mum. Around 9.30 a.m. her brothers attended the kangaroo court. Again a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was demanded from Khaleque and Rs. 3,00,000/- was demanded from her brothers. Her brothers were unable to pay such a hefty sum. They offered Rs. 3000/- only. Subsequently, they were released. She was threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone failing which they would be banished from the village and her house would be set on fire. She went to her residence along with her brother Shital (P.W 6). Next day she disclosed the incident to her mother, sister in law and brother. Thereafter, the appellants tried to assault Shital but he fled away. She went to her residence along with her brother Shital (P.W 6). Next day she disclosed the incident to her mother, sister in law and brother. Thereafter, the appellants tried to assault Shital but he fled away. They left their residence at 10 A.M. and arrived at P.S. at 2 P.M. and lodged an F.I.R. which was scribed by P.W.5. She put her LTI on the F.I.R. She was admitted to Labpur BPHC by police and was referred to Suri District Hospital. She made a statement before the Magistrate (Ext.1). She was extensively cross-examined. She stated that the shed where she was raped was situated 5/6 cubits from the house of Balai Maddi. The shed was 9 ft. in length and 5 ft. 6" in wide. The floor was made of mud. It was not silk smooth. Khaleque was tied to a palm tree situated at a distance of 5 cubits. The appellants did not apply enormous force while they committed rape. She suffered injuries in her genitals. She could not shout for help as they gagged her. She sustained injuries on her buttock, back of chest and other places. She showed the injuries to the doctors in both the hospitals. She denied the suggestion that she was having sexual intercourse with Khaleque as her mother was not present in the house. 11. Her deposition is corroborated by her brothers, namely, Churko Murmu (P.W.2), Som Murmu (P.W.3), Shital Murmu (P.W.6), her sister-in-law Savitra Murmu (P.W.4) and her mother Rashmoni Murmu (P.W.7). Apart from her relations, Khaleque Sk., (P.W.8) has also corroborated the version of P.W.1. Khaleque, however, could identify Sunil Kisku and Deb Mondal in Court and during T.I. Parade examination. 12. Farooque Sk (P.W.10), brother of Khaleque, has also corroborated the prosecution case with regard to the detention of Khaleque and P.W.1 by the appellants and their demand of Rs.3,50,000/- from Khaleque as aforesaid. 13. P.W.12, Dr. Arup Kumar Dutta examined the victim at Labpur BPHC. He found multiple abrasions on her chest, abdomen and thighs. He admitted that he did not examine the private parts of the victim. He proved the bed head ticket (Ext.14). Thereafter the victim was shifted to Suri District Hospital. 14. P.W.23, Dr. Asit Biswas was the superintendent of the Suri Hospital. Victim was admitted on 22.1.14. He found multiple abrasions on her chest, abdomen and thighs. He admitted that he did not examine the private parts of the victim. He proved the bed head ticket (Ext.14). Thereafter the victim was shifted to Suri District Hospital. 14. P.W.23, Dr. Asit Biswas was the superintendent of the Suri Hospital. Victim was admitted on 22.1.14. He deposed that a team of doctors consisting of two gynecologists, one physician and one psychiatrist to treat the victim. He was the coordinator of the team. Victim was discharged from the hospital on 30.01.2014. 15. P.W.26, Dr. Sabyasachi Bhowmick examined the victim at Suri Hospital. He noted the following findings after examination:- (1) she is capable of sexual intercourse; (2) multiple marks of injuries over her body 5 nail bite marks seen over her face (over left eye brow, left side of nose, below the lower lip right angle of mouth, over right and left cheek); (3) single nail bite mark over left upper inner quadrant of left breast, two nail bite marks seen over her anterior abdominal wall, single nail bite mark over her left lumber region, single abrasion injury over inner side of left thigh; (4) no foreign particle was seen over her private parts; (5) her hymen was ruptured. 16. He proved the report (Ext.30). 17. In cross-examination, he stated that he was informed that the victim had been gang raped. He did not find any injury on the external genital organ of the victim. 18. Evidence of P.W.1 has been seriously challenged on the ground that there is no seizure of broken articles from her residence of P.W.1 and that there is a variation in the quantum of money demanded from her brothers and Khaleque. 19. I have given anxious consideration to such submissions. It is true that the monetary demand was not reflected in the F.I.R. P.W.5, the scribe, admitted that the quantum of money demanded had been interpolated and was not in his writing. It is settled law that F.I.R. need not be an encyclopedia of all facts. Gist of the prosecution case relating to forcible detention of the victim and Khaleque, P.W.9 and her brutal act of rape has been clearly narrated therein. Failure to disclose the demand of money in the first information report in my considered opinion does not erode the truthfulness of the prosecution case relating to rape of the victim. Gist of the prosecution case relating to forcible detention of the victim and Khaleque, P.W.9 and her brutal act of rape has been clearly narrated therein. Failure to disclose the demand of money in the first information report in my considered opinion does not erode the truthfulness of the prosecution case relating to rape of the victim. Similarly non-seizure of broken articles, if any, from the room of the victim also is an insignificant matter when compared with the brutal sexual assault perpetrated on her on that very night after she had been dragged from her home. Hence, such minor remissness in the prosecution case does not affect its broad substratum of wrongful detention and rape of the victim by the appellants as an act of reprisal against her and her fianc, Khaleque. 20. It has also been argued that the prosecution case ought not to be believed on the ground that there is delay in lodging first information report. Genesis of the incident unravels from the evening of 20th January, 2014 when the appellants had forcibly dragged away the victim and her companion Khaleque from her residence to the house of Balai Maddi. There they were detained and monies were demanded from their families. As such monies could not be paid, the family members were informed to come on the next day to attend the trial. In the intervening night all the appellants under the leadership of Balai Maddi committed rape on the victim. On the next day the family members and Khaleque assembled. Again monies were demanded from them. When the appellants realized that they could not pay the money and their lust had been satisfied, they released the victim. Victim was threatened to keep mum lest they would be driven out from the village and their house would be burnt. One cannot ignore the dominant position of the appellants particularly Balai Maddi, the village headman, in the social hierarchy of the village society to which the victim belonged. As a result P.W.1 was unable to come out with her painful saga of sexual assault in their presence. Only after she returned to her residence and her trauma had somewhat subdued, she initially narrated the incident to the women folk of the family, namely, her sister-in-law (P.W.4) and mother (P.W.7). As a result P.W.1 was unable to come out with her painful saga of sexual assault in their presence. Only after she returned to her residence and her trauma had somewhat subdued, she initially narrated the incident to the women folk of the family, namely, her sister-in-law (P.W.4) and mother (P.W.7). On the next day the matter was informed to her brother (P.W.6) and they resolved to go to the police station. Evidence has also come on record that even on that day P.W.6 was attacked by the appellants. In spite of such hostility they left their residence at 10 A.M. and reached the police station at 2 P.M. The daring attitude of the appellants would appear from the cross-examination of P.W.6, Shital Murmu, who stated that the appellants followed them even to the police station. The reign of terror and overpowering influence of the appellants clearly explains the helpless submission of the victim to their forcible sexual assault and the consequential delay in lodging the F.I.R. To my mind, such delay by no stretch of imagination discredits the victim or improbabilises the prosecution case. On the other hand it appears only with the support of the local MLA that the family members of the victim could gather courage to lodge an F.I.R. and have the miscreants arrested. 21. The other limb of challenge to the version of the prosecutrix is that the manner and course of the sexual assault as described by her in court does not find corroboration from medical evidence. Relying on the evidence of P.W. 26, gynecologist who examined P.W.1 at Suri Hospital, it was argued that his evidence run counter to that P.W. 1 who claimed she suffered injuries in her private parts as well as on back of chest and buttocks. P.W. 26 found injuries on the lips, breast and thighs of the victim. It is argued that the allegation of gang rape by 13 persons is wholly improbabilized by absence of injuries in the private parts of the victim. It must be borne in mind that P.W. 26 examined the victim 2 days after the incident. Even then, the nature of injuries noted by him, particularly multiple injuries on the lip, mouth and cheek of the victim, nail bite marks over her breasts and thighs. It must be borne in mind that P.W. 26 examined the victim 2 days after the incident. Even then, the nature of injuries noted by him, particularly multiple injuries on the lip, mouth and cheek of the victim, nail bite marks over her breasts and thighs. A number of injuries found in and around her lips, breasts and thigh clearly probabilises the prosecution case of sexual assault on her. It may be apposite to recount here that the victim was so pulverised by the sexual assault that she started convulsing out of fear and was unable to offer resistance. As a result, the appellants did not require to exert force to penetrate her. These attending facts and circumstances of the case particularly her lack of resistance to such heinous sexual assault as she was paralysed with fear explains the absence of injuries in her private parts. On the other hand, large number of injuries in or around her mouth and secondary sexual organ and thigh probabilises the brutal sexual attack on her by a body of perverted sexual fiends who were masquerading as moral guardians of the society. It is also to be borne in mind that the victim had not been raped on a rocky ground but on the kitchen floor, which though not silky smooth was not certainly rocky. Minor variations with regard to situs of injuries as stated by P.W. 1 and the medical evidence on record do not affect the crux of the prosecution case. Medical evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence and would not improbabilise the version of a victim of sexual assault until and unless such evidence completely rules out such an event. Defence has failed to probabilise such a situation in this case. On the other hand, for reasons discussed above, I find sufficient corroboration from medical evidence to a predatory sexual assault on the victim which establishes the prosecution case of gang rape. 22. Authority relied upon by the appellant in this regard is in apposite. In Laliram & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 69 the factual backdrop is wholly different from the present one. In the said report the doctors found that the victim was menstruating at the time of occurrence although she claimed to be pregnant. No such medical paradox is evident in the factual matrix of the case. In Laliram & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 69 the factual backdrop is wholly different from the present one. In the said report the doctors found that the victim was menstruating at the time of occurrence although she claimed to be pregnant. No such medical paradox is evident in the factual matrix of the case. It may be relevant to quote from the very report the wise counsel of the Apex Court in the matter of relying on precedents vis- -vis appreciation of evidence in criminal cases as follows:- "....a decision has to be considered in the background of the factual scenario. In criminal cases the question of a precedent particularly relating to appreciation of evidence is really of no consequence." 23. Hence, I am of the opinion the aforesaid report based on a completely different factual background is of little use to the appellants. 24. Finally, it has been argued that Khaleque Sk. (P.W. 8) had not identified all the appellants. Khaleque was not a co-villager of the appellants. He belonged to a different community and naturally was unacquainted with the appellants. Though he identified only two of the appellants, namely, Sunil Kisku and Devraj Mondal, he corroborated the manner in which they had been dragged from the residence of the victim to the house of Balai Maddi when the victim was raped. Nonidentification of other appellants by P.W. 8, in my opinion, does not affect the prosecution case which is wholly established against them by the version of the victim who disclosed their names in the first information report itself. 25. In Raju & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133 the victim herself could not identify the accused persons who allegedly raped her. Her version suffered from various contradictions and the Apex Court observed that there was evidence that she was indulging in improper conduct. Hence, the aforesaid report is clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case. 26. In the light of the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 1 which is corroborated by other witnesses as well as medical evidence, I have no hesitation to hold that on the night of 20th January, 2014 the helpless victim had to suffer the agonizing trauma of brutal sexual assault for choosing a life partner from a different religion at the behest of so-called moral guardians of the society. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case stands wholly established and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are upheld. 27. It is a sad reflection on our society that even seventy years after independence, the basic fundamental freedom to choose a partner remains an illusion for most of the women particularly those coming from vulnerable sections like the victim herself. State has singularly failed to protect the basic human rights of the victim and is duty bound to compensate her under Section 357A Cr.P.C. Under the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 formulated under Section 357A Cr.P.C, a rape victim is entitled to a minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. As, in the present case, the victim (P.W.1), a tribal girl was subjected to gang rape by 13 persons, I direct the State to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the victim in addition to compensation that may be received under Section 357(3) CrPC. State Government shall pay such compensation to P.W. 3 within one month from the date of communication of this order. Fine amount, if realized, shall be paid to P.W. 1 under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. 28. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 30. The lower court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary action. 31. Department is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the victim (P.W.1). Department shall also send a copy of this judgment to Principal Secretary, Home, State of West Bengal, Secretary, West Bengal, State Legal Services Authority for payment of compensation to P.W.1 as aforesaid. 32. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. 33. I agree.