JUDGMENT : Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. 1. Appellants have preferred the instant appeal assailing the judgment, order of conviction and sentence dated February 14 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court Bankura in Session Trial No. 3(7) of 2002 whereby appellants were convicted for commission of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) g of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. On February 2002, PW 1 lodged a written complaint to the Onda Police Station, District Bankura stating therein that on February 11, 2002 his wife (P.W.2) had been to his place of work at Bankura bus stand where he was working in a sweetmeat shop Deshbandhu Mistanna Bhandar. At about 5.00 p.m. his wife (PW2) was returning home from his place of work at Bankura. She got down at Kalisen Bus Stand and while she was proceeding alone then at that time appellants, who were co-villagers and relatives, offered to drop her at her residence by a cycle, which they were riding. As it was evening believing them she rode their by cycle. After going some distance, appellants started behind indecently conversing in abusive languages with his wife and appellant. Jabber started pressing his hand on her chest and thigh. His wife then wanted to got down from the cycle but they took her in a bush, forcibly put her down and committed rape on his wife one after another throughout the night. As a result his wife asked for water but they left her and went away. Subsequently after gaining her sense his wife went to the village in the morning and narrated the incident to the villagers about what happened on previous night and again lost her conscience. Villagers then took her to Krishnanager Heath Centre but realizing seriousness Doctor transferred her to Hospital. On getting information in the evening at his place of work, P.W.1 rushed to the hospital and asked about the condition of his wife and heard about the incident from her. As he was busy for treatment of his wife so he could not inform the incident at the earliest. On getting information in the evening at his place of work, P.W.1 rushed to the hospital and asked about the condition of his wife and heard about the incident from her. As he was busy for treatment of his wife so he could not inform the incident at the earliest. On the basis of the above written complaint scribed by PW12 Onda Police Station Case No 6 dated February 13 2002 was started against the appellants under Section 376(2)G of the Indian Penal Code. PW 15 himself took up investigation of the case and thereafter on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 376(2)G IPC. On July 25 2002 charge under Section 376(2)G, IPC was framed against appellant and on their pleading not guilty trial commenced. 3. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined 15 witnesses and also produced and proved the FIR, rough sketch map with index, medical report, statement of the victim recorded under Section 164Cr.P.C., seizure list, potency test of the appellant. Defence examined one witness namely, the Forest Officer of Onda Range. After completion of trial and examination of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. learned Trial Judge passed the impugned judgment. 4. Mr. Anjan Dutta, learned Advocate engaged as State Defense submitted that the order of conviction for the commission of gang rape and sentence awarded for the same of are not sustainable in law as the same not supported by any medical evidence, there was contradiction between the statement of the prosecutrix and PW14, the doctor, the evidence of PW 1 was not reliable, then was absence of any forensic examination report of the wearing apparel of the victim and because of non seizure of the alleged bicycle and the knife used in the crime. He also submitted that chance of false implication can not be ruled out due to animosity and personal grudge for being restricted to collect leaves and fruits from the forest by appellant Rabin Mondal and staff of Bana Rakshan Samity. According to Mr. Dutta, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. Mr. He also submitted that chance of false implication can not be ruled out due to animosity and personal grudge for being restricted to collect leaves and fruits from the forest by appellant Rabin Mondal and staff of Bana Rakshan Samity. According to Mr. Dutta, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. Mr. N.P. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the evidence of the victim was cogent and trustworthy and she vividly narrated the incident which had been corroborated by neighbors and other villagers, the doctor who examined her first and also her statements recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that victim was a married lady having two children and there was no evidence on record to show that the victim had any strained relation or enmity with the appellants. So the question false implication did not arise. According to Mr. Agarwal, prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt and the learned trial court was quite justified in passing the impugned judgment. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and have perused the evidence and documents on record to consider the propriety of the impugned judgment. 7. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of the victim, a married lady having two minor children. 8. Learned Trial Judge took into consideration the evidences of P.W.1, the defacto-complainant, P.W.2, the victim, P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.9, the co-villagers and neighbors, besides the evidences of the doctors and the statements of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. to arrive at the conclusion that the prosecution had been able to prove the charge against the appellants under section 376(2)G of IPC and accordingly passed the impugned judgment. 9. P.W.2, the victim, was an illiterate village lady. She deposed before the court on August 9, 2002. She clearly stated on oath that on 28th last Magh (corresponding to English calendar month of February 11, 2002) at noon she went to her husband (P.W.1) to collect money from him and thereafter at about 4.00 P.M. she boarded a bus for returning home. At about 5.00 p.m. she got down from the bus at Kali Sen stoppage and proceeded on foot towards her village. At about 5.00 p.m. she got down from the bus at Kali Sen stoppage and proceeded on foot towards her village. As it was evening time she was in a hurry. Then after crossing some distance she found appellants on a bicycle. Appellant No.2 then asked her to avail his bi-cycle telling that he is her 'mesomasai'. She agreed and sat on the front rod of the bi-cycle. Appellant No. 1 was paddling the bi-cycle while appellant No. 2 was sitting in the carrier. Then on the way, appellant No. 1 put his hands on her breast to which she protested and complained to appellant No. 2. Both of them then took her at Labulia Kul Jungle (Forest) and thereafter, appellant No. 1 fully undressed her and lied on her and by showing a knife threatened her not to raise alarm and forcibly raped her. Thereafter, appellant No. 2 also raped her. She lost her sense and her voice was choked. At dawn appellant No. 2 took her to her house. She fell sick and her condition was serious. She found her children were asking her to see her health condition but she was not in a position to speak. Her children then called P.W.3 who came to her house and gave some water on her head. She then narrated the entire incident to P.W.3. P.W.3 then called the villagers including P.W.7 and P.W.9. P.W.7 and P.W.9 then took her at first to Krishnagar Hospital where she reported the incident to doctor who treated her. In the evening she was taken to Bankura Sadar Hospital where she was admitted. There also she narrated incident to the doctor. She also narrated the entire incident to her husband (P.W.1) who came to the hospital on getting information from P.W.7. She also narrated the entire incident to the Magistrate before whom she was produced. She identified both the appellants in course of her examination before court. She was cross-examined by the defence at length but her evidence remained unshaken. On the other hand during cross-examination she affirmed her statements made in chief with regard to the commission of rape by the appellants. She identified both the appellants in course of her examination before court. She was cross-examined by the defence at length but her evidence remained unshaken. On the other hand during cross-examination she affirmed her statements made in chief with regard to the commission of rape by the appellants. She specifically stated that due to commission of rape she lost her sense but regained her conscious after being given water and air by the appellants to commit rape repeatedly and after commission of rape appellants put on back the sari on her and left her in her courtyard. The above statements of P.W.2 also finds corroboration from her statements (Ext.5) recorded by the Magistrate (P.W.13) under section 164 Cr.P.C. Even P.W.10 and P.W.14, the doctors, who examined her at Krishnagar Hospital and Bankura Sadar Hospital respectively deposed that victim complained them that she was raped by the appellants last night. Thus we find from the above that the victim vividly narrated the incident and withstood the rigour of cross-examination. The evidence of P.W.2 appears to be trustworthy and reliable and nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve her. 10. P.W.5 and P.W.6, the minor children of the victim, corroborated the statements of the victim that on the day of incident their mother went to Bankura to bring money from their father but she did not return back on that day and on the next day at dawn they found their mother in the courtyard and her body was covered with a cloth. They informed their 'jethima' (P.W.3), a neighbor, who came and nursed their mother by giving water. P.W.5, a child aged about eight years, could not say what his mother told to P.W.3 but P.W.6, girl aged about 12 years, deposed that her mother told P.W.3 that she was detained in the jungle by the appellants but she could not say what her mother stated further to P.W.3. The above statements of P.W.2, P.W5 and P.W.6 also find corroboration from P.W.3, the neighbor, who too has deposed that on 28th last Magh, P.W.1 went to her husband at Gabindanagar to bring money but did not return back. On 29th in the morning, P.W.2's daughter called her to their house. She then went there and found P.W.2 lying in the courtyard in almost senseless condition and there was no blouse on her person and her sari was in loosened condition. On 29th in the morning, P.W.2's daughter called her to their house. She then went there and found P.W.2 lying in the courtyard in almost senseless condition and there was no blouse on her person and her sari was in loosened condition. She gave air and water and then P.W.2 came to her senses. On being asked, P.W.2 told her that the appellants took her at Labulia Kul Jungle in a bi-cycle and made her completely naked and both of them raped her. She then called the neighbours who came to her house and P.W.2 also reported the incident to the villagers. P.W.7 and P.W.9 then took P.W.2 to Krishnagar Hospital and there from she was taken to Bankura Medical College & Hospital. She identified the appellants in course of her examination before court. She was cross-examined at length but nothing came out contrary to her statements-in-chief. On the other hand during cross-examination she clearly stated that she saw nail marks and bite marks on the face including lips and breast of P.W.2 and there was bleeding on her face, chest and lips. 11. P.W.7 deposed that on 29th last Magh in the morning he saw her aunt (P.W.2) in her courtyard in the senseless condition. She regained her senses after being nursed by P.W.3 and another woman. On regaining sense P.W.2 reported them that on 28th last Magh she got down from the bus at Kali Sen Road and was returning home with the appellants in their bi-cycle. Then at Labulia Kul Jungle appellants committed rape on her throughout the night. He and P.W.9 then took P.W.2 to Krishnagar Hospital where P.W.2 reported the incident to the doctor and therefrom she was taken to Bankura Medical College & Hospital where she was admitted. He informed P.W.1 who then came to the hospital. He also identified the appellants in course of his examination before court. His evidence also remained unshaken during cross-examination and nothing came out contrary to his statements-in-chief. The above statements of this witness also found corroboration from P.W.9 who too has deposed that on 29th last Magh in morning on getting information from P.W.6 he went to the house of P.W.2. and saw his elder sister (P.W.2) in senseless condition. P.W.3 who was present there gave air and water to P.W.2 and then she regained her consciousness. The above statements of this witness also found corroboration from P.W.9 who too has deposed that on 29th last Magh in morning on getting information from P.W.6 he went to the house of P.W.2. and saw his elder sister (P.W.2) in senseless condition. P.W.3 who was present there gave air and water to P.W.2 and then she regained her consciousness. P.W.3 then told him that P.W.2 went to Bankura to collect money from her husband (P.W.1) and on her way back she got down at Kali Sen bus stand and was returning home with the appellants in a bi-cycle. Then on the way at labulia Kul Jungle appellants committed rape upon her. They then took P.W.2 to Krishnagar Hospital where doctor told them to take her to Bankura Medical College & Hospital and accordingly she was taken there where she was admitted. He too identified the appellants in course of his examination before court. However, his evidence in so far as the involvement of the appellants are concerned was hearsay in nature. 12. P.W.1, husband of the victim (P.W.2) and the FIR maker deposed that on the relevant date at about 1.30/2.00 pm his wife came to his sweet shop at Bankura bus stand to take money and thereafter at about 4.00 p.m. she boarded a bus to return to the house. On the next day his nephew (P.W.7) came to him and reported that appellants had committed rape on his wife. He then went to Bankura Medical College & Hospital, where his wife was admitted. His wife then told him that the appellants took her in Labulia Kul Jungle in a bi-cycle and raped her. Accordingly, he lodged the complaint (Ext.4) scribed by P.W.12. He identified the appellants on dock in course of his examination before court. He was cross-examined by the defence but his evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination. 13. His wife then told him that the appellants took her in Labulia Kul Jungle in a bi-cycle and raped her. Accordingly, he lodged the complaint (Ext.4) scribed by P.W.12. He identified the appellants on dock in course of his examination before court. He was cross-examined by the defence but his evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination. 13. P.W.4 though deposed that occurrence took place in the last part of Magh and that on getting such information he went to the house of P.W.2 and found many persons assembled there and saw P.W.2 was lying and appeared to be sick and some women were giving water on her head and thereafter P.W.2 was taken to the hospital and that P.W.3 told them that appellants confined P.W.2 in the jungle for the whole night, but thereafter when he did not support the prosecution case regarding involvement of the appellants he was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined by the prosecution and during cross-examination he admitted that appellant No. 2 was his maternal uncle by village courtesy. However, he denied the defense suggestion that villagers assaulted appellant No. 2 for abusing the female villagers for taking wood and leafs from the forest. 14. P.W.8 is the witness to the seizure of the wearing apparel of the victim. P.W.10 is the Medical Officer of Onda PHC who first examined P.W.2 on February 12, 2002 and during examination P.W.2 complained before him that she was raped by Rabi Mondal and Jabbar Ghosh (appellant No. 1 and 2) on February 11, 2002 at night. On examination he found small abrasion on her chest and small laceration over her lower lip. On inspection of her private parts he found sticky material over genitalia and she was referred to Bankura Medical College & Hospital. During cross-examination he clearly stated that patient was in her senses when she made the complaint to him. 15. According to P.W.14, doctor of Bankura Sammilani Medical College and Hospital, on February 12, 2002, P.W.2, referred from Onda Primary Health Centre was admitted in their hospital at about 7.00 p.m. in septic ward. He examined the patient but during examination he found no injury mark anywhere in the body except one old linear stretch mark just below left breast, no injury found in vagina and vulva. He prepared a report (Ext.6). He examined the patient but during examination he found no injury mark anywhere in the body except one old linear stretch mark just below left breast, no injury found in vagina and vulva. He prepared a report (Ext.6). The patient told him that on February 11, 2002 at 4.45 p.m. while she was returning home, two persons named Jabbar Ghosh and Rabi Mondal (appellants No. 1 and 2) forcibly took her to the jungle of Kali Sen, Bankura and both of them assaulted her physically and sexually several times throughout the night. The claim of this witness that on examination he did not find any injury on the person of P.W.2 can not be relied on in the light of evidence of P.W.10 who first examined P.W.2 and found injuries on her person. Moreover, absence of any injury on the person of the prosecutrix, a married lady having children, can not be a ground to discredit her oral testimony. 16. P.W.11, conducted potency test of appellant No. 2 and found him capable of sexual intercourse. According to him, Dr. T.K. Bose examined P.W.2 and appellant No. 1 and prepared reports (Ext. 3, 3/1). As per the report (Ext. 3/1), appellant No. 1 was also found potent capable of sexual intercourse. Ext.3, the medical examination report of P.W.2 disclosed that Dr. T.K. Bose, Head, Department of Forensic and State Medicine in reply to the query reported that there was sign of recent sexual intercourse. The above medical reports were admitted in evidence without any objection and even cross-examination of P.W.11 was declined by defence. 17. P.W. 15 is the investigating officer who after completion of investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants. He has deposed that appellant No.1 was admitted in Bankura Medical College & Hospital on February 12, 2002 night for being manhandled by the public but could not arrest him in the hospital as he had left the hospital. According to him P.W.7 told him that appellants were brought at village and were assaulted by the villagers. During cross-examination he admitted that he did not send the wearing apparel of the victim or the vaginal swab for chemical examination. 18. According to him P.W.7 told him that appellants were brought at village and were assaulted by the villagers. During cross-examination he admitted that he did not send the wearing apparel of the victim or the vaginal swab for chemical examination. 18. Thus from the above we find that claim of P.W.2 that on the relevant date she went to her husband to collect money but on that date she did not return back and on the next day at dawn she was found lying in her courtyard in a precarious condition finds corroboration from P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6. We also find from the evidence on record that the allegation of P.W.2 that while returning home she got down from the bus and while she was proceeding on foot, appellants who were paddling bi-cycle offered her to avail their bicycle and accordingly she sat on the cycle and thereafter on the way appellants took her inside the forest and forcibly raped her throughout the night and on the next morning at dawn she was abandoned in her courtyard and on regaining sense she narrated the incident to P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.9 and others who came at her residence and to her husband at the hospital finds corroboration from P.W.1, her husband, P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.9. The claim of P.W.2 that she narrated the incident to the doctors both at Onda PHC and also at the Bankura Hospital also found corroboration from the doctors, P.W.10 and P.W.14. P.W.10, the doctor who first examined the victim found small abrasion and laceration on the chest and lower lip of P.W.2 and also found sticky material over her genetalia. Both the appellants were found potent by the doctors on examination. Ext.3, the medical examination report found sign of recent sexual intercourse. The claim of P.W.14 that save and except one old linear stretch mark just below the left breast of P.W.2, no injury was found appears to be surprising in the light of the evidence of P.W.10 who examined the victim first and found injuries. It is true that prosecution has not produced the chemical examination report of vaginal swab but the same was due to fault on the part of the investigating officer as he did not send the wearing apparel of the victim or the vaginal swab for chemical examination. It is true that prosecution has not produced the chemical examination report of vaginal swab but the same was due to fault on the part of the investigating officer as he did not send the wearing apparel of the victim or the vaginal swab for chemical examination. This shows negligence on the part of the investing officer and is a defect in investigation but for this reason prosecution case will not suffer. Be that as it may victim is a married lady having two children. There is no iota of evidence to show any such strained relationship or enmity between the victim and the appellants. Even appellants have not put forward any defence during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. save and except taking the plea of innocence. Having considered the above circumstances there appears no reason why the evidence of the victim corroborated by P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.9, P.W.1 and even by the doctors shall not be believed. As the prosecutrix was a married lady, medical evidence was irrelevant. Absence of any marks of violence can not be a ground to disbelieve the oral testimony of the prosecutrix. It is well settled principles of law that conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. Nothing has been brought on record to show any enmity or ill feeling with the appellants. 19. After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, we do not find any illegality in appreciation of evidence or in arriving at the conclusion as to the guilt of the appellants in the commission of the offence of gang rape on the victim. 20. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. 21. The lower court's records along with a copy of the judgment be sent back to the learned court below for information and necessary action. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties expeditiously upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. I agree. : Jay Sengupta, J.