JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.8.2013 and 7.8.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur, in Spl. TR. Case No.01/13 convicting and sentencing the appellants, namely, Y. Bijoy Bhaskar, Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty, Kalidas Pattanayek, Goutam alias Huna Das and B. Praveen Kumar as follows:- for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more, for the offence punishable under section 366/34 of I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and pay a fine of Rs.2000 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for further two months each, for the offence punishable under section 325/34 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years each and pay a fine of Rs.2000 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another two months and for the commission of offence punishable under section 3(1)(XI) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [for short 'S.C. & S.T. Act'] and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each and pay a fine of Rs.2000 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellants, is to the effect on 8.9.2012 one Smeli Majhi (P.W.9) informed de facto complainant Raghunath Murmu (P.W.1) that Rahul Prasad Sonar (P.W.3), a friend of his daughter informed her that his daughter had been kidnapped by seven-eight miscreants. Hearing this news the de facto complainant went to the house of a friend of his daughter but could not find her. Subsequently, his daughter was found lying in front of a neighbour's house and was shifted to Kharagpur Railway Hospital for her treatment. Subsequently, he came to know from her daughter that while she, along with Rahul Prasad Sonar was returning through an open field near Arya Vidhyapith, seven-eight miscreants came on motorcycles and obstructed them. They drove away Rahul Prasad Sonar and abducted her to a lonely spot where she was assaulted and raped. Subsequently, he came to know from her daughter that while she, along with Rahul Prasad Sonar was returning through an open field near Arya Vidhyapith, seven-eight miscreants came on motorcycles and obstructed them. They drove away Rahul Prasad Sonar and abducted her to a lonely spot where she was assaulted and raped. The miscreants took her back to the spot from where they had abducted her and again brought her back to the lonely spot and raped her again. On basis of the written complaint of P.W.1 Kharagpur (Town) P.S. case No.265/12 dated 9.9.2012 under sections 376(2)(g)(f)/364/326/34 of I.P.C. and under section 3 of S.C. & S.T. Act was registered for investigation. 3. In the course of investigation, the appellants were arrested and identified by the victim (P.W.2) as well as Rahul Prasad Sonar (P.W.3) during Test Identification Parade (for short 'T.I. Parade'). Local witnesses, R. Pandey (P.W.15) and K. Chowdhury (P.W.16) also identified some of the appellants in the course of T.I. Parade. Victim girl was treated in various hospitals for three and a half months due to the injuries suffered by her. 4. Charges were framed against the appellants and the co-accused persons, namely, Kausik Das and Pratik Deb under section 366/34 of I.P.C., under section 326/34 of I.P.C., under section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. and under section 3 of S.C. & S.T. Act and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, prosecution examined thirty-one witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of appellants is one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, the trial judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. However, by the self-same judgment and order the trial judge acquitted Kausik Das and Pratik Deb of the charges levelled against them. 6. Mr. Debasish Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant No.1, Y. Bijoy Bhaskar argued that the prosecution case was not proved beyond doubt. Place of occurrence has not been identified by the victim (P.W.2). He criticized the evidence of P.W.2 on various counts. The fact that P.W.2 had gone to attend the birthday party of her friend on the fateful evening is not established beyond doubt. In fact, such version of P.W.2 is improbabilised in her cross-examination and is also not corroborated by P.W.3, her companion. He criticized the evidence of P.W.2 on various counts. The fact that P.W.2 had gone to attend the birthday party of her friend on the fateful evening is not established beyond doubt. In fact, such version of P.W.2 is improbabilised in her cross-examination and is also not corroborated by P.W.3, her companion. Friend of P.W. 2 whose birthday party she attended has not been examined. Identification of the appellants by P.W.2 is also not bereft of doubt. T.I. Parade had been held after 105 days and the appellants claimed that their photographs were taken and shown to P.W.2 and other witnesses. P.W.3, a companion of P.W.2 had failed to identify appellant No.1, Y. Bijoy Bhaskar in the course of T.I. Parade examination and also in Court. Presence of P.W.15 and P.W.16, independent witnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and both the witnesses claimed that they knew the appellants rendering their identification during T.I. Parade an empty formality. Medical report of Dr. H. Giri (P.W.20) does not establish a case of gang rape of the victim. That apart, manner and course of physical assault and rape of the victim (P.W.2) repeatedly for fifteen-sixteen times by the appellants as narrated by her is highly improbable and does not find corroboration from medical evidence. P.W.20 opined that it was a case of attempted rape. There are contradictions between the evidence of P.W.2 and other witnesses. P.W.2 claimed that she had lost consciousness and regained the same in the hospital. Similarly, Gouri Murmu (P.W.4), mother of the victim stated that her daughter regained sense on the next morning of the incident. On the contrary, P.W.23, the Medical Officer who examined P.W.2 in the night of the incident claimed that the victim was conscious and oriented and P.W.1, de facto complainant and father of the victim, claimed to have talked to his daughter prior to lodging of the First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R') on 9.9.12 at 2.45 hrs. There are over writings in the formal F.I.R and it is unclear when it was actually lodged in the P.S. Hence, the appellant no. 1 is entitled to an order of acquittal. 7. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for appellant No.2, Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty submitted that there are material omissions of vital facts in the F.I.R. P.W.2 was taken by police officer for recording her statement before Magistrate on 26.12.2012. 1 is entitled to an order of acquittal. 7. Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for appellant No.2, Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty submitted that there are material omissions of vital facts in the F.I.R. P.W.2 was taken by police officer for recording her statement before Magistrate on 26.12.2012. On the self-same day she identified the appellants in the course of T.I. Parade. She did not disclose either before the police or Magistrate the physical or other identifying features of her assailants. Hence, her identification in Court as well as T.I. Parade is doubtful and does not inspire confidence. Source of light (that is headlight of motorcycles) with the help of which P.W.s 2 and 3 claimed to have identified the appellants at the place of occurrence was belatedly disclosed in Court as an afterthought. Seized wearing apparels of the victim were not produced in Court. Hence, he prayed for acquittal. 8. Mr. Debabrata Roy, learned counsel and Mr. Mainak Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant No.3 Kalidas Pattanayek and appellant No.5 B. Praveen Kumar submitted P.W.2 was not a trustworthy witness and the conviction ought not to be recorded on her version alone. She admitted in cross that she had not gone to New Settlement - the place where the said birthday party was held. She never gave out the physical description or identifying marks of the appellants and her identification of the appellants in Court as well as during T.I. Parade is based on photographs shown to her by the investigation officer. Similarly identification by P.W.3 is unconvincing as he neither stated the special identifiable features of the appellants nor the source of light by which he identified them. P.W.s 2 and 3 did not speak of the presence of P.W.s 15 and 16 at the place of occurrence and their identification in Court as well as during T.I. Parade examination are of little value since they claimed that they knew the appellants. Furthermore, P.W.16, turned hostile during trial. P.W.23, Medical Officer who examined the victim in the night of the incident claimed that the victim did not complain of sexual assault which was stated by her mother (P.W.4). Furthermore, P.W.16, turned hostile during trial. P.W.23, Medical Officer who examined the victim in the night of the incident claimed that the victim did not complain of sexual assault which was stated by her mother (P.W.4). P.W.1 in cross-examination admitted that he had gone to the police station along with his daughter on the night of the incident and made a statement which was noted by police but such statement was never produced in Court. Hence, the F.I.R to the police has been suppressed and the written complaint (Exhibit-1) which is treated as F.I.R is hit by section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C'). Although P.W.1 claimed in the F.I.R that the victim told him that she had been raped it appears from the evidence of P.W.23 that the victim had only complained of back ache and pain in her left arm. P.W.31 admitted that he took photographs of the appellants probabilising the defence plea that the said photographs were shown to the witnesses prior to the T.I. Parade examination. Caste certificate of the victim was not produced in Court and her age had not been proved beyond doubt. Mr. Roy relied on authorities in support of his submissions. 9. Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant No.4 Goutam alias Huna Das argued that P.W.s 2 and 3 did not identify his client in Court. Presence of P.W.s 15 and 16 at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and their identification in Court or during T.I. Parade ought to be taken with a pinch of salt as the witnesses were known to the appellants. There is no legal admissible evidence on record to show that the said appellant was present at the place of occurrence and had committed the crime. The appellants supplemented their oral submissions with written arguments. 10. In reply, Mr. Bapuli, learned A.P.P. and Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the version of the victim is duly corroborated by her classmate P.W.3 and P.W.s 15 and 16. Medical evidence on record also established the prosecution case of rape and physical assault on the victim. Variations in the version of the witnesses are minor and do not affect the crux of the prosecution case that the victim was abducted on the fateful night by the appellants and was subsequently assaulted and raped. Medical evidence on record also established the prosecution case of rape and physical assault on the victim. Variations in the version of the witnesses are minor and do not affect the crux of the prosecution case that the victim was abducted on the fateful night by the appellants and was subsequently assaulted and raped. The victim had been treated by various doctors. P.W.23 found fracture on the shaft of her left humerous. P.W. 23 referred the victim to Dr. S.K. Mishra, a gynaecologist for treatment. Intimation letter of P.W.23 to the police (Exhibit-16) shows lacerated injury over the fourchette of the victim probabilising a case of rape. P.W.20, Medical Officer attached to the Department of Gynaecology of Kharagpur State District Hospital examined the victim on the next day of the incident and found her fourchette torn, hymen ruptured with bleeding, bruises over her forehead and fracture on her left arm. Dr. Lahiri (P.W.22), Chief Gynaecologist of South Eastern Railway Hospital, Garden Reach, Calcutta, also found tear in her hymen and a small contusion in the right labia along with slight bleeding (Exhibit-14). These medical evidence establish the prosecution case of gang rape of the victim beyond doubt. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Written argument was also filed to reinforce the aforesaid oral submission. Evidence On Record 11. P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl (P.W.2) and the de facto complainant in this case. He heard about the incident from Smeli Majhi (P.W.9), a friend of her daughter and went out to search for his daughter to her friend's house. Later on, his daughter was found lying at the side of a drain near their residence. She was shifted to Kharagpur Railway Hospital. He lodged a written compliant (Exhibit-1) at police station on 9.9.2012 at 2.45 A.M. which was scribed by P.W.18. P.W.2 is the victim girl herself. She graphically narrated the sordid incident of abduction by the appellants in presence of her classmate Rahul Prasad Sonar (P.W.3) and her subsequent brutal physical assault and rape by the miscreants. P.W.3, her friend, who was with P.W.2 at the time of her abduction corroborated her version. P.W. 4, mother of the victim, found her bleeding from her vagina and informed the doctor at the Kharagpur Railway Hospital. P.W.s 5 and 6 are brothers of the victim while P.W.7 is the father of P.W.3. P.W.3, her friend, who was with P.W.2 at the time of her abduction corroborated her version. P.W. 4, mother of the victim, found her bleeding from her vagina and informed the doctor at the Kharagpur Railway Hospital. P.W.s 5 and 6 are brothers of the victim while P.W.7 is the father of P.W.3. P.W.9, Smeli Majhi, heard the incident from Rahul (P.W.3) and informed P.W.1. P.W.8 is her father who corroborated her version. P.W.s 15 and 16 are independent witnesses who claimed to be present at the spot from where the victim (P.W.2) was abducted. P.W.s 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 are medical officers attached to various medical institutions where the victim was treated. P.W.27 was the Magistrate who recorded the statement of P.W.3 under section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W. 28 recorded the statement of the victim and conducted T.I Parade examination in this case. P.W.s 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 were police personnel involved in the investigation of the case and P.W.31 was the investigating officer. Evidence of P.W.s 2 and 3 - Whether Trustworthy? 12. P.W.2 is the victim and the most vital witness in this case. Her version is corroborated by her class friend Rahul Prasad Sonar (P.W.3). Both the witnesses unequivocally stated in the evening of 8th September, 2012, the victim (P.W.2) was abducted by seven-eight persons who came riding on three motorbikes. They assaulted P.W.3 and drove him away. Thereafter, P.W.2 deposed that she was taken to a nearby lonely place. They assaulted and raped her at that spot. Then they took her back to the place wherefrom they had abducted her. They again returned to the same jungle with her and assaulted and raped her. P.W.2 lost her senses and regained it at the hospital. Initially she could not remember anything. Subsequently, she narrated the whole incident. Her left hand was broken and she also suffered fracture of the backbone. After recovery, she attended T.I. Parade and identified the miscreants, namely, Y. Bijoy Bhaskar, Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty, Kalidas Pattanayek, and B. Praveen Kumar during T.I Parade examination as well as in Court. 13. Evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been criticized on the ground that place of occurrence has not been identified by the said witnesses in Court. While P.W.1 claimed she met Rahul (P.W.3) near Railway Mixed School, P.W.3 stated that he met P.W.2 near Arya Vidyapith. 13. Evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been criticized on the ground that place of occurrence has not been identified by the said witnesses in Court. While P.W.1 claimed she met Rahul (P.W.3) near Railway Mixed School, P.W.3 stated that he met P.W.2 near Arya Vidyapith. In cross-examination P.W.2 stated that she did not go to the ground of Arya Vidyapith with Rahul (P.W.3) and they were near Rambabu's pandal. Evidence of P.W.2 has also been criticized on the ground that while she claimed that she was returning after attending a birthday party of her friend at New Settlement, in cross-examination she admitted she never visited New Settlement. D. Bhattacharjee (P.W.31), investigation officer identified the places of occurrence and prepared rough sketch map with index (Exhibits-24 and 29). Although version of P.W.2 that she had gone to the residence of her friend for attending birthday party is not corroborated by examination of her friend in Court, analysis of evidence of P.W.s 2 and 3 leaves no doubt that they were near Arya Vidyapith when the appellants accosted them. It is relevant to bear in mind that P.W.s 2 and 3 were travelling together with their bicycles and, the apparent variation in describing the place of occurrence where they met the miscreants is due to reference to different landmarks by the witnesses, that is, Rambabu's Pandal (according to P.W.2) and Arya Vidyapith (as per P.W.3) while describing the same spot. It is nobody's case that the said landmarks were non-existent near the place of occurrence where they were accosted. Failure to note both the landmarks in the rough sketch map (Exhibit-24) by investigating officer is a defect in investigation which does not render the versions of P.W.s 2 and 3 in this regard untrustworthy. P.W.2 also described the second place of occurrence, where she was taken and raped as a lonely bushy area near the spot from where she was initially abducted. Hence, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsels for the appellant that the places of occurrence wherefrom the victim was abducted and subsequently assaulted and raped had not been established beyond doubt. 14. Evidence of the victim (P.W.2) is also criticized as untrustworthy as there is no evidence that she had, in fact, gone to the house of her friend to attend the birthday party. 14. Evidence of the victim (P.W.2) is also criticized as untrustworthy as there is no evidence that she had, in fact, gone to the house of her friend to attend the birthday party. It is true that the friend whose birthday party the victim claimed to have attended had not been examined during trial. However, failure to examine the friend whose residence P.W.2 is said to have visited that evening does not render her presence at the place of occurrence with P.W.3 improbable in the latter part of the evening. Rahul (P.W.3) is a classmate of the victim and he claimed that he met her to collect notes near Arya Vidyapith when both of them were accosted by the miscreants who came riding on motorbikes. In view of the friendship between P.W.s 2 and 3, who were classmates, their presence at the place of occurrence in the evening cannot be said to be so intrinsically entwined with P.W.2 attending the birthday party that the failure to prove the latter would render the former wholly improbable or absurd. It is settled law that evidence of a witness is to be examined as a whole and the principles of 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' does not apply so as to reject the entire evidence of a witness if some aspect of the evidence is unconvincing. Moreso, when the evidence is of a rape victim, her version has to be examined with utmost compassion and due sensitivity and minor deficiencies/ variations in her deposition which does not impact the core of her deposition relating to rape cannot be a ground to reject her evidence as a whole. To do so, would amount to secondary victimization of a rape survivor by rejecting her version on trifling inconsistencies. In Narender Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012 7 SCC 171 , the Apex Court held as follows:- "28. The courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which are not of a substantial character." 15. The courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses which are not of a substantial character." 15. Appreciating the evidence of P.W.2 from this perspective, I am of the view that the issue whether P.W.2 had attended the birthday party soon before the incident does not militate against or improbabilise her subsequent incident of being present with her friend (P.W.3) at the place of occurrence when she was confronted by the miscreants and abducted, assaulted and raped. Minor contradiction in respect of an incidental fact which does not play a vital role in unfolding of prosecution case would not sully the version of a rape victim with regard to the incident of sexual assault. Identification of the Appellants 16. P.W.2 have identified the appellants Y. Bijoy Bhaskar, Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty, Kalidas Pattanayek, and B. Praveen Kumar in Court as well as during T.I. Parade examination while P.W. 3 identified the appellants Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty, B. Praveen Kumar and Kalidas Pattanayek in court as well as T.I Parade. Appellant Goutam @ Huna Das was not identified either by the victim (P.W.2) or P.W.3 in Court. With regard to the such identification of the appellants by P.W.s 2 and 3, as aforesaid, it is submitted none of these witnesses had given out the special features of the appellants before the police or before the Magistrates (P.W.s 27 and 28) who recorded their statements under section 164 of Cr.P.C. It is also stated that source of light, that is, headlights of motorcycles were not disclosed by the said witnesses during their earlier statements. Photographs of the appellants had been taken by investigating officer and it is claimed that the said witnesses had been shown the photographs prior to identification. P.W.s 2 and 3 had deposed that the miscreants had come in three motorcycles at the time of the incident. Hence, it is all but natural when the miscreants had come riding in motorcycles around 7.00 p.m. in the night, the headlights of the said vehicles would be switched on. Therefore, version of the aforesaid witnesses that they could identify the appellants from the headlights of their motorcycles is not unnatural. Hence, it is all but natural when the miscreants had come riding in motorcycles around 7.00 p.m. in the night, the headlights of the said vehicles would be switched on. Therefore, version of the aforesaid witnesses that they could identify the appellants from the headlights of their motorcycles is not unnatural. That apart, P.W.2 had been abducted by the appellants and it is claimed that she was raped by them. It is nobody's case that the faces of the miscreants were covered. Proximity between a rape victim and her predators and the protracted period of time during which she was in their custody renders her identification of her tormentors most convincing and hence, I am of the opinion that failure to give out special identifying features on the part of P.W.2 in her earlier statement cannot be a ground to reject her identification of the appellants (apart from appellant No.4 Goutam @ Huna Das) in Court and in the course of T.I. Parade. A desperate plea was raised that the pictures of the appellants taken by investigating officer (P.W.31) had been shown to the victim including P.W.3. Taking a picture of an accused during investigation is a routine exercise and merely probabilising such fact does not establish the defence case that the said pictures had been shown to the witnesses particularly to P.W.2 who was bedridden and was receiving medical treatment in the hospital even seventeen days prior to her identification of the appellants (except appellant No.4 Goutam @ Huna Das). Delay in holding T.I Parade is explained due to health condition of P.W.2 who was hospitalized even seventeen days prior to the T.I Parade examination and attended such examination in a wheelchair. Hence, I hold that identification of the appellants (except appellant no. 4 Goutam @ Huna Das) by P.W. 2 is most natural and convincing and can be the sole basis of conviction. That apart, her evidence receives corroboration from P.W.3 who was present at the spot so far as appellant nos. 2, 3 and 5, namely Somnath@ Papai Chakraborty, Shri Kalidas Pattanayek, and B. Praveen Kumar are concerned. Corroboration By Medical Evidence 17. It has been strenuously argued that version of P.W.2 with regard to repeated rape by seven-eight miscreants is not corroborated by medical evidence on record. She claimed that she lost her senses immediately after the incident and regained it in hospital. Corroboration By Medical Evidence 17. It has been strenuously argued that version of P.W.2 with regard to repeated rape by seven-eight miscreants is not corroborated by medical evidence on record. She claimed that she lost her senses immediately after the incident and regained it in hospital. Her mother (P.W.4) claimed that her daughter regained her senses in the morning of 9th September, 2012 and thereafter narrated the incident to her. On the other hand, P.W.23 who treated the victim at Kharagpur Railway Hospital claimed that the patient was conscious and oriented. She complained of back ache and pain on left arm only. I have examined the medical evidence on record in the light of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellants. P.W.2 in her deposition stated that she had regained her consciousness in the hospital but due to trauma could not come out with the entire incident till next day. Her mother (P.W.4) had seen her bleeding from vagina and complained of rape to the doctor which was noted in the medical papers. P.W.23 did not examine private parts of the patient and referred the victim to a gynaecologist, Dr. S.K. Mishra. Bed head ticket (Exhibit-15) as well as intimation to officer-in-charge Kharagpur Town police station (Exhibit-16) note small laceration over fourchette of the victim. Pursuant to such intimation the victim was taken to the Department of Gynaecology of Kharagpur State District Hospital and was examined by P.W. 20. On examination P.W.20 found fourchette torn, hymen ruptured with bleeding. He opined that it may be a case of attempted rape and should be confirmed by circumstantial evidence. In Court, he clarified that the victim girl was forcibly sexually assaulted. P.W.22, the Chief Gynaecologist, South Eastern Railway Hospital, Garden Reach, Calcutta, examined the victim on 10.9.2012 and found tear in her hymen and a small contusion in the right labia and slight bleeding. He proved the bedhead ticket (Exbt-14/1). The aforesaid medical evidence wholly probabilises the allegation of sexual assault on the victim. P.W.4, mother of the victim had noticed bleeding from her vagina and had complained of sexual assault to the doctor. Victim was in a state of trauma and could not narrate the entire incident till she regained her composure on the next day. The aforesaid medical evidence wholly probabilises the allegation of sexual assault on the victim. P.W.4, mother of the victim had noticed bleeding from her vagina and had complained of sexual assault to the doctor. Victim was in a state of trauma and could not narrate the entire incident till she regained her composure on the next day. In the night of admission at Kharagpur Railway hospital tear/laceration in her fourchette was noted in the bedhead ticket (Exhibit-15) as well as in the intimation note to police (Exhibit-16). P.W.20, Gynaecologist at Kharagpur S.D. Hospital found her fourchette and hymen torn and bleeding from her private parts. Injuries and slight bleeding on the right labia were also found by P.W.23, Chief Gynaecologist who treated the victim at South Eastern Railway Hospital, Garden Reach, Calcutta. Consistent evidence of gynaecologists particularly by P.W.20 and P.W.23 with regard to injuries in the private part of the victim and active bleeding, leave no doubt in one's mind that she had been sexually assaulted. It has been argued that the extent of injuries were not commensurate to the narration of the victim (P.W.2) that she was raped repeatedly by seven-eight persons repeatedly. The victim girl (P.W.2) identified the appellants, namely, Y. Bijoy Bhaskar, Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty, Kalidas Pattanayek, and B. Praveen Kumar as miscreants who were present at the time of sexual assault on her. Mere presence as a member in a group of persons, one of whom had raped the victim would satisfy the ingredient of the offence of gang rape. That apart, gravity of the injury suffered by the victim would necessarily be dependent on the extent of forcible penetration and resistance held out by her. It is possible that helpless surrender of a victim to repeated acts of rape on her may have resulted in lesser degree of injuries in her private parts. But such circumstances certainly do not improbabilise her evidence to such an extent to render it unacceptable. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I am convinced that the medical evidence instead of ruling out a case of gang rape, in fact, corroborates one and the plea of the appellants on this score is liable to be turned down. Ample evidence has come on record from the version of the medical witnesses, as aforesaid, as well as the Orthopedic Surgeons, namely, Dr. S. Basu Roy (P.W.21) and Dr. Ample evidence has come on record from the version of the medical witnesses, as aforesaid, as well as the Orthopedic Surgeons, namely, Dr. S. Basu Roy (P.W.21) and Dr. S. Basu (P.W.24) that the victim suffered extensive injuries including fracture of the left arm and vertebrae in the course of the incident of assault and rape on her. Hence, medical evidence on record wholly supports the genesis of the prosecution case of gross physical and repetitive sexual assault on the victim as narrated by her in Court. Whether F.I.R Was Preceded By An Earlier Complaint And Hit By Section 162 Cr.P.C 18. It has been argued that F.I.R lodged by P.W.1 father of the victim was preceded by an earlier complaint to the police and is hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C. In support of such argument reference is made to the evidence of P.W.1, in cross that on the night of the incident he had gone to the police station and made a statement which was noted by the police officers. None of the police officers examined in the instant case were confronted by the defence whether they had recorded the statement of P.W.1 in writing in the night of the incident prior to registration of F.I.R. In the absence of corroboration from police personnel, this Court is of the view, it would be unsafe to come to the conclusion that a prior complaint was reduced into writing before registration of F.I.R. On the other hand, seizure of wearing apparels of the victim (Exhibit-4/1) on 9.9.2012 at 01.02 hrs. appear to be a product of preliminary enquiry pursuant to the intimation received from Kharagpur Railway Hospital (Exhibit-16) relating to attack on the victim. Subsequently at 02.45 hrs., written complaint lodged by P.W.1 and scribed by P.W.18 was received by P.W.30 at the police station and treated as F.I.R. Arguments with regard to overwriting in the formal part of the F.I.R appear to be inadvertent mistakes and P.W.30 (recording officer) has also explained that the difference in the nature of writing in the F.I.R is due to use of different pens. Hence, I am of the opinion that written complaint lodged by P.W.1 was the F.I.R lodged at the police station and the preliminary enquiry which commenced prior thereto was pursuant to intimation from hospital authorities (Exhibit-16) and not prior to complaint lodged by P.W.1 which has been suppressed by the prosecution as contended on behalf of the defence. Other Supporting Evidence 19. Evidence of the victim (P.W.2) and her friend Rahul (P.W.3) is supported by their relations, namely, P.W.1, (father of the victim and de facto complainant), P.W.4 (mother of the victim), P.W.5 and P.W.6 (brothers of the victim) and P.W.7 (father of P.W.3). There is nothing in their evidence which either militates against the versions of P.W.s 2 and 3 or renders them improbable. P.W.9 Smeli Majhi, a friend of the victim corroborated the version of P.W.3 that she was intimated about the incident by him and that she, in return, had informed such fact to P.W.1 father of the victim. No doubt, P.W.31 could have examined Anusua, friend of P.W.2 whose birthday party P.W.2 attended. However, for reasons recorded above failure to do so does not adversely affect either the genesis or crux of the prosecution case relating to kidnapping, brutal assault and rape of the victim which have been proved beyond doubt by P.W.2 (the victim) and other witnesses. Recovery of Motorcycles 20. However, I have not given credence to the recovery of the motorcycles by the investigating agency from the shops of Nimai Das (P.W.11) and Prabir Bhowmik (P.W.12) which were allegedly made pursuant to the statements of appellant Nos.3 and 5. It appears from the evidence of P.W.s 11 and 12 that the motorcycles had been already identified by the police earlier and were not recovered pursuant to the leading statements of the said appellants, as alleged. Similarly no credence can be given to the recovery of a broken spectacle in the presence of appellant No.4 Goutam @ Huna Das as no foundational fact connecting the said spectacle with the alleged incident has been established. Evidence of Chance Witnesses- P.W.s 15 & 16 21. Presence of P.W.15 Rohit Pandey and P.W.16 Kaushik Chowdhury at the place of occurrence has not been noted either by P.W.2 or P.W.3. P.W.15 is not a local resident and his explanation that he was collecting subscriptions for conducting puja in a local club appears to be highly artificial. Evidence of Chance Witnesses- P.W.s 15 & 16 21. Presence of P.W.15 Rohit Pandey and P.W.16 Kaushik Chowdhury at the place of occurrence has not been noted either by P.W.2 or P.W.3. P.W.15 is not a local resident and his explanation that he was collecting subscriptions for conducting puja in a local club appears to be highly artificial. He has also admitted that he knew all the appellants from before. He, however, did not give out the names of the appellants, to police during interrogation and his identification of the appellants in Court or during T.I. Parade is of little relevance in the light of his prior acquaintance with them. Similarly, version of P.W.16 is also not convincing and he is also of little help to the prosecution case. Charge Under Section 3(1)(XI) Of S.C. & S.T. Act 22. With regard to the charge under section 3(1)(XI) of S.C. & S.T. Act I am of the opinion, as the caste certificates of the victim or her family members have not been proved and since there is no evidence on record that the appellants were aware of the caste of the victim or intended to commit crime on such score, the offence under section 3(1)(XI) of S.C & S.T Act has not been established beyond doubt. Hence, the conviction of the appellants punishable under section 3(1)(XI) of S.C. & S.T. Act is, set aside. Conclusion 23. In light of the evidence on record particularly that of P.W.s 2 and 3, I am of the opinion that the appellant nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, namely, Shri Y.Bijoy Bhaskar, Shri. Somnath@ Papai Chakraborty, Shri Kalidas Pattanayek and Shri Praveen Kumar abducted, physically assaulted and repeatedly raped the victim girl (P.W.2) in the evening of 8.9.12. Presence of appellant no.4 Goutam @ Huna Das, in the course of the aforesaid incident, however, is not proved beyond doubt since neither the victim (P.W.2) nor her companion (P.W.3) identified him in Court. Accordingly, I uphold the convictions of appellant nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 for commission of offences under sections 366/34, 325/34 and 376(2)(g) of IPC. Appellant no. 4 Goutam @ Huna Das is extended the benefit of the doubt and is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. All the appellants are acquitted of the offences under section 3(1)(XI) of the S.C. & S.T. Act 1989. 24. Appellant no. 4 Goutam @ Huna Das is extended the benefit of the doubt and is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. All the appellants are acquitted of the offences under section 3(1)(XI) of the S.C. & S.T. Act 1989. 24. Coming to the issue of sentence, I note the appellants had been sentenced to suffer the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the commission of offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of I.P.C. No doubt, the act of the appellants in subjecting the victim to brutal assault and rape is a heinous one. Victim was hospitalized for three and a half months. However, such hospitalization is attributable to the physical assault on her and not on the score of sexual assault. Appellants do not have criminal antecedents. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the present case, I direct the Appellant No.1 Y. Bijoy Bhaskar, Appellant No.2 Somnath alias Papai Chakraborty, Appellant No.3 Kalidas Pattanayek, and Appellant No.5 B. Praveen Kumar to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fourteen (14) years and pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more for commission of offences under 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. 25. Sentences for the commission of offence punishable under section 366/34 of I.P.C. and under section 325/34 of I.P.C. shall remain unaffected. All the sentences are to run concurrently. Fine amount, if realized, shall be paid to the victim under section 357 Cr.P.C. 26. Sentencing in a criminal case must include within its fold the principles of restorative and restitutive justice. It is the duty of the sentencing judge not only to impose proportionate punishment on the convict but also to address the issue of compensation and rehabilitation of victims of crime. Compensation awarded to the victim must be just and commensurate to the physical harm and mental trauma suffered by her. It ought not to be illusory or token in nature. Such compensation may be realized from the convicts under sections 357 Cr.P.C. However, in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770 , it was held that the economic capability of an accused is to be borne in mind while imposing such liability on him. It ought not to be illusory or token in nature. Such compensation may be realized from the convicts under sections 357 Cr.P.C. However, in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770 , it was held that the economic capability of an accused is to be borne in mind while imposing such liability on him. Hence, in addition to compensation payable by a convict under section 357 Cr.P.C. the legislature gave statutory acknowledgment to the constitutional duty of the State to compensate and rehabilitate victims of crime or their dependants (by incorporating section 357A in the Code) and enjoining upon the State the duty to formulate and fund appropriate Victim Compensation Schemes. While compensation awarded under section 357 Cr.P.C. is based on principles of tortuous liability in private law and is dependent on the economic capabilities of the accused, scope and ambit of compensation awarded to the victims under a scheme formulated under section 357 Cr.P.C. is founded on the constitutional duty to provide just compensation to victims of crime for loss of life, limb and/or properties in the public law domain. Such compensation is to be primarily adjudged from the extent of physical harm and mental trauma suffered by the victim and her consequential needs for rehabilitation. In view of the grave physical injuries suffered by P.W. 2 and ignominy of gang rape which has left an indelible mark on her body and psyche, I am of the opinion P.W.2 is entitled to compensation from the State under section 357A Cr.P.C. in addition to the amount she may have received from her father's employer, that is South Eastern Railways or under section 357 Cr.P.C. as aforesaid. Accordingly, I direct the State of West Bengal to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation to P.W.2 within 30 days from date. Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, shall take steps to ensure payment of such compensation to P.W.2 at the earliest. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 28. Appellant No.4 Goutam @ Huna Das shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court which shall remain in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437A of the Cr.P.C. 29. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 28. Appellant No.4 Goutam @ Huna Das shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, upon execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court which shall remain in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437A of the Cr.P.C. 29. The period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon them in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. 30. A copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial Court at once for necessary action. 31. Copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, and Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority for due compliance. 32. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. I agree.