JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai in Sessions Trials No.12/2020, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner : Conviction Sentence U/s 366 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years & fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of fine, additional R.I. for 02 months U/s 376(2) (g) of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years & fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of fine, additional R.I. for 05 months U/s 506 Part-II of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 20 years & fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of fine, additional R.I. for 01 months 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 08.12.2019, the victim appeared at Police Station, Salhewara and filed a written complaint to the effect that on 02.12.2019, she had gone to attend chhatti program at Bharat’s house at XXX village. At around 09.00 pm, after feeding the guests, while she was going towards the street to clean up and throw the garbage, the accused/ appellants started catching and taking her away, then she screamed but no one heard her voice as the mike was on. The accused took her to the stairs of XXX pond, threatened her and raped her one by one, due to which she became unconscious. During that time, the accused were calling each others name. After 15 to 20 minutes, when she regain conscious, she went to her maternal uncle’s house without cloth and called out, then her maternal aunt took her inside the house and dressed her. Thereafter, she told her aunt about the incident. On 03.12.2019, she returned to her home along with her sister and brother-in-law, but remained silent due to threats from the accused/appellants. When her parents inquired about the reason behind her constant silence she told them about the incident. On the basis of said complaint, FIR (Exhibit P/2) was registered against the accused/appellants under Crime No. 65/2019 on 08.12.2019 at 16.10 hours for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 363 and 506 of the IPC and the case was taken up for investigation. 3. Statements of the victim and witnesses were recorded vide Exs. On the basis of said complaint, FIR (Exhibit P/2) was registered against the accused/appellants under Crime No. 65/2019 on 08.12.2019 at 16.10 hours for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 363 and 506 of the IPC and the case was taken up for investigation. 3. Statements of the victim and witnesses were recorded vide Exs. D-1 to D-9 Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P-3. After giving notice U/s 91 of the CrPC vide Ex.P-4 clothes of the victim were recovered and seized vide Ex.P-6. After taking consent of the victim vide Ex/P-5, she was medically examined by Dr. Leela Ramteke (PW-4) vide Ex.P-10. Two vaginal slides of the victim prepared by the Doctor in a sealed packed and pubic hair of the victim in a matchbox were seized vide Ex.P-47. Examination report of the clothes of the victim was received vide Ex.P-11. Memo to JMFC requesting to record the statement of the victim U/s 164 of CrPC was given vide Ex.P-49. Statement of the victim under Section 164 of CrPC was recorded vide Ex.P-7 and the statement of her maternal aunt Smt. Dayabati was recorded vide Ex.P-12. The accused/appellants were taken into custody and information of their arrest were given vide Ex.P- 26 to P-29 and their memorandum statements were recorded vide Exs. P-14 to P-17. Recovery panchnamas were prepared vide Exs. P-18 to P-21 and under garments of the accused/appellants were seized vide Exs. P-22 to P-25. Memo for preparing stop map was given vide Ex. P-36 and the stop map of the incident site was prepared by the concerned Patwari vide Ex.P-37. Applications for medical examination of the accused/appellants were given and they were medically examined vide Exs. P-38 to P-41. Examination report of seized underwear of the accused/appellants were received vide Exs. P-42 to 45. 4. After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellants/convict under section 376(2)(g), 363 and 506-II of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhuikhadan, from where the case has been referred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District-Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, where the case was commenced for trial in Sessions Trial No. 12/2020. 5. When the charges were duly framed against the accused/ appellants under Section 366, 376(2)(g) and 506 Part-II of the IPC, after they were read and explained, the accused denied having committed the alleged crime. 5. When the charges were duly framed against the accused/ appellants under Section 366, 376(2)(g) and 506 Part-II of the IPC, after they were read and explained, the accused denied having committed the alleged crime. The statements of the accused were recorded in their worn words. When the accused were examined under Section 313 of CrPC, though they claimed to be innocent and were falsely implicated, but did not allow any witness to testify in their defence. 6. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents (Exhibits P-1 to P-54). 7. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 20.09.2022 convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment. 8. The present appeal was filed on 29.09.2022 and the matter was admitted for hearing on 13.10.2022. Today, though the matter is listed for hearing for hearing on IA No. 1 of 2022, i.e. application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 9. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the victim is aged about 20 years and the appellants are younger boys they have neither threatened nor committed any offence as imposed by the learned trial Court against them. He further submits that there is no eye witness to the incident and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There are contradictions and omissions in the statement of witnesses. He also submits that the medical evidence does not corroborate the case of the prosecution. The incident took place on 02.12.2019 and the case was registered on 08.12.2019 and thus, there is delay of 6 days in filing the FIR by the complainant. The doctor has given in his opinion that the body of the victim did not found any symptom for committing rape and no any internal and external injury has found on the body of the victim which is clearly mentioned in paragraph No. 28 of the impugned conviction order. The doctor has given in his opinion that the body of the victim did not found any symptom for committing rape and no any internal and external injury has found on the body of the victim which is clearly mentioned in paragraph No. 28 of the impugned conviction order. He further submits that written complaint has been filed with extreme delay on the basis of false facts. No independent witness has supported the incident. The threat which is stated to have caused the delay in filing the report is also not proved. The accused have been falsely implicated on the basis of mere suspicion that the alleged video was made viral. Even though the incident is not supported by the medical report. It has been argued on behalf of the defence that despite the witnesses being relatives, none of them have corroborated the incident in relation to the alleged crime, due to which the prosecution’s case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above situation, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2005 (1) MPHT 65 and Rajinder Singh Katoch Vs. Chandigarh Administration and others 2008 (iv) L.S.Ct. 21. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellants have committed a heinous crime of gang rape against a girl. He further submits that the PW-5 has clearly deposed before the learned trial Court that she saw the prosecutrix in nude condition just before the incident where the victim narrated the whole incident to her. He also submits that the medical evidence clearly supports the case of the prosecution. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. In the case in hand, the FIR was lodged by the victim herself. The incident is said to have occurred on 02.12.2019 at about 09 p.m. and the written complaint made by her on 08.02.2019, in which she has stated about the incident. On the basis of which FIR was registered on the same day i.e. on 08.02.2019. 13. 12. In the case in hand, the FIR was lodged by the victim herself. The incident is said to have occurred on 02.12.2019 at about 09 p.m. and the written complaint made by her on 08.02.2019, in which she has stated about the incident. On the basis of which FIR was registered on the same day i.e. on 08.02.2019. 13. The questions to be considered for resolution of the case are as follows : (01) Did the accused on 02.12.2019 at around 9.00 pm kidnapped the victim by taking her out of her father’s lawful guardianship without her consent ? (02) Did the accused, with a common intention to rape the victim on the date, time and place of the said incident and in her presence, committed gang rape with her ? (03) Did the accused cause criminal intimation by threatening to kill the victim with the intention of causing terror on the date, time and place of the said incident ? 14. Since all these three questions to be considered are related to each other, in order to avoid repetition of evidence, all the three moot questions are being resolved together. 15. The victim (PW-1) in her statement has stated that she knows the accused Tekchand, Anand alias Anaku, Mayaram and Sitaram. The incident happened 2-3 months ago when she had gone with her younger brother to her maternal uncle’s village for a chhatti program, where after cleaning the house at around 8-9 pm, she was going towards the street to throw garbage, the four accused came there together and started pulling her towards the pond by holding her hand, she started screaming for help, but because it was night and the mike was playing, no one could hear her voice. After that, the accused took her to the stairs of the pond, threatened her and raped her one by one. Thereafter, they threw her naked near the well. During that time, the accused were taking to each other and taking each other’s name, due to which she knew their names. She further stated that after about 15-20 minutes, she regained consciousness and in the same condition she ran to her maternal aunt’s house calling out to her, then her aunt dressed her, thereafter she told her aunt (PW-5) and her sister (PW-7) about the incident. The next day, she came to her village. She further stated that after about 15-20 minutes, she regained consciousness and in the same condition she ran to her maternal aunt’s house calling out to her, then her aunt dressed her, thereafter she told her aunt (PW-5) and her sister (PW-7) about the incident. The next day, she came to her village. She has further stated that after committing rape on her, the accused threatened her to kill her if she told anyone about the incident, due to which she did not tell anyone and seemed to be missing at home, then her parents asked her that since she came from her maternal uncle’s village, why has she been living alone and not talking to anyone properly ? Then, she told them about the incident. Further statement of the victim (PW-1) is that on 08.12.2019, she went to Salhewara Police Station and gave written complaint about the incident vide Ex.P-1, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered. 16. In her cross-examination, the victim (PW-1) has stated that it is correct to say that when she complained to the police, she did not tell about being dragged from the courtyard, she automatically said that she was dragged from the street. The incident at 7 o’clock which she has told the police, did not take place at that time, but the incident that she has mentioned in her written complaint was happened at 9 o’clock. She denied the suggestion that she worn the clothes 2-3 times, which she had confiscated. When she went naked from across the well to her maternal uncle’s house, no one in my maternal uncle’s house could see her. The clothes which were lying near the pond were brought by her maternal uncle. On the day of her departure, she had told her maternal uncle Madhu that her clothes were lying near the pond, she automatically told that her maternal uncle had taken her clothes from near the well and had kept the said clothes in his own house for 5-6 days. On the day, when she went to the Police Station to file report, she went to her maternal uncle’s house and brought the clothes and had it confiscated. On the day, when she went to the Police Station to file report, she went to her maternal uncle’s house and brought the clothes and had it confiscated. She also denied the suggestion she was caught with another boy at Jalda pond, which video was got viral by the accused/appellants and for the said purpose, there was a meeting the village, in order to implicate them by saying that the accused had made the video, she has falsely made a collective statement, by watching the video, against her relative accused Anand and his associates, implicating them in the case of gang rape to save herself from infamy. In her cross-examination, though she has admitted that all the witnesses in the case are her relatives. She denied the suggestion that since no incident had happened with her, hence she did not tell to anyone of village Sarondhi and her village and to save herself from defamation, she had implicated the accused and had made her family members as witnesses. 17. Almost similar statements were made by the father of the victim (PW-2) and mother of the victim (PW-3), who have supported the above statements of the victim in their examination-in-chief. 18. Dr. Leela Ramteke (PW-4), who had medically examined the victim, in her statement has stated that on examination of the victim she had found following injuries : (1) Two scratches were found in her right hand of ½ x ¼ cm and ¼ x ¼ cm in size. (2) On internal examination, her vagina was loose and two fingers could easily enter it, the hymen membrane was torn and old granulation tissue was present. Two slides of vaginal fluid were prepared, sealed and handed over to the female constable. The pubic hair was sealed in a matchbox and handed over to the female constable. 19. While giving opinion, Dr. Leela Ramteke (PW-4) has stated that the said injuries were of normal nature and were caused by a blunt object within 5 to 6 days. She was addicted to sex. The report given by her in this regard is Ex.P-10. On the same date, five sealed packets of the victim’s clothes were brought for testing by the same lady constable. Leela Ramteke (PW-4) has stated that the said injuries were of normal nature and were caused by a blunt object within 5 to 6 days. She was addicted to sex. The report given by her in this regard is Ex.P-10. On the same date, five sealed packets of the victim’s clothes were brought for testing by the same lady constable. One was white colour samij, in which a white dirty stain was found at one place; one was dark brown colour underwear, in which a white dirty stain was found at one place; a black colored chunni also had a white dirty stain at one place; a black legging was found with dirty white stains at four places; a pink kurti was found with bloodstain at one place and mud stains were found at four places. All the white dirty stains were circled with blue ink and all the clothes were sealed and handed over to the same lay constable with the advice of chemical testing. The report given by her in this regard is Ex.P-11. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not mentioned the color of the scratch marks found on the victim’s right hand. She also admitted that if the bruise is fresh then it is red in color, after that it becomes thick and then it becomes completely thick. She further admitted that from the report given by her it is not clear as to how many days or how long the said injuries were sustained. She denied the suggestion that she has determined the injury to have occurred within 5-6 days as per the victim’s description. In her cross-examination, she further admitted that if 4-5 people together try to rape a girl, then there is a possibility of getting roaches by rubbing the open parts of the girl like back, elbow, buttocks. She admitted that she has not found the above type of injuries on the body of the victim. She found two scratches on the upper part of the right hand of victim, but did not find any injury mark on the lower part of the hand. She further admitted that if 4-5 people rape a girl then there is a possibility of serious injury caused near uterus and internal part. She found two scratches on the upper part of the right hand of victim, but did not find any injury mark on the lower part of the hand. She further admitted that if 4-5 people rape a girl then there is a possibility of serious injury caused near uterus and internal part. It is true to say that if a virgin is raped by 4-5 people out of excitement then there is a possibility of serious damage to her hymen membrane including internal part of the body and those injuries may persist for months. She also admitted that she did not find the above mentioned injuries on the internal and external parts of the vagina of the victim. She also admitted that the stains of one’s own discharge can also appear on the underwear or other clothes worn by the person and that clothes can also get stained during women’s mensuration. 20. Dayavati Bai Sahare (PW-5), maternal aunt of the victim, in her statement, has stated that she does not recognize the accused/ appellants. The victim is her niece and had to attend chhatti function at village Sarodhi, where she had also gone. She had fallen asleep, when the victim screamed, she saw that entire cloth of the victim was tied around her neck and she was naked, then she dressed her. Thereafter, she interrogated the victim and she told that four people had picked her up from the street and taken her towards the pond, apart from this she did not tell me anything, she only know this much. At this point she was declared hostile and leading questions were put to her. She dined the statement given by her in Ex.D-4. In her cross- examination, she has admitted that the chhatti program was going on till 11-12 at night and villagers and relatives were coming and going for the said program. If 4-5 people drags someone across the street, where the chhatti program was taking place, the people present at the function would be able to seem them. There was light at the place where the function was taking place and at the back wide where the food program was being held, there was also light. She also admitted that people were sitting in the courtyard, and if someone drag a girl in the courtyard, people sitting there will be able to see them. 21. There was light at the place where the function was taking place and at the back wide where the food program was being held, there was also light. She also admitted that people were sitting in the courtyard, and if someone drag a girl in the courtyard, people sitting there will be able to see them. 21. Madhuram Kanware (PW-6), maternal uncle of the victim, in his statement has stated that he recognize the accused present in the Court, they are residents of our village Sarodhi. The victim appears to be his niece. He has no knowledge about the incident. He was engaged in the work of providing food and drinks during the chhatti program. Later, after a week, he came to know what happened in the chhatti program. At this point he was declared hostile and leading questions were put to him. He dined the statement given by him in Ex.D-5. 22. Rajbai @ Rajbati Kanware (PW-7) stated in her statement that she don’t remember the date of incident, she know the victim and she a distant relative. She don’t know what incident happened to the victim. At this point she was declared hostile and leading questions were put to her. She dined the statement given by her in Ex.D-6. 23. Ramprasad Patel (PW-8), in his statement has stated that he do not know the victim, he also don’t know anything about the incident. As the police called him to the police Station and asked him to sign, then he had signed the papers in the police station. He was declared hostile and when leading questions were put to him, he dined the statement given by him in Ex.D-7. 24. Manharan Patel (PW-9) and Rakesh Patel (PW-10) both have stated they came to police station when they got information about the video going viral. When the went to police station, the police did not tell them whose video had gone viral. The policeman asked, do they know the accused, then they told that as the accused are from our village they know them. 25. Rajendra Kumar Sahu (PW-11) is the patwari, who has prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-37. 26. Smt. Usha Aailwar (PW-12), is the constable who had recorded statement of the victim, has stated in her statement that she has recorded the statement of the victim as per her description. 25. Rajendra Kumar Sahu (PW-11) is the patwari, who has prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-37. 26. Smt. Usha Aailwar (PW-12), is the constable who had recorded statement of the victim, has stated in her statement that she has recorded the statement of the victim as per her description. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the victim did not tell her any reason for late reporting. She has recorded the statement of the victim as she told her regarding the incident. 27. Dr. Abhinav Panchari (PW-13) has medically examined the accused/appellants and given his report/opinion vide Exs. P-38 to P-41 that the accused are capable to perform sex and has also stated that he has not found any internal or external injuries over the body of the accused/appellants. He has also stated that during the trial underwear of the accused/appellants were brought by the constable, which were sent for FSL to Raipur vide Exs P-42 to 45. 28. It is settled law that in the more serious crime, the Court would be more cautious while examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and should carry out a strict and minute examination, so that the truthfulness of witness can be ensured. The victim (PW-1) has admitted in her cross-examination that all the witnesses in the case are her relatives, which the father of the victim (PW-2) has also admitted in his cross-examination. It has been argued on behalf of the defence that despite the witnesses being relatives, none of them have corroborated the incident in relation to the alleged crime, due to which the prosecution’s case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. According to Section 134 of the Evidence Act, the number of witnesses to prove a crime is not required or fixed. Obviously, this depends on the credibility of the witnesses. In the present case, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7 are members of a family and most of them have turned hostile. But on this basis alone, their statements cannot be completely rejected. However, in such a situation, it becomes necessary to scrutinize the statements of the above mentioned single witness, the victim, with utmost precision. 29. In the present case, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7 are members of a family and most of them have turned hostile. But on this basis alone, their statements cannot be completely rejected. However, in such a situation, it becomes necessary to scrutinize the statements of the above mentioned single witness, the victim, with utmost precision. 29. In the present case, although the medical examination report does not corroborate the statement of the victim, yet after the incident, during the investigation, her statement was recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, which has been proved by the Investigating Officer Vyasnarayan Churendra (PW-14). Subsequently, stated in the statement under Section 164 CrPC that the accused took her in furtherance of their common intention and raped her one by one. The same statement was also given the Court. In her sworn statement, the victim has stated that the accused forcibly took her away and raped her and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about this incident. Therefore, this is no reason to doubt the above statement made by the victim against the accused. In the above situation, the argument made by learned counsel for the accused that they have been implicated in a false case without any basis, finds no force. 30. First Information Report is a supporting document if it is recorded without any delay, there is a strong possibility that a proper report of the incident has actually occurred. In such a situation, the possibility of someone being implicated in a false case is extremely slim. However, it can also be used in rebuttal. 31. Regarding the First Information Report, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Vs. State J.T. 2007 (13) MC 68 has observed that the First Information Report is a very important document in any case. If any crime is committed against a person, it is his legal responsibility to report to the nearest Police Station as soon as possible and lodged First Information Report mentioning the date, time and place of incident. The First Information Report must contain a brief description of the crime. Also, if the names of the accused, witnesses etc. are known then it should also be mentioned. Therefore, the question to consider is whether the First Information Report in the case under consideration has been filed as soon as possible in a legal manner as mentioned above. 32. The First Information Report must contain a brief description of the crime. Also, if the names of the accused, witnesses etc. are known then it should also be mentioned. Therefore, the question to consider is whether the First Information Report in the case under consideration has been filed as soon as possible in a legal manner as mentioned above. 32. Inspector Vyas Narayan Churendra (PW-14) has stated in his statement that on 08.12.2019, the victim along with her family members appeared at Salhewara Police Station and submitted a written complaint against the accused for raping her. On the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P-2) was filed by him. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the written complaint (Ex.P-1) about the incident that took place on 02.12.2019 at around 9.00 pm was made by the victim at Salhewara Police Station at 16.10 pm on 08.12.2019, on the basis of which, FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused, in which the distance from the incident site to the Police Station is said to be 6 kilometers. The reason for delay has been cited as the accused threatening to kill her if she reported the matter and the delay in telling the matter to her parents by the accused. 33. In Bharwada Bhogin Bhai Hirji Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that in the Indian Social environment, before reporting the incident of rape in relation to the daughter of the family, the family considers its own social circumstances and the possibilities for the future of the victim. Similarly, according to the judicial precedent in Omprakash Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2682 , when a young girl goes through the pain of rape, she is reluctant to tell the details of the incident to anyone, even to the family members. As soon as the details of the incident were told to the family members, first information report was lodged and the delay was not considered fatal. 34. According to the FIR (Ex.P-2) and written complaint (Ex.P-1), the said incident was occurred 6 days before the report was lodged. Certainly for filing the report from a distance of 6 km. from Police Station after 6 days seems to be a delay, but it is noteworthy here that the alleged crime is related to gang rape. 34. According to the FIR (Ex.P-2) and written complaint (Ex.P-1), the said incident was occurred 6 days before the report was lodged. Certainly for filing the report from a distance of 6 km. from Police Station after 6 days seems to be a delay, but it is noteworthy here that the alleged crime is related to gang rape. Generally, in such cases, if a woman or her family members do no file a report immediately, then it cannot be said that they are making completely false statements. Crimes related to women are linked to their identity and family’s respect as well as their future. In such cases, woman get broken not only physically but also mentally, which takes a lot of time to recover. If complaints of such incidents are not made immediately, only then the entire case of the prosecution cannot be called unbelievable. Thus, the judicial precedent presented by the accused do not get them any benefit. 35. In the case in hand, the written complaint was filed by the victim herself and on the basis of which, FIR was registered. The incident is said to have occurred on 02.12.2019 at about 09:00 p.m. and the written complaint and the FIR was made on 08.12.2019. Though the victim herself has deposed that while committing rape on her, the accused were calling each others name, thus she remember their name and she told her maternal aunt and her sister about the incident on the same day after returning home from the place of incident, but they remain silent due to threat of the accused/appellants and on 03.12.2019, she returned to her home along with her sister and brother-in-law and remained silent due to threats from the accused/appellants. When her parents inquired about the reason behind her constant silence she told them about the incident, thereafter, she had submitted the written complaint, on the basis of which, FIR was registered against the accused persons. 36. In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573 , the Supreme Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 37. 36. In the case of Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SCC 573 , the Supreme Court observed and held that that there can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy, unblemished, credible and her evidence is of sterling quality. 37. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, { (2019) 11 SCC 575 }, it was observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It was further observed and held that sole testimony of prosecutrix should not be doubted by court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. 38. In the case of Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, { (2018) 18 SCC 34 }, the Supreme Court observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It was further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. 39. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the victim. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the victim can be sustained. 40. So far as commission of rape is concerned, according to the medical report of the victim, she has been found capable of having physical relations. However, there is no clear evidence regarding her having sexual intercourse at the time of the test. It is also clear from the report of the Medical Officer that during the examination, no injuries were found on the back or other parts of the body of the victim, although a minor injury was found on the right hand of the victim. Thus, it is proved that during examination, there was general injury to the right hand of the victim. Thus, it is proved that during examination, there was general injury to the right hand of the victim. She was capable of having sexual intercourse, but from the said medical report of Medical Officer Dr. Leela Ramkete (PW-4) it is not clear that the victim was not raped. But merely on the basis that there is no sign or condition related to gang rape on the body of the victim, the entire case of the prosecution does not become unbelievable. 41. In the rape incident, competency test of the accused is also much important for investigation, Medical Officer Dr. Avinav Panchari (PW-13) has stated in his statement that when the accused Mayaram, Sitaram, Tekchand and Anand Yadav were brought for medical examination by the concerned constable, separate physical and genital examinations were done by him, then the accused were found to be completely capable of sexual intercourse. The medical reports given by him in this regard are Exs.P-38 to P-41 respectively. It this way, it is proved that the accused are capable of committing the alleged crime. 42. Rape has been defined in Section 375 of the IPC as follows : “375. Rape.-- A man is said to commit "rape" if he-- (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions: First. Against her will. Secondly. Without her consent. Thirdly. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly. Against her will. Secondly. Without her consent. Thirdly. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly. With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly. With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. Seventhly. When she is unable to communicate consent. Explanation 1. For the purposes of this section, "vagina" shall also include labia majora. Explanation 2. Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act: Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity. Exception 1. A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape. Exception 2. Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.” 43. Although the FSL report attached in the case was not certified by the witnesses, but being an expert report, it can be accepted as per Section 293 (i)(iv) of the CrPC. The above document has been annexed by the trial Court as Ex.C-01 as per which, stains resembling semen and human sperm have been found in the clothes marked ‘G’ i.e. the underwear of accused Anand and the clothes marked ‘I’ i.e. the underwear of accused Sitaram, but the above spots have been found to be not enough in serum scientific testing, whereas, no semen stains or human sperm were found in the remaining underwear and clothes of the victim. Similarly, no blood was found in the clothes marked ‘A’ Simij and ‘E’ kurti of the victim. Similarly, no blood was found in the clothes marked ‘A’ Simij and ‘E’ kurti of the victim. But it is noteworthy here that the clothes of the victim and the accused were confiscated 6 days after the incident, it is clear from the suggestion of the defence that during this period the victim used to take bath and change her clothes daily, the same is the condition of the accused also. In such a situation, no specific facts would be revealed from their clothes. 44. Thus, it is proved that the accused on 02.12.2019 at around 9.00 pm kidnapped the victim by taking her out of her father’s lawful guardianship without her consent with a common intention to rape the victim on the date, time and place of the said incident and in her presence, committed gang rape with her and also cause criminal intimation by threatening to kill the victim with the intention of causing terror on the date, time and place of the said incident. 45. The view taken by the learned trial Court that the appellants are the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 46. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 47. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 48. The appellants/convict are stated to be in jail. They shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 02.09.2022. 49. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.