JUDGMENT : Arvind Kumar Verma, J Heard. 1. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C are against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14/11/2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. 70/2021 by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 376(D) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (till his life) with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default of payment to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of 04 months each. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16/09/2019 the prosecutrix, aged about 24 years lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/6) alleging therein that prior to 15-20 days, someone was constantly calling her over mobile from mobile no. 9131051174 telling his name as Manmohan Banjare and he was forcing her to meet. On 15/09/2019, the said person, after making call twice or thrice, asked the prosecutrix to meet near Bilha turning, Hirri, on which, at about 04:00 pm, she went to Bilha turning, where appellant- Manmohan along with his five friends came in a Bolero vehicle. Subsequently, Manmohan Banjare forcibly dragged her into the Bolero vehicle and after forcibly tightening her eyes by a piece of clothe, took her to Chhuikhadan, Shrangarpur. Subsequently, other co-accused persons i.e. Pundas and Bau, forcibly caught hold her hand and mouth and appellant- Manmohan committed rape with her. It has been alleged that while the said act was being done with her, she was screaming and listening to her screams, one pedestrian who was passing nearby, stopped there. Thereafter, the appellants fled away from the spot. Subsequently, the report was made by her. 3. During investigation, the statements of the prosecutrix as well as the witnesses were recorded. The medical examination of the prosecutrix and appellant- Manmohan was conducted at Community Health Center, Hirri, Bilaspur. The doctor prepared vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix and preserved the same in a sealed packet. The said articles were sent for its chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur. 4. Based on the report made by the prosecutrix, crime no. 144/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 374 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants. After investigating the matter, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Subsequently, the trial Court framed the charges. The appellants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. 4. Based on the report made by the prosecutrix, crime no. 144/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 374 read with Section 34 of the IPC was registered against the appellants. After investigating the matter, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants. Subsequently, the trial Court framed the charges. The appellants abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14/11/2022 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Mr. A.V. Shridhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. He submits that due to criminal conspiracy, the appellants are being implicated in a false case. The prosecutrix herself made calls to the appellant on his mobile phone and she herself went to meet the appellant, which shows that she was the consenting party. He further submits that the statement of Dr. Nikita Kanwar (PW11) shows that there was no injury over the body of prosecutrix including the private part. He submits that the prosecution has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants, therefore, he prays for acquittal of the appellants by setting-aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court 8. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State would oppose the submission and submitted that the conviction of the appellants are based on well appreciation of evidence available on record, therefore, there requires no interference in the order passed by the trial Court. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and evidence with utmost circumspection. 10. The prosecution has come up with the case that after repeated insistence made by the appellant Manmohan, when the prosecutrix went to meet him, the appellants, after abducting her from Bilha turning, Hirri took her to Chhikhadan-Shringarpur, District Rajnandgaon, where the appellants committed rape with her, therefore, we are heading into into the statements of the witnesses to find its correctness. 11. 11. The prosecutrix (PW6) in her examination-in-chief has deposed that in the year 2019 she was residing with her husband at Manjhwapara, Bilaspur and while residing there, when her husband had gone for his daily work, appellant- Manmohan Banjare called him and talked with her. She deposed that from that day, appellant Manmohan Banjare was constantly calling her over mobile phone for about 15 days. She was objecting the same and asking as to why he is harassing her, on which, the said appellant told his name and address. She deposed that appellant- Manmohan was repeatedly insisting her to meet. On the date of incident, after asking to meet at Bilha turning by the said appellant, she had gone there. She deposed that the appellant Manmohan came there in a Bolero wherein other persons were also sitting. Subsequently, the said appellant dragged her into the Bolero on a point of knife and after forcibly closing her eyes by a piece of clothe, took her to Chhuikhadan, where appellant Manmohan, with the assistance of the other appellants, committed rape with her. She categorically deposed that the other appellants were tightly holding her hand and appellant Manmohan was committing rape with her, on which she became unconscious and felt dizziness. She further deposed that thereafter she does not know which appellant committed what act with her. She further deposed that after some time, when she became conscious, none of the appellant was present there. She deposed that after 10-15 minutes, one pedestrian and two police persons came there. Subsequently, the police personnel inquired her and searched the place. On search, the police recovered one purse belonging to appellant Manmohan Banjare, one pen and mobile phone of the prosecutrix which was thrown by the appellants. Subsequently, she lodged the report (Ex.P/6). After the report, her medical examination was done on the next day for which she had offered her consent. She deposed that on her saying, the police personnel prepared two maps, one of Bilha turning and second one was of that place where the appellants had taken her. 12. Rajesh Daharia (PW5) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knows the appellants Manmohan, Pundas and Sanosh Banjare. They are residents of village Sumbalpuri and he is also resident of the same village. He deposed that on 15/09/2019 in the noon, he had gone to meet his friend at village Farhad. 12. Rajesh Daharia (PW5) has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knows the appellants Manmohan, Pundas and Sanosh Banjare. They are residents of village Sumbalpuri and he is also resident of the same village. He deposed that on 15/09/2019 in the noon, he had gone to meet his friend at village Farhad. At about 08:30 pm, when he was returning from there, on the way a Bolero Car was standing. He deposed that after seeing the light of her vehicle, 4-5 persons came out of the field, seated in the Bolero and fled away from there. He further deposed that at some distance, a lady was also lying there. He immediately called 112 to the police and intimated them that there is lying a lady in the field and he has seen 4-5 persons running from the field and fled away in a Bolero vehicle. Subsequently, two constables came there and went towards the prosecutrix. They interrogated the prosecutrix and she told them appellant Manmohan Banjare abducted her from Bilha turning, Hirri and bring her here, thereafter, appellants committed rape with her. He deposed that one purse was seized from the spot of incident wherein photo of appellant Manmohan Banjare along with three people was kept. He deposed that the police personnel by saying that the jurisdiction lies within Hirri police station, send them to police station Hirri, where, the prosecutrix lodged the report against the appellants. He further deposed that on 16/03/2019, a purse was seized from the prosecutrix wherein two photographs of Manmohan Banjare, passport size photos of Hussain Banjare, Dev Banjare and Sukhi Banjare and one voter card was kept. . He also deposed that in front of him, the police personnel had prepared the spot map. 13. Dr. Nikita Kanwar (PW11) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on 16/09/2019 at about 01:15 pm, the prosecutrix was brought before her for medical examination. On medical examination, she found that there were moles on the cheek of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was facing pain while walking. There were abrasions on both the wrists of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had told her that she was feeling pain in lower part of her stomach. There were marks of stitches on the stomach of the prosecutrix as she was mother of two child. On internal examination, there was no injury found. Hymen was already ruptured. No bleeding was found. There were abrasions on both the wrists of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix had told her that she was feeling pain in lower part of her stomach. There were marks of stitches on the stomach of the prosecutrix as she was mother of two child. On internal examination, there was no injury found. Hymen was already ruptured. No bleeding was found. She deposed that while examining the private part of the prosecutrix, there was pain. She opined that the prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and there cannot be given any definite opinion regarding recent intercourse. She has prepared vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix for its chemical examination. Her report is Ex.P/18. 4. Subhadra Chandra (PW4), Lady Constable has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on 16/09/2019, she has taken the prosecutrix to the Community Health Centra, Bilha for medical examination, where this witness was handed over two sealed packets. She deposed that one sealed packet was containing vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix and another one was containing petticoat of the prosecutrix which she handed over to Sub-Inspector of the police. 5. The FSL report is Ex.P/16. The reports shows that Article -A is vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix and Article – B is Petticoat of the prosecutrix. Both were brought for its chemical examination. On chemical examination, it was revealed that there were human sperm present over Articles- A and B. 6. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, appellant Manmohan has denied for performing his DNA test. 7. On minute perusal of the above evidence, it is apparent that the prosecutrix (PW6) who was residing with her husband at Manjhwapara, Bilaspur was called by appellant- Manmohan Banjare over mobile. According to her from that day, appellant Manmohan Banjare was constantly calling her over phone for about 15 days and harassing her. She had also objected that why he is harassing her, on which, appellant Manmohan Banjare said he was resident of Sambhalpuri and is Sarpach of the village. According to the prosecutrix appellant- Manmohan was insisting her to meet, while she was objecting the same. She stated that on the date of incident, after repeatedly asking for meeting by Manmohan, she had gone to Bilha turning, Hirri, where Manmohan came there in a Bolero along with other accused persons. According to the prosecutrix appellant- Manmohan was insisting her to meet, while she was objecting the same. She stated that on the date of incident, after repeatedly asking for meeting by Manmohan, she had gone to Bilha turning, Hirri, where Manmohan came there in a Bolero along with other accused persons. He dragged her into the Bolero on a point of knife, and they after forcibly closing her eyes by a piece of clothe, took her to Chhuikhadan, where appellant Manmohan along with the other appellants, committed rape with her. She categorically stated that the other appellants were tightly holding her hand and appellant Manmohan was committing rape with her and she was screaming. Subsequently she became unconscious and felt dizziness. 18. Further, Rajesh Daharia (PW5) has categorically stated that he knows the appellants Manmohan, Pundas and Sanosh Banjare because they are residents of same village. He stated that on 15/09/2019 in the noon, when he was returning from the village Farhad, on the way he had seen a Bolero was standing and on seeing the light of her vehicle, 4-5 persons fled away from the field in their Bolero. At some distance, a lady was lying there, therefore, immediately he called 112 to the police and intimated about the same. Subsequently, two constables came there and interrogated the prosecutrix, on which the prosecutrix told them appellant Manmohan Banjare abducted her from Bilha turning, Hirri and bring her here, thereafter, appellants committed rape with her. Subsequently the report was made. 19. None of the witness has said that Rajesh Daharia (PW5) has any kind of enmity with the appellants and as such he is falsely implicating. Even the defence has not brought any evidence in this regard. Even, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix as none of the witnesses has said there was any enmity between the prosecutrix and the appellants. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. N.K. Accused reported in AIR 2000 SC 1812 has observed that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 1393 has observed that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. 22. In the present case, Rajesh (PW5) has corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix to the extent that he has seen the Bolero Car standing on a road, and also seen 4-5 persons, after seeing light of her vehicle, fleeing from the field towards the Bolero and ultimately fled away, which has come up also in the statement of the prosecutrix too. Thus, from the statement of the prosecutrix as well as Rajesh (PW5) who have remained firmed during their cross-examination, it is very well established that on the date of incident, the appellants had committed rape with the prosecutrix. 23. Apart from this, the FIR in the present case has been made on 16/09/2019 at about 03:00 am that means only after few hours the FIR has been lodged that adds further circumstantial evidence which fortifies the chain of evidence. 24. Moreover, the further circumstance is the presence of human sperm on the vaginal secretion of the prosecutrix and her petticoat. In such circumstances, this further adds to chain of evidence. It is also pertinent to mention that appellant Manmohan himself has denied for performing DNA test, hence, the presumption should be raised against him. 25. Present is case of gang rape which comes under Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and in this case Section 114 (A) of the Evidence Act, 1872, would be attracted. It is also pertinent to mention that appellant Manmohan himself has denied for performing DNA test, hence, the presumption should be raised against him. 25. Present is case of gang rape which comes under Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and in this case Section 114 (A) of the Evidence Act, 1872, would be attracted. Section 114 (A) of the Evidence Act, 1872 dealt with as under:- “where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent.” 26. In the present case, the appellants have committed rape with the prosecutrix, so only on the basis of call details, it cannot be held that she was the consenting party. Counsel for the appellants tries to develop the argument that it was indeed a case of affair between appellant Manmohan and the prosecutrix and to buttress this argument, he has brought the attention of the Court to several call details and the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, however, we are unable to accept the story as having conversation in call does not establish anything. Ever after, the long cross-examination by the defence counsel, there is no material contradiction or omission in the statement of the prosecutrix. It is a corner principle of the cases like this that the sole testimony of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable must lead to conviction. 27. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants under the aforementioned sections and the same does not require any interference. 28. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are dismissed. 29. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.