JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Malda in Sessions Case No. 324 of 2013 (Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2014) convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 341/354/506/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days more for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months more for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code; all the sentences shall run concurrently. Prosecution case: 2. Prosecution case as levelled against the appellants is as follows: On 12.04.2013 at around 6.00 P.M. victim (PW-3) was coming through the field along with her friends (PWs. 4 and 5). At that time, appellants demanded money. When they expressed inability to pay, they detained her and one of her friends (PW-4). PW-4 somehow escaped but the appellants picked up the victim, took her to an adjoining field and forcibly raped her. Villagers came to the field and rescued her. She was medically treated. 3. On her written complaint, Chanchal Police Station Case No. 139 of 2013 dated 13.04.2013 under Sections 341/354/506/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation. 4. During investigation, appellants were arrested. PW-3 identified the appellants during Test Identification Parade examination. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants. Charges were framed under Sections 341/354/506/376(2)(g) IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses including the victim as PW-3. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants. Charges were framed under Sections 341/354/506/376(2)(g) IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses including the victim as PW-3. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. 5. In conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid. Arguments at the Bar: 6. Ms. Minoti Gomes, learned Advocate for the appellants has assailed the prosecution case on the score that medical report (Ext.7) of the victim does not bear marks of injuries. This improbabilises a case of forcible rape. She also contends Test Identification Parade sheets were not exhibited and identification of the appellants in court by the victim and other witnesses is unreliable. Accordingly, she prays for acquittal of the appellants. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits the victim’s (PW-3) version is corroborated by her friends (PWs. 4 and 5). All the witnesses have identified the appellants in Court. Though not exhibited, Test Identification Parade sheets are present in the records of the case. Therein it is recorded the appellants were identified by witness. In view of the consistent and corroborated version of the victim (PW-3), absence of injuries is not a ground to discard the prosecution case. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Evidence on record: 8. PW-3 is the victim and the most vital witness. She deposed she and her two friends went to work in the brick field. At the end of the day, they were returning home. Two persons blocked their way and demanded money. When they said that they had no money, they caught hold of her and her friend (PW-4). A local person was coming down the road and one of her friends raised alarm. As a result, her friend (PW-4) could escape. However, the said persons caught hold of her and forcibly took her to an adjoining field. They tore her wearing apparels and raped her. In the meantime, her friend who had escaped raised hue and cry. Local villagers came to the spot. But the miscreants had ran away by then. She lodged written complaint at Chanchal Police Station. She proved her signature on the complaint. They tore her wearing apparels and raped her. In the meantime, her friend who had escaped raised hue and cry. Local villagers came to the spot. But the miscreants had ran away by then. She lodged written complaint at Chanchal Police Station. She proved her signature on the complaint. She was sent to Chanchal hospital for medical examination. Police seized her wearing apparels and other articles. She gave statement before police. She identified the appellants in court. 9. During cross-examination, she stated the place of rape was a wheat field. The miscreants had torn off her churidar and her upper wearing apparel was also in torn condition. She suffered abrasions at the time of rape. 10. PW-4 is the friend of the victim. She deposed she was returning from the brick field with the victim and another woman. Two persons blocked their way and demanded money. They caught hold of her and the victim. One of the persons showed a dagger (chaku). At that time a person was coming down the road who intervened. When the miscreants tried to catch him, she fled away. She raised hue and cry and local people rescued the victim. Police was informed. She identified the appellants in Court. During cross-examination, she stated she had seen the incident from a distance. 11. PW-5 (Mina Munda) is another lady who was accompanying the victim. She stated they were returning home around 6.00 P.M. after work. Two persons surrounded them. She and PW-4 managed to escape to the village. They brought the villagers and rescued the victim. They heard victim had been raped by two persons. She identified the appellants in court. She stated she made statement before Magistrate. 12. PW-8 (Mrinal Chatterjee) and PW-9 (Pinaki Ranjan Das) are the Investigating Officers. 13. PW-8 is the first Investigating Officer. He recorded the statement of the victim. He prepared rough sketch map with index. He examined witnesses. He seized torn wearing apparels of the victim. He collected the victim’s medical report (Ext.7). He arrested Serajul Hoque. He made prayer for addition of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before Magistrate. Jinnat Ali @ Bablu surrendered before police station. He prayed for Test Identification Parade examination. Upon transfer he handed over the investigation to SDPO, Chanchal. 14. PW-9 is the second Investigating Officer. He arrested Serajul Hoque. He made prayer for addition of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before Magistrate. Jinnat Ali @ Bablu surrendered before police station. He prayed for Test Identification Parade examination. Upon transfer he handed over the investigation to SDPO, Chanchal. 14. PW-9 is the second Investigating Officer. He deposed Test Identification Parade examination of Serajul Hoque was conducted on 20.04.2013 and that of Jinnat Ali @ Bablu was conducted on 18.05.2013 by Magistrate viz. Tanumoy Karmakar. The Test Identification Parade sheets were collected during investigation. He submitted charge sheet. 15. The case portrays the pitiable condition of a working women from marginalised section. PWs. 3, 4 and 5 are women working at a brick field. After a hard day’s labour, they were returning home. Appellants accosted them on the street and demanded money. When they were unable to pay money, two of them (PWs. 3 and 4) were held by the appellants. At that time, a cyclist was travelling down the road. He protested at their conduct. Appellants tried to catch him. Taking advantage of the situation, PW-4 fled away. Unfortunately, the victim (PW-3) could not escape from their clutches and lust. She was dragged to a field. Her wearing apparels were torn and she was raped. One of her friends went to a nearby village and raised hue and cry. Villagers arrived at the spot and rescued her. 16. PW-3’s poignant description of the brutal sexual assault finds corroboration from her friends (PWs. 4 and 5). In fact PW-4 deposed she had seen the incident from a distance. 17. Ms. Gomes refers to PW-3’s cross-examination wherein she admitted she suffered abrasions while being raped on the wheat field. Referring to her medical report (Ext.7), she contends no injuries were found on the victim’s body improbabilising the act of rape. 18. I do not find substance in her submission. PW-3 has graphically described the manner in which she was accosted, dragged and raped by the appellants. She identified the miscreants in court. Presence of the appellants and their violent acts have been corroborated by PWs. 4 and 5, who could escape their clutches. 19. PW-3 was a defenceless lady. Appellants were able-bodied men. They caught hold of her and raped her one after another. She identified the miscreants in court. Presence of the appellants and their violent acts have been corroborated by PWs. 4 and 5, who could escape their clutches. 19. PW-3 was a defenceless lady. Appellants were able-bodied men. They caught hold of her and raped her one after another. Due to their physical prowess, victim was overpowered and as a result, no injuries were caused in her private parts. She stated she had received abrasion wounds on her body. Medical examination of the victim was conducted from the angle of rape. It is possible medical officer did not pay attention to the abrasions on other parts of the body. The remissness on the part of the medical officer to conduct proper and intense examination would not be a ground to disbelieve the consistent and corroborated version of the victim. 20. With regard to identification of the appellants, we note both of them were identified not only by the victim (PW-3) but also her friends (PWs. 4 and 5) too. Witnesses had seen the appellants when they caught hold of them in a public thoroughfare. They had ample opportunity to see the miscreants and identify them during trial. Identification in court is substantive evidence. It is nobody’s case appellants had not been identified during Test Identification Parade examination. Failure to exhibit the Test Identification Parade sheets during trial (which finds place in the records of the court) does not erode the credibility of the identification during trial. 21. Finally, it is argued witnesses claimed the victim was in a naked condition but the medical report noted victim was wearing a torn kameez. This is of little consequence as the entries in the medical report shows the kameez was torn and her salwar was missing. Torn kameez and salwar were recovered during investigation. These circumstances corroborate the victim’s version of forcible gang rape. 22. In light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellants are upheld. 24. Appeal is dismissed. 25. In view of dismissal of the appeal, connected application being CRAN 1 of 2023 is also disposed of. 26. Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them in terms of Section 468 of the BNSS. 27. 24. Appeal is dismissed. 25. In view of dismissal of the appeal, connected application being CRAN 1 of 2023 is also disposed of. 26. Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them in terms of Section 468 of the BNSS. 27. Trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the learned trial Court for necessary action. I agree - Gaurang Kanth, J.