JAIN, J. - (1.)THIS appeal on behalf of two accused-persons Parsu @ Parasram Son of Shri Damo and Nadan Son of Shri Poonya, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24. 8. 2002 passed by Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and District & Sessions Judge, Karauli, in Sessions Case No. 58/2001, whereby they were convicted and sentenced under Section 376 (2) IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each; in default of payment of fine to further undergo five months rigorous imprisonment, and under Section 342 IPC to three months rigorous imprisonment to each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. PW-4 Sua Devi lodged a written report (Exhibit P-3) a Police Station Todabheem, District Karauli, that on 13. 7. 2001 at 5. 00 PM when she went for taking water on the hand-pump nearby Primary School, Morda, all of sudden both the accused-persons, who were sitting hiding themselves in a room of the school, came out and by gagging her mouth took her to the room and committed forcible sexual intercourse without her consent, one by one. The police registered a First Information Report No. 245/2001 on 17. 7. 2001, under Section 376 IPC and started investigation. After completion of the investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against both the accused-appellants. The case was committed for trial. The trial Court framed charge against accused-appellant Parsu @ Parasram under Section 376 (2), 342 IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and against accused- appellant Nadan under Section 376 (2) and 342 IPC. The accused- appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Curt, after considering the evidence on the record and hearing the arguments of both sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned above.
(2.)THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in convicting the accused-appellants for the above offence. He contended that there is no evidence on the record to prove that sexual intercourse was committed with the prosecutrix. He referred the medical report (Exhibit P. 10) of the prosecutrix, in this regard. He further contended that there was a delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which is fatal to the prosecution case. THE incident is alleged to have taken place on 13. 7. 2001 whereas the FIR was registered on 17. 7. 2001, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution case and this ground itself was sufficient to give the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. He also contended that from the statement of the prosecutrix it is clear that her statement is self-contradictory and is not corroborated with any statement of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, her statement does not inspire confidence and it is liable to be discarded looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the accused appellants may be given the benefit of doubt. He also contended that although it is a case of false implication but from the statement of the prosecutrix, the present case appears to be a case of consent and looking to the age of the prosecutrix being above 16 years, it cannot be said to be an offence of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, therefore, the accused-appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant, both, contended that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is self speaking and well reasoned and there is no illegality or perversity in it. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants looking to all the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the appeal filed by the accused appellants be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions and minutely scanned the impugned judgment as well as the record of the trial Court.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dilip & Another vs. State of M. P. (2002 WLC (SC) Criminal 224), observed that the law is well- settled that prosecutrix in a sexual offence is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made basis of conviction unless corroborated in material particulars. However, the rule about the admissibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge.

In State of H. P. vs. Gian Chand (2001 (6) SCC 71), on a review of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, their Lordships held that conviction for an offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances such as the report of chemical examination etc. if the same is found to be natural trustworthy and worth being relied on. The Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of that particular case, also observed that as the age of the prosecutrix was around 16 years and she was not just a child who would have surrendered herself to a forced sexual assault without offering any resistance whatsoever. The gang rape was alleged to have been committed at about 2. 00 PM in her own house situated in a populated village by the side of the main road where people were moving on account of Holi festival. The prosecutrix did raise hue and cry to the extent she could and yet none was attracted to the place of the incident, the prosecutrix was said to have sustained injuries, also bleeded from her private parts staining her body as also the clothes which she was wearing. This part of the story, is not only not corroborated by the medical evidence, is rather belied thereby. The presence of blood stains were not confirmed by forensic science laboratory or by the doctors who examined the prosecutrix. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of that particular case, found that it is difficult to accept the truthfulness of the version of the prosecutrix that any sexual assault so alleged was committed on her in view of the fact that her narration of the incident becomes basically infirm on account of being contradicted by the statement of her own aunt and medical evidence and the report of forensic science laboratory, and consequently acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them.

(3.)IN Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2002 (10) SCC 14), the Hon'ble Supreme Court found the omissions and contradictions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix creating doubt about the truthfulness of her version and rendering her testimony unsafe to rely upon to convict the accused-appellant.
In Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo vs. State of Orisa, (2002 (10) SCC 743), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that delay in lodging the FIR is not such serious, but while considering the broad probabilities of the case, the delay in giving information to police be considered to be of some importance.

In view of the above proposition of law it is clear that in sexual offence the prosecutrix is not an accomplice and there is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted upon and made basis of conviction unless corroboration of material particulars. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her testimony in material particulars. If, for some reasons, the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may search for some evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, sort of corroboration requires in a case of accomplice. In the present case the prosecutrix lodged the written report (Exhibit P. 3) wherein she specifically stated that she had gone to take water on the hand-pump. Both the accused gagged her mouth by cloth and took her in the room and thereafter both of them committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Her statement was also recorded during investigation, under Section 164 Cr. P. C. on 7. 8. 2001 and she stated that on 13. 7. 2001 at 5. 00 PM when she had gone to take water on hand- pump, the accused-persons gagged her mouth by cloth and took her in the room of the nearby school and both of them committed rape with her. She was examined as PW-4 during trial and in her statement she specifically stated that she had gone to take water on hand-pump of the nearby school and when she started hand-pump the accused Nadan came and gagged her mouth by cloth and forcibly took her in the room of the nearby school where both accused- persons Nadan and Parsu @ Parasram were there, they pressed her breasts and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She also became unconscious and when she became conscious then she came at her house and narrated the story to her mother-in-law, who was blind. Thereafter her mother-in-law gave a message to her father-in-law, who was at Delhi. Her husband was also not there as he had gone to Rewari. When her father-in-law came then a report was lodged of the present incident. A long cross- examination was made to her and in her statements although certain contradictions came but so far as forcible sexual intercourse committed by accused-persons, there was no contradiction. There was no contradiction in the manner in which the occurrence took place.