Md. Rashid @ Bariwala vs The State of West Bengal

Asim Kumar Ray, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 27-11-2009 /30-11-2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1 of September, 2008 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 50 of 2008 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta thereby convicting the appellant u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month more. There was a direction that the amount of fine if realised shall be equally utilised for the welfare of the victims by the organisation in whose custody the victim girls reside. Filtering out unnecessary details the prosecution case as unfolded in course of trial is that CINI ASHA, an organisation having it''s office at 63 Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Calcutta works for deprived urban children and provides night shelter to them at their office address. Both the victim girls were provided night shelter by them. They are sisters by relation. During counselling session one of the victim girls disclosed that they were sexually abused by a person known as ''Bariwala'' who used to pay them money for chocolate, chips and cadbury after such act. One of the victims had shown the house where they were abused to the FIR maker, Sarita Agarwal, a senior programme associate of CINI ASHA. On receipt of the FIR a case was registered. It was investigated into. On completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant Md. Rashid @Bariwala for the commission of offence u/s 376 IPC.

The case was committed to the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and the same was subsequently transferred to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta for disposal. The charge u/s 376 IPC was framed against the appellant and the same was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses inclusive of the victim girls as prosecution witnesses No. 1 and No. 2. Beside the oral evidence some documents were exhibited from the side of the prosecution. On the contrary, the appellant did not produce any witness.

The appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. and during such examination he has stated that CINI ASHA tried to purchase the house at 96/2B Collins Street but in vain which is why they have filed the instant case against him.

Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that there was delay in lodging the FIR and a further delay in registering the case. The investigation was taken up at a belated stage. The record is silent regarding the alleged time of incident. The place of occurrence has not been fixed. There is no evidence to show that the appellant had a room in the premises in question where he used to reside. The evidence of the doctor totally belies the prosecution case and so the evidence of the victim girls cannot be relied on. The evidence on record suffers from contradiction too. He has further contended that the victim girls were alleged to have been sexually abused on several occasions but the doctor found no injury in their private parts. They were also not taken to doctors immediately for medical examination. The area is densely populated but none was produced from the side of the prosecution as witness to say that they saw the victim girls enter the house in question. The test identification parade of the appellant was not free from ambiguity as he had distinct mark of identification. The examination of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was not conducted in accordance with law. Mr. Moitra has placed reliance on the following decisions reported in:

(2008) 15 SCC 133,

2003 2 SCC (Cri) 1052,

Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and Another,

Mamfru Chowdhury and Others Vs. King-Emperor,

5 Buta Singh Vs. The State of Punjab,

Babu and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,

7 Raghunandan Vs. State of U.P.,

8 Mohinder Singh Vs. The State,

Petta alias Pattabi Vs. The Food Inspector and Another,

(2007) 1 SCC (Cri.) 161

(2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 585

(2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 17.

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra,

A (1963) SC 200

15 K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand,

State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi,

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Polamala Raju @ Rajarao,

A (1930) Oudh. 406

Beside the decisions he has referred to Forensic Medicine and Toxicology (21st edition) by J.B. Mukherjee p. 730 and Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Lion p. 537.

Mr. Moitra has advanced an alternative argument for lesser sentence and has relied on a decision reported in V State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi,

Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the evidence of the victim girls are corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses including doctors. The place of occurrence was properly fixed and there is clear evidence to that effect. He has referred to the decisions reported in 2004 (1) All. I Cr LR (SC) A 733, (2004) 3 All. I CR LR (Punjab and Haryana) B 968 State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Asha Ram, . He has supported the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused all the materials including oral and documentary evidence.

It is a case of sexual abuse of two minor children aged 11 years by the accused /appellant aged about 42 years. Evidence on record shows that both the victim girls belonged to the weaker sections of society. Their mothers are fish seller and maid servant. Fathers are carpenter and van puller. There is no space in their house for their accommodation at night and that is why they were sent by their parents to the night shelter for deprived urban children provided by CINI ASHA. The said night shelter is at a walking distance from their house/roadside hut. The victim girls used to go to the night shelter around 5 p.m. and remained there till 8 a.m. of the following morning. Beside accommodation they were given education and food during their period of stay at the night shelter. There are employees to look after the well beings of the children at CINI ASHA. P.W. 8 Shreeyosi Patronobish, P.W. 9 Debjani Roy and P.W. 3 Sarita Sharma are those employees.

P.W. 9 Debjani Roy has deposed that she stays at the night shelter with the deprived children at night. She had noticed the victim girls eat chocolate, chips and cadbury for some days She asked them from where they were getting it. They could not reply properly but only told her that one man was giving money to them; On hearing such thing from them she had a doubt and she referred them to Sarita Agarwal of CINI ASHA for counselling. P.W. 3 Sarita Agarwal has deposed that Debjani looks after the children and stays with them at the night shelter of CINI ASHA during night. She informed her/P.W. 3 that the victim girls some times used to have chocolate, chips and cadbury which they could not afford. On receipt of that information she in course of counselling of the victim girls came to learn from one of them that a man residing nearby gave them money to buy those things. P.W. 1 has stated to her that, that man used to do "Ganda Kaam" with her in a room of a house. Bariwala did the said act with another victim girl P.W. 2 in her presence. They were sexually abused by that Bariwala on many occasions during 2/3 months. Sarita has disposed that she had informed the mother and grandmother of the victim girls. The mother and grandmother of the victim girls have been examined as P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 respectively.

P.W. 8 Shreeyosi Patronobish and the grandmother of the victim girls have stated about the incident. The mother and grandmother have deposed regarding their poverty and stay of the victim girls at night shelter of CINI ASHA and about their knowledge of sexual abuse of the victim girls, which remained uncontroverted. The victims P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have deposed in their evidence that they used to stay at night shelter of CINI ASHA. Bariwala had asked them to bring water and accordingly they brought it for him. He then asked them to come to his room at 8 p.m. at night. They did not oblige him. On the following day the appellant called them and when they went to his room he locked the door from inside. He thereafter violated them one by one and thereafter gave them Rs. 50/- for chocolate, chips and cadbury. He violated them on a number of occasions. They disclosed the incident to Sarita Agarwal. They had shown the house of the appellant to P.W. 3.

P.W. 16 the Chairperson of the Child Welfare Committee, Calcutta who has deposed that on 7-4-2008 victim girl/P.W. 1 was produced before the Child Welfare Committee by child line CINI ASHA. On production of the said child she along with two other members of the committee enquired about the matter and she has stated about the commission of rape on her by Bariwala. An order sheet (Ext. 13) was prepared. The victim girl /P.W. 1 has also stated about the sexual abuse of P.W. 2 by the same person. Both the victim girls were sent to Sukanya Home.

P.W. 13 Dr. Molly Banerjee has stated that on 15-5-2008 she examined the prosecution witnesses 1 and 2. On examination of P.W. 2 she found that, 1) Vulva- Developed as to age, Labia Majora-not so well developed, roundish, apposed even on abduction of thighs, Labia Majora-thin, cutaneous, pinkish, covered by Labia Majora. 2) Clitoris-Normal 3) Hymen-Not intact, ring shaped, evidence of two old healed tears at 5 and 7 o''clock position 4) Vagina-Non capacious, allows only the tip of little finger of the examiner, painful, no injury detected 5) Uterus-Not palpable per abdomen 6) Fourchette-intact 7) Thin serous vagina discharge. Examination was painful and no other injuries detected on the body. She has further stated that considering the physical finding, dental date and radiological findings altogether she was of the opinion that the age of P.W. 2 was between the 10 years and 12 years, more towards 12 years as on the date of radiological examination i.e. on 19.5.2008. There was possibility of old sexual intercourse. The tear of hymen completely healed within a period of 10/14 days from the date of sexual intercourse depending upon different factors including the general condition of the victim girl. If the victim girls are examined after one month of the sexual intercourse then this old healed tear will be found. On examination of that victim girl she prepared the report and signed on it. It has been marked as Ext. 7.

On examination of another victim girl /P.W. 1 she prepared medical examination report (Ext. 9)

The appellant was also examined medically on 16-5-2008 by Dr. S. Batabyal/P.W. 14 and on examination it was found that he was potent.

P.W. 10 Suresh Sharma, a tenant of 96/2B Collins Street, Calcutta -16 has stated that there are two tenants in the said house who were Mrs. Cameron and a tailor. The said house was sold. The appellant Rashid was looking after the maintenance of the house. One sister of Rashid was residing in the first floor. Noel Cameron/P.W. 15 has stated in her evidence that she resides at 96/2B Collins Street as tenant. Previous landlord of that house was Mr. Rozario. Mr. Rozario sold his house to Md. Sajid and Mrinal. Those new landlords instructed him to pay rent to Md. Rashid. The said Md. Rashid used to collect the rent and issue rent receipts to her. One rent receipt having signature of Md. Rashid was marked as Ext. 11. She has also stated that Md. Rashid used to carry out the repairing work in the building. She has identified Md. Rashid during trial. In course of her cross-examination she has stated that there is one Sharma and a tailoring workshop in the ground floor of the said building.

P.W. 6 is the plan maker who prepared the sketch map of the ground floor of the western portion of 96/2B Collins Street at the instruction of the Investigating Officer /P.W. 17. P.W. 7 is the Metropolitan Magistrate who recorded the statement of both the victim girls u/s 164 Cr. P.C. on 21-5-2008. P.W. 11 is a Metropolitan Magistrate before whom T.I. Parade of the appellant was conducted. Both the identifying witnesses /victim girls had identified the suspect/appellant as Bariwala. P.W. 12 has stated that he works in a tailoring workshop at 96/2B Collins Street, Kolkata. He identified the accused /appellant saying that he was the landlord of the house situated at 96/2B Collins Street and he is called Bariwala. His name is Rashid.

P.W. 17 is the Investigating Officer of the case who has stated about the mode of investigation she carried out. She has stated that on her prayer both the victim girls were medically examined. Victim girls were produced before the Court for recording their statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. They also took part in the T.I. parade of the accused. The plan of the P.O. was prepared by the plan maker. She examined other witnesses. Seized one rent receipt from witness Noel Cameron in respect of her tenanted room. On completion of the investigation she submitted charge sheet against Md. Rashid @ Bariwala u/s 376 IPC.

On reading the evidence on record we find that the age of the victim girls are 10 to 12 years. They are children of tender age. There is no rule of law requiring corroboration from an independent source regarding identification of the accused even then it has come in evidence that the accused/appellant was identified by the victim girls at the time of T.I. parade as well as during trial. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the appellant had distinct marks of identification and as such their identification during TI parade is valueless. We have scrutinised the T.I. parade sheet but have failed to come across any sort of such physical marks of distinction of the accused recorded by the Magistrate therein. It has come from the evidence of P.W. 2 that some marks are there on the face of the appellant and only because of such evidence the identification of the appellant at the instance of the victim girls must not defeat the other evidence of the prosecution specially when there is no rule of law requiring corroboration from an independent source i.e. the child as to the identity of the accused. There is specific evidence from the tenants and employees of the tailoring shop that the appellant looks after the maintenance works of the house situated at 96/2B Collins Street, Calcutta. He used to collect the rent from the tenants and issue rent receipts. One of the rent receipts have been marked as an Ext. Therefore, the argument regarding the identification part advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not convincing.

Much has been argued from the side of the appellant that there was delay in lodging the FIR and also a further delay in registering the case. The investigation of the case was also taken up at a belated stage and such delay in investigation have a telling effect on the prosecution''s case. Generally speaking unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal for the prosecution. Therefore, in order to make a strong case delay should properly be explained. In Dildar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , the Apex Court has held that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution''s case and discarding the same merely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. A delay has the effect of putting the Court on guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay and, if offered, whether it is satisfactory.

In the instant case the background and family status of the victims has been disclosed. Admittedly the victims came from an economically weaker section of society. The tragedy is this that the parent cannot provide shelter to their children and the children were sent to a night shelter. They became prey to the lust of the appellant. They had no capacity to purchase chocolate, chips and cadbury. They got money from the appellant. They used that money for purchasing such luxuries as chocolate, chips and cadbury. Children of that age group are very much fond of those items but the financial condition of the victim girls prevented them from indulging in these luxuries. They were provided with money by the appellant and naturally they did not divulge it to their parents or the employees of their night shelter. But on close observation of the victim girls one of the employees of the said night shelter who stayed with them at night noticed that they were eating chips, chocolate and cadbury and on interrogation it has come to light that they were ravished by the appellant and after violating them on many occasion they were provided with money. As soon as P.W. 9 came to know about the same she reported it to her other colleagues. Her other colleagues of the organisation reported the matter to their authority and ultimately to the child welfare committee (CWC).

There is evidence that Debjani Roy/P.W. 9 informed the de facto complainant about the incident on 4-5-2008. On 7-5-2008 it was reported to the C.W.C. C.W.C. interrogated one of the two victim girls and came to know about the incident and thereafter recorded their observations in the order sheet (Ext. 13). On completion of that process de facto complainant /P.W. 3 reported the incident for taking lawful action. The process of reporting and for taking further action consumed some time and the delay in lodging the FIR appears to have been clearly explained. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is not convincing and we are unable to agree with his argument that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and that the investigation was undertaken at a belated stage.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the place of occurrence has not been fixed. There is no evidence to show that the appellant had a room in the premises in question where he used to reside. That apart the record is silent regarding the alleged time of incident. The evidence of the FIR maker together with the evidence of the victim girls has disclosed that the victims were violated by the appellant in a room situated at 96/2B Collins Street, Calcutta. The appellant in course of his examination u/s 313 Cr. P.C. has stated that the house situated at 96/2B Collins Street, Calcutta belongs to his brother who woks in Saudi Arabia and he looks after the maintenance of the house. There is a tailoring shop at 96/2B Collins Street. There is a tenant named Noel Cameron in that house who resides there for the last 30 years. The appellant used to issue rent receipts to that tenant. There is evidence on record to show that the night shelter of CINI ASHA is at a walking distance from the house of the victim girls and the appellant has stated in course of his examination u/s 313 Cr. P.C. that CINI ASHA tried to purchase 96/2B but they did not succeed so they have filed this case against him. Therefore, there is a clear admission that the appellant is well aware about the organisation named CINI ASHA and the same is near to the house situated at 96/2B Collins Street, Calcutta. Furthermore the sketch map of the place of occurrence and the evidence of the I.O. /P.W. 17 has put the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant at rest regarding the vagueness of the identification of the place of occurrence. The house has been identified and as the appellant did not reside there, no specific room belonged to him. By identifying the house the P.O. has been fixed. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant regarding the place of occurrence.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the evidence of the victim girls have not been supported by the doctor who examined them. The victim being minors cannot be relied on to record an order against the appellant.

In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh and Others, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that unless there are compelling reasons which necessitates looking for corroboration of the statement of the victim girls, the Court should find no difficulty in acting on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused when her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same as a rule, amounts to adding insult to injury.

In State of Sikkim v. Padam Lal Pradhan, (2000) 10 SCC 112 , the Hon''ble Apex Court held that it is too well settled that in case of rape the conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix, if the evidence of the said prosecutrix is held to be reliable and a truthful one.

In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities factor does not render it unworthy of credence as a general rule, corroboration cannot be insisted upon except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. This rule is subject to the qualification that corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self preservation; or when the probabilities factor is found to be out of tune. The Hon''ble Court has further held that corroboration of the victim of sexual offence may be considered essentially to establish the offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the western world but it is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turnkey basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of altogether different atmosphere, attitude, mores, responses of the Indian society, and its profile. Rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegation of sexual assault due to various psycho-social factors and in the face of those factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in-assurance that the charges is genuine rather than fabricated. The Court has further held that on principle the testimony of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with the testimony of the injured witness. Just like the testimony of the injured witness, that of the victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight. But unlike the case of physical assault, corroboration in the form of eye witness account of an independent witness cannot be expected in sexual offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. The Hon''ble Apex Court further held that it is inconceivable that a girl of 10 or 12 years would invent on her own a false story of sexual molestation. Even at the age of 10 or 12 years a girl in India can be trusted to be aware of the fact that the reputation of the entire family would be jeopardized upon such a story being spread. It is also untenable that the parents would tutor their minor daughter to invent such a story.

In this case the victims girls were examined by Dr. Molly Banerjee. On examination of one of the victim girls it was noticed that the hymen was not intact and there is evidence of two old healed tears at 5 and 7''o clock position. The doctor has opined that there was possibility of old sexual intercourse. The tear of hymen completely healed within a period of 10 to 14 days from the date of sexual intercourse depending upon different factors including the general condition of the victim girl. If the victim girls are examined after one month of the sexual intercourse then this old healed tear will be found. Therefore, we find a clear corroboration of the testimony of the victim girls by the evidence of the doctor. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was potent. The victim girls have given a vivid account how the appellant on several occasions had abused them.

Imratlal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, has been relied on by learned counsel for the State for the proposition that the conviction may be based on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone. In this case the Hon''ble Supreme Court has dealt with the case of rape of a minor girl aged about 12 years. It is held that in a case of rape conviction of the accused can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix if her evidence is worthy of credence. The rule of corroboration is not a rule of law. It is only a rule of prudence. Insistence on corroboration is advisable but it is not compulsory in the eye of law. The nature and extent of corroboration necessarily varies with the circumstances of each case. If the narration of the prosecutrix is natural, inspires confidence in the mind of the Judge and if the circumstantial and other evidence even slightly supports the case of the prosecutrix, then there arises no necessity of any corroboration of her statement.

This citation has perfectly matched with the case in hand as the doctors evidence lends support to the evidence of the victim girls.

The very nature of the offence shows that it must be beyond the sight of independent witnesses and that is why we find the testimony of the victim girls of much credence, corroborated by other witnesses that it was committed within a room of the building appertaining to 96/2B Collins Street, Calcutta-16. Therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel of the appellant regarding the place of occurrence does not sound good and is not at all convincing.

It can not be conceived that in the instant case an organisation which is working for the benefit of the deprived urban children will project their two resident minor girls alleging that they have been sexually abused to grab the property of a person who is nothing but a caretaker of that property leaving it''s owner. It is very difficult to accept this story and to say that the appellant has been falsely roped in the instant case. It is also not at all believable that the parents of the victim girls will allow an institution which works for destitute children to use their children to grab the property of other persons through its caretaker.

Now let us deal with the decisions cited by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In Raju-vs.-State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 133, the subject matter of the case was a gang rape wherein 3 accused persons were involved. The evidence on record was not free from doubt.

Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and Another, has been referred for the proposition that witness not stating a particular fact to the appellants in the course of investigation and prosecution seeking to prove such fact through that witness. Evidence of that witness regarding the said fact held to be of no significance.

Having considered the facts of the case and scanned the evidence of the victim girls, supported by the evidence of the medical opinion there is no factor or material departure to question the testimony of the victim girls.

Mamfru Chowdhury and Others Vs. King-Emperor, has been referred by the learned counsel of the appellant for the proposition that the prosecution is under an obligation to prove the case in the manner set out by the prosecution in the FIR. In the instant case there is no departure from the prosecution''s case as set out in the FIR at the time of proving it through evidence. This citation is of no assistance to the appellant.

Buta Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, has been referred by the learned counsel of the appellant for the proposition of fixing of P.O. We have already dealt with the argument of the learned counsel of the appellant regarding the place of occurrence. In the case which has been referred by the learned counsel there was contradiction regarding the place of murder. This citation is not of any assistance to the appellant. Moreover, there were two versions which came from the evidence of the reported case which is not so in the instant case.

Kapur Chand-vs.-Kidar Neissa Begum and others, reported in AIR 1953 SC 415 has been referred by the learned counsel of the appellant for the proposition that an obligation is cast on the prosecution to prove the case as set out which we have dealt with while dealing with the evidence of the prosecution and this citation is also not helpful to the appellant.

Sadashiv Ram Rao Hadbe-vs.-State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri.) 161 has been referred for the proposition regarding corroboration of the evidence of prosecutrix. In that case the evidence given by the prosecutrix was not supported by medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances. The case which we are dealing with is not a case where the doctor has not supported the evidence of the victim. The doctor has specifically corroborated the evidence of the victim girls. Therefore, this citation is not of any assistance to the appellant.

Petta alias Pattabi Vs. The Food Inspector and Another, has been cited for the proposition that close scrutiny of evidence is required to come to a finding. There is no dispute with the said proposition.

Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala has been referred by the learned counsel for the appellant for the proposition regarding delay in lodging complaint. In the case referred the case was initiated after a lapse of 7 months by the prosecutrix who alleged that the appellant made a promise to marry her but refused to marry at the stage of her 7 months pregnancy. The case in hand is distinguishable on facts.

Babu and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Raghunandan Vs. State of U.P., Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, , K. Venkateshwarlu Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Polamala Raju @ Rajarao, and (1930) A Oudh. 406 cited by Mr. Moitra have been decided on the facts of each case and, therefore, cannot be held to be binding precedent in this case where the facts are different. Hence we refrain from analysing those cases separately as the same are decided on a different factual matrix from the present one. In view of the overwhelming evidence on record the reference to Forensic Medicine Toxicology and Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology does not come to the aid of the appellant.

Both the victim girls gave vivid account of the entire episode as to how the appellant/accused on several occasions had ravished them. The evidence of doctors who had examined both the victims corroborated the evidence of the victim girls. On going through the evidence of the witnesses it appears that the victim girls had truthfully narrated the entire episode and there was no reason as to why it can be said that they tried to foist a false case on the accused /appellant.

We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned Court below. The judgment, order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused/ appellant is hereby confirmed and as the appeal has no merit, stands dismissed.

Urgent Photostat copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. I agree.