ORDER

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos. 51 and 92 of 1996, dated 06.07.2007. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and order, dated 18.01.1996, passed by the Trial Court in S.T. No. 557 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the Trial Court has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Sections 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC” for short) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as under: The prosecutrix, aged about 19 years was married and had an infant daughter at the time of the incident. On 16.01.1992, at 5:00 P.M., the accused persons, Aslam and Galli, upon finding the prosecutrix (PW-1) working alone in her field, had gagged her and committed rape on her in turns. After the accused persons had left, the prosecutrix returned home crying and immediately narrated the incident to PW-2, Pradhan of the village. Since it was dark, PW-2 suggested to PW-1 to lodge the report in the police station next morning. On 17.01.1992, PW-1’s complaint was scribed by PW-2 and FIR NO.2 of 1992 was registered against the accused persons.

3. After due investigation, the accused persons were charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the case was committed to trial.

4. The Trial Court, after marshalling the facts and through scrutiny of evidence on record including the testimony of PW-1, has reached the conclusion that the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence and accordingly rejected the case of defence, pleading acquittal on grounds of delay in filing of FIR, no injuries being caused to PW-1 or the accused persons and PW-1 being a woman of loose morals, in its entirety. The Trial Court has convicted the accused persons for the aforesaid offence relying upon the testimony of PW-1 corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and elimination of the possibility of any injuries having being caused since the place of incident was Barsin field.

5. The accused persons, aggrieved by the aforesaid, had preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court, after re-appreciation of entire evidence on record, has concurred with the findings and conclusions reached by the Trial Court and therefore, affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court convicting the accused persons for offence under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

6. It is the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the High Court which is called in question in these appeals.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Shri J.P. Dhanda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the absence of injuries on the person of PW-1 and non-examination of the Doctor who conducted medical examination of PW-1 punch holes in the prosecution case inasmuch as casting a shadow of doubt in respect of commission of rape. He would submit that, in the aforesaid background, the sole testimony of PW-1 is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants. In aid of his submission, he would place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 amongst others. Per contra, Shri C.D. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh would justify the findings and conclusions reached by Courts below. He would submit that the testimony of PW-1 is trustworthy and reliable and thus eliminates the necessity of any corroboration by other evidence on record. He would further submit that neither the absence of corroborative testimony by the Doctor who conducted medical examination of PW-1 nor the absence of injuries would render the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Courts below perverse, if the testimony of PW-1 inspires confidence and reli