The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the victim's testimony in sex offenses and the lack of corroboration required. The judgment also emphasizes the binding nature of Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the medical examination of rape victims.

Per Virender Singh, C.J.

The appeal on hand has been preferred by accused appellant (i) Gujua Manjhi @ Gajju Hansada, (ii) Guddu Manjhi @ Guddu Hansada and (iii) Anand Manjhi Hansada @ Anand Manjhi @ Hansda against the judgment of conviction dated 16.5.2013 and order of sentence dated 18.5.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, F.T.C. Bokaro in S.T. No. 450 of 2010, whereby and where-under all the three appellants have been found guilty under Section 366/34 and 376 (2)(g) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default to pay fine, R.I for six months for the offence under Section 366/34 IPC. They have been further sentenced to undergo R.I for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-each and in default to pay fine, R.I for six months for the offence under Section 376(2)(g). Both the substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of prosecution sans unnecessary details, as one finds from the written report of victim-P.W.7, is that on 29.06.2010 at 8 P.M. in the night, while she was alone in her house and was sleeping having taken her meal, Gujua Manjhi (aged about 23 years), Guddu Manjhi (aged about 23 years) and Anand Manjhi (aged about 23 years) and other two unknown persons entered into her house, caught hold of her and took her away towards Damodar river, where they committed rape on her one by one, resultantly she fainted. After regaining consciousness, she returned to her house at around four in the morning and slept over there. At around 9 A.M. she woke up and narrated her woes to her son, Dusrath Hembram and grandson, Prem Chand Soren. Thereafter, her son went to work as such she could not immediately inform about the incident to the police. In the evening, when her son and her grandson returned from work, she reported the matter to the police.

3. On the aforesaid allegations, formal FIR bearing 64 of 2010 under Section 363/376(g) of Indian Penal Code came to be registered in police station Harala against three accused-appellants and two unknown persons, investigation of which was undertaken by police Sub-inspector Md Kayum Ansari (P.W 10) and the completion of investigation resulted into filing of challan against three accused persons, against whom charge for the offence under Section 366/34 and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code was framed for which the appellant stand convicted and sentenced in terms of the impugned judgment/order.

4. The case of accused persons, as one finds from the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C, is of denial simplicitor. During cross-examination, it has been suggested by the defence counsel to victim that the accused persons have been falsely implicated due to land dispute by her but she denied it. They have not chosen to adduce any evidence in their defence.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant pointed out certain flaws in the case of the prosecution viz; there being inordinate delay in lodging of FIR, which is fatal for prosecution case, the testimony of so called victim remained uncorroborated by medical evidence; DNA profile of accused persons did not match with DNA of victim's vaginal swab; no spermatozoa was found in vaginal swab of victim; the important witness i.e. the son of victim has not been examined as such adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution; and the vital fact that no external or internal injury was found on the person of victim as such the accused-appellants may be extended the benefit of doubt to disturb the conviction as already slapped upon them.

6. Per contra learned A.P.P submitted that there be sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of accused persons and added that external or internal injury on the private part of the person of victim is not sine qua non to prove the guilt of gangrape. Non-examination of son is not fatal as it has come in evidence of one witness that the son of victim has already died. Admittedly delay in taking vaginal