The sole testimony of the victim can suffice for rape conviction if credible, with reliance on S.114-A of the Evidence Act supporting absence of consent.

1. In these three appeals from jail, the accused - appellants have called the question the defensibility of the judgment passed in S.T. No. 231/96 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. The accused - Miyanlal and Faggu have been found guilty for offences punishable under S.363, S.366 and S.376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC') and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under S. 363, I.P.C.; for five years under S. 366, IPC; and for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under S. 376(2)(g), IPC and to a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. There is a direction for concurrent running of sentences. The accused - appellant Pyarelal has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under S. 363, IPC and five years for the offence punishable under S. 366, IPC with a stipulation that both the sentences would run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26-6-1996 the accused persons caught hold of the prosecutrix and took her to a 'Nala.' On the way Pyarelal left the other accused persons near a well and his participation in the crime ended there. Thereafter the other two accused persons committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. It is alleged that the act was repeated by each of them. After the matter was reported at the Police Station, a crime was registered for the offences punishable under S.363 and S.366, IPC against the accused - Pyarelal and under S.363, S.366 and S.376(2)(g), IPC against the other two accused. After completing all other formalities, charge - sheet was placed before the competent Court which, in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session.

3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and took the positive plea that they had been falsely implicated. It was further plea of the accused - Faggu that the prosecutrix wanted to marry him and he has showed disinclination, he had been falsely implicated. The plea of alibi was also canvassed.

4. In furtherance of its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses in toto. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix, P.W. 2 is Mendhakobai who had accompanied the prosecutrix; P.W. 3 is Laxman Sahu; P.W. 4 is Allobai; P.W. 5 is Dr. (Mrs.) Pratibha Shrivastava who had examined the prosecutrix; P.W. 6 is Anakhlal, P.W. 7 is Sewak; P.Ws. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are the formal witnesses; P.W. 14 is Y. K. Naik who was the Station House Officer of P. S. Umreth on the date of incident; P.W. 15 is Inderwati, the mother of the prosecutrix; P.W. 16 is Khaddi, the father of the prosecutrix; P.W. 17 is Faggulal and P.W. 18 is R. C. Shabir. Apart from examining these witnesses the prosecution also brought number of documents on record.

5. The defence chose not to adduce any evidence.

6. On consideration of the oral, documentary and medical evidence, the learned trial Judge found the accused persons guilty of the offences and sentenced them as ha s been indicated above.

7. Assailing the aforesaid conviction, Mr. Satish Pateriya, learned counsel for the accused - appellants has contended that the learned trial Judge has completely erred in his appreciation of evidence inasmuch as the version of the prosecutrix is totally improbable. It is his submission that the finding of guilt is incompatible to the material on record. The learned counsel has argued that the prosecution version as has been putforth during the trial does not show unimpeachability and the acceptance of the said version by the learned trial Judge clearly exhibits the vulnerability of his reasonings. I