JUDGMENT - A.R. SHIMPI, J.:---Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who have filed this appeal from jail, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani, along with accused No. 3 who has been acquitted, upon the charges that on 26-4-1971 within the limits of village Hatta in Parbhani District, accused No. 1 Datta Baba Chavan committed rape on the complainant Gayabai w/o Rama Handge, and during the course of the same transaction Accused Nos. 2 and 3 abetted the act of Accused No. 1 in the commission of the offence of rape on Gayabai and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C., and accused Nos. 2 and 3 committed an offence punishable under section 376 read with section 109 I.P.C. 2. The learned Judge on appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the charge of rape was brought home to accused No. 1. He, therefore, convicted him under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month. Accused No. 2 was convicted for an offence punishable under section 376 read with section 109 I.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to suffer further R.I. for one month. As already stated above, Accused No. 3 was acquitted of the charge. 3. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under : "Gayabai (P.W. 5), is the wife of one Rama who resides at village Adgaon in Basmatnagar Taluka of Parbhani District. This Rama is a tailor by profession. Gayabais elder sister by name Vatsalabai (P.W. 3) w/o Sahebrao, also resides at the same village. (P.W. 1), Kerubai is the wife of Vatsalabais husbands brother. Gayabai while residing with her husband, used to go to the fields in the company of Kerubai for collecting cow-dung as well as fuel. On 26-4-1971 which was a Monday, Gayabai and Kerubai left their houses early in the morning for collecting fuel. After finishing their work, they came near a canal which is on the outskirts of the village, had their breakfast and again went to the nearly fallow land of one Bajirao. (P.W. 2) Vithal who is examined at the trial, while going to his land met these two ladies collecting the fuel. After finishing their work, they came near a canal which is on the outskirts of the village, had their breakfast and again went to the nearly fallow land of one Bajirao. (P.W. 2) Vithal who is examined at the trial, while going to his land met these two ladies collecting the fuel. It appears at and about 11 a.m. Kerubai felt thirsty, hence both of them again came near the canal. Kerubai drank water and while they were returning for their work, they noticed accused Nos. 1 and 2 coming from the village side from a distance of 20 to 25 ft. According to the case of the prosecution, Accused No. 1 came near Gayabai, caught her by her arm, dragged her and felled her down. Gayabai raised shouts. Accused No. 2 then gagged her month by one hand, pulled, her hair by another. Kerubai started shouting. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened her. Kerubai then started running and shouting. When she was at a distance of 50 paces from the place of the incident, it is the allegation of the prosecution that accused No. 3 came with an axe and threatened Kerubai not to shout. Accused No. 1 then forcibly took sexual intercourse with Gayabai. During this act accused No. 2 was gagging her month and pulling her hair. Gayabai tried to resist the acts of accused No. 1 by striking her hands and legs but to no purpose. In this struggle her bangles were broken. She sustained injuries on her left wrist as well as on the elbows of right and left hand. Part of her blouse was torn on he right arm. After the act was completed. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 ran away from the place. Gayabai then approached Kerubai and narrated the incident to her. Both of them then went to the sister of Gayabai by name Vatsalabai. Both of them narrated the incident to Vatsalabai, who in her turn sent her mother-in-law by name Gangubai to inform the husband of Gayabai about the occurrence. In the meanwhile, it is the case of the prosecution that Vatsalabai advised Gayabai to take bath and wash her clothes. Both of them narrated the incident to Vatsalabai, who in her turn sent her mother-in-law by name Gangubai to inform the husband of Gayabai about the occurrence. In the meanwhile, it is the case of the prosecution that Vatsalabai advised Gayabai to take bath and wash her clothes. It is to be noted that it is the case of prosecution that Gayabai pointed both to Kerubai as well as Vatsalabai that there was a swelling on her private part and that there were blood stains and seminal stains on her sari. However, it is to be noted that though the said had been attached and though it is the case of the prosecution that it was washed, it was never sent for the examination of the Chemical Analyser. We shall also refer to the evidence about the swelling deposed to by the witnesses. Gayabai then returned to her house and narrated the incident to her husband. She as well as her husband both went to the Police Station Hatta which is at a distance of about 2 miles from the village. Her first information came to be recorded by Head Constable Manohar at about 8 p.m. He thereafter registered the offence." 4. Head Constable Manohar made a panchanama of the scene of offence on the next day. According to him, immediately after registering the offence he made a panchanama and noted down the injuries found on the person of Gayabai and he also seized the sari and the blouse produced by her under a panchanama. The sari appears to have been examined by the panchas and the panchanama recites that they did not find any semen stains nor any blood stains on it. However, they noticed that the zumper appeared to be torn near the right sleeve. He made arrangements to send Gayabai for medical examination. He recorded statements of five witnesses on the next day and on 28-4-1971 he handed over the investigation to P.S.I. Joshi, H.C. Manohar stated that the broken bangle pieces were not produced at the Police Station by the complainant. However, they were seized at the time of drawing the panchanama. He also admitted that the complainant Gayabai did not show any injuries on her back and legs. Kerubai was present at the time of drawing the panchanama of the scene of offence. P.S.I. Joshi took over the investigation on 29-4-1971. However, they were seized at the time of drawing the panchanama. He also admitted that the complainant Gayabai did not show any injuries on her back and legs. Kerubai was present at the time of drawing the panchanama of the scene of offence. P.S.I. Joshi took over the investigation on 29-4-1971. He then arrested the three accused. The first two accused i.e, the appellants were arrested on 29-4-1971 while accused No. 3 who was acquitted, was arrested on 30-4-1971. Though he states that the accused could not be traced earlier, H.C. Manohar does no state to that effect. The P.S.I. took over the investigation on 29th and on the very day he effected the arrest. It appears that the only investigation made by him was the production and attachment of an axe from the house of accused No. 3. 5. Mrs. Kastori Doijode, the Medical Officer in charge of Civil Hospital, Parbhani, examined Gayabai on 27-4-1971 at 11 a.m. She found the three superficial abrasions as noted down below :--- 1. A scratch ½" long on medical aspect of right forearm 1" above wrist joint, oblique, reddish, seab forming. 2. An abrassion 1" x 1/3" on front of left forearm just above wrist on lateral aspect. 3. An abrasion on back of left elbow ½" x 1/3" reddish and scab forming. Dr. Doijode stated that she did not find any visible injury on medical side of thing or the private of Gayabai. She did not notice any seminal stains or blood stains on her clothes. She did not find matting of public her. He hymen was found ruptured and vagina was normal indicating thereby that she was accustomed to sexual intercourse. She then stated : "I did not notice any tenderness on her private part. I obtained her vaginal swab from posterior formix and on miscroscopic examination thereof no spermatozoa were detected therein. In view of the above clinical findings I formed an opinion that here were no positive signs of rape on the victim." She has also taken ossification test to determine her age and has come to the conclusion that the age of Gayabai was between 15 to 16 years. However, the age of Gayabai does not assume any importance in the instant case. Therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce that evidence. 6. However, the age of Gayabai does not assume any importance in the instant case. Therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce that evidence. 6. After completing the investigation it appears that the charge-sheet was not filed immediately against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to that fact in paragraph 27 is his judgment and has stated that the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate some time in November 1973 i.e. after a delay of 2 ½ years. He also made observations that this was a fit was in which competent authority should hold an enquiry as to why the submission of the charge sheet was delayed inordinately. After completing the committal proceedings, the three accused were committed to stand their trial in the Court of Sessions. 7. At the Sessions trial Gayabai was examined. She substantially deposed what we have stated as the prosecution case and has substantially corroborated her First Information given at Hatta Police Station. Kerubai, (P.W. 1), who was present along with her, stated that she had seen the actual act of sexual intercourse being committed by accused No. 1 and thereafter she ran away. It does appear that there are several material contradictions in her evidence when it is compared with the evidence of Gayabai. It appears from her evidence that she wanted to convey to the Court that her statement was immediately recorded on the very day though the investigation papers show and the evidence of the Police Head Constable shows that it was recorded on the next day. The learned Judge has considered it as a lapse of memory on her part and has referred to the contradictions as very trivial and minor. If those contradiction are considered singly and in isolation, the conclusion of the learned Judge may be correct. However, if the cumulative effect of those contradictions is taken into consideration, we do find that Kerubai appears to improve her version and to exaggerate the incident, as regards the part played by the accused and as regards the opportunity for her to witness the incident. It is further seen from her evidence that she is a woman who has no regard for truth and who is ready to involve an innocent person like accused No. 3 who has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of the charge of abetment of rape. It is further seen from her evidence that she is a woman who has no regard for truth and who is ready to involve an innocent person like accused No. 3 who has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of the charge of abetment of rape. If such a woman goes to the length of involving an innocent person and stating that he was present, and not only that he was present, but he threatened her with an axe not to shout in order facilitate the commission of offence by accused No. 1, what guarantee would be there about the truthfulness of her evidence. All the contradictions, therefore, will have to be considered in that light. It is seen from her evidence that she asserted that Gayabai had an injury on her private part and she had seen it. Gayabai does not state that she had shown her private part or the injury suffered on her private part to Kerubai. The case of this witness viz. Kerubai, before the police was that she had not seen any injury on the private part of Gayabai. Though she asserted, the contradictions have been brought on record. It is further seen that the evidence regarding the injury on the private part of Gayabai is negatived by the medical evidence. Though it appears from her statement that she witnesses the whole act, in the cross-examination she stated that saw accused Nos. 1 and 2. They did not have any talk with her. Immediately after seeing this she started running and while running she saw the incident. If her evidence is scrutinised and read between the lines, it appears that after the assault on Gayabai, Kerubai must have taken to her heels and ran across the streamlet and, therefore, she must not have an opportunity to see what had taken place at the time of the incident. If her evidence is compared with the evidence of Gayabai, Gayabai stated that when accused Nbs. and caught hold of her, accused No. 1 dragged her and forcibly felled her down. She fell on her back. If Kerubai was present she would certainly notice that Gayabai had fallen on the ground on her back. However, in her evidence Kerubai stated that Gayabai fell on her mouth. and caught hold of her, accused No. 1 dragged her and forcibly felled her down. She fell on her back. If Kerubai was present she would certainly notice that Gayabai had fallen on the ground on her back. However, in her evidence Kerubai stated that Gayabai fell on her mouth. This would show that she has given a completely contradictory version which would go to show that she must not have witnessed the incident and seeing the appellants assaulting Gayabai she must have taken to her heels. In order to heighten the effect of the prosecution version, she wanted to say that after they drank water and were about to return, accused Nos. 1 and 2 suddenly came and pounced upon Gayabai but she was confronted with her police statement wherein she stated that she saw them coming from Adgaon side from a distance of 20 to 25 feets. It is not necessary to refer to the other minor contradictions; but taking a cumulative effect we hold that Kerubai was present but as soon as accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached Gayabai and accused No. 1 caught hold of her, Kerubai must have taken to her heels and therefore she had no opportunity to witness the incident. Her evidence cannot be accepted that she was a direct witness to the incident of rape. It is to be seen from her evidence that she stated that accused No. 3 who was hiding in the bushes came and caught her by her arms and asked her not to look behind. He also threatened her that she should not disclose this incident to anyone. He also threatened her to kill if she did so. Gayabai does not state that accused No. 3 was present at the time of the incident or that accused No. 3s presence was noticed by her immediately after the incident or that she saw accused No. 3 passing by that road immediately after the incident. Her first information does not also show that accused No. 3 was present at the time of the incident. 8. Gayabai stated that at the time of the incident, accused Nos. 1 and 2 suddenly came and accused No. 1 caught hold of her by her hand and felled her down on the ground. Accused No. 2 caught her hair by the right hand and gagged her mouth by his left hand. 8. Gayabai stated that at the time of the incident, accused Nos. 1 and 2 suddenly came and accused No. 1 caught hold of her by her hand and felled her down on the ground. Accused No. 2 caught her hair by the right hand and gagged her mouth by his left hand. Accused No. 1 then sat on her person. She tried to shout, but he did not allow her to do so. Accused No. 1 then took sexual intercourse with her. Accused No. 2 was then holding her hair and gagging her mouth. Her bangles were broken. She sustained injuries on the left hand elbow and on the back and also on her private part. There was a swelling over her private part. She then returned with Kerubai to the village and placed the bundle of fuel near the house Vatsalabai, her sister. There is a small contradiction between the evidence of Vatsalabai and Gayabai. According to Vatasalabai, Gayabai first went to her husbands house, placed the bundle of fuel there and then came to her house. Gayabai then stated that she narrated the incident to her sister. She stated that she was wearing a green coloured sari and black Zumper. Her Zumper was torn and sari had stains of white coloured stains were semen stains. Vatsalabai asked her to take bath. She washed her sari i.e. Vatsala washed her sari. Thereafter she along with her husband went to Hatta Police Station. In her cross-examination she admitted that she saw both accused Nos. 1 and 2 from a distance of 20 to 25 paces. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had no talk with her, but when they came near accused No. 1 alone caught her. She then states that both the accused caught her and felled her down. She was caught near the wrist. She again changes and says that she was caught by her left arm. Accused Nos. 1 felled her down. She fell on her back. We have already stated that she was forcibly felled down on the ground and she fell on back. If it was so, as the ground was of earth, there should have been some scratches or abrasions on her back. We have already stated that this evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of Kerubai who stated that Gayabai fell on her mouth. If it was so, as the ground was of earth, there should have been some scratches or abrasions on her back. We have already stated that this evidence is inconsistent with the evidence of Kerubai who stated that Gayabai fell on her mouth. There is no injury on the mouth of Gayabai and we have commented then that Kerubais evidence does not appear to be true, because she may not have an opportunity to witness the incident. According to Gayabai, accused No. 1 was sitting while taking sexual intercourse. She began to shout, but accused No. 2 gagged her mouth. Accused No. 1 sat on her person, she struggled very hard. She gave him fist blows as well as kicks, but accused No. 1 curiously enough, did not receive her kicks or fist blows. She did not make any nail marks to accused No. 1, nor she tried to push him. According to her she had received nail marks on her thigh. There were no nail marks on her breasts though she states that accused No. 1 had pressed her breasts. We have already referred to the medical evidence and pointed out that there are no injuries even superficial nail marks on her thighs. If at the time of sexual intercourse against her consent was taken by accused No. 1 and accused No. 1 had pressed her breasts and she was all the while struggling, there should have been some injury on her breasts; but the medical evidence show that no injury was noticed on her breasts. Her Zumper was not torn on the front side. According to her there were some thorns on the ground and she had suffered thorn pricks on the lower part of her legs. This is also not corroborated by the medical evidence, because there is no abrasion, nor even a superficial scratch on the lower part of her legs. She states that accused No. 1 had dragged her against the ground due to which she sustained abrasions on the back. She admitted that she had stated in her complaint that she had sustained abrasions on the back and on the lower legs. We have already pointed out that no injury was notified nor it is so mentioned in the first information. She admitted that she had stated in her complaint that she had sustained abrasions on the back and on the lower legs. We have already pointed out that no injury was notified nor it is so mentioned in the first information. She further exaggerates the version by stating that she had sustained injuries on her private parts and she had shown those injuries to the lady Medical Officer. However, the Medical Officers evidence shows that Gayabai was accustomed to sexual intercourse and there were no injuries on her private parts. Hatta Police Station is at a distance of about two miles from the village. She admits that she had left her village and reached Hatta at about sunset time. She has not explained the delay in lodging the first information report, nor any attempt is made by the prosecution, to show why so much time was required to lodge the first information report especially when the incident took place at 11 a.m. and the police station was at a distance of about two miles. She states that she had taken the broken bangle pieces to the Police Station. She also know and she had produced her sari and blouse at the Police Station; but curiously enough, in her evidence she stated that she did not remember if the sari and blouse were produced before the police at the time of her first information. This would show that she knew or the person accompanying her knew the importance of producing the clothes before the police and in order to explain the absence of seminal stains or blood stains, it does appear that an attempt is being made by the prosecution witnesses to show that Gayabai was advised by her elder sister to take bath and her elder sister washed the sari. Even the washed sari could have been sent to the Chemical Analyser to find out whether there were any washed seminal stains or bloodstains on it in order to corroborate the version of this witness. 9. Her elder sister Vatsalabai stated that Gayabai immediately report the incident to her. The rest of the evidence examined before the learned Sessions Judge consisted of three panchas viz., the panch of the scene of offence and the panch of attachment of clothes. We have already referred to the medical evidence and the evidence of the investigating officer. 10. 9. Her elder sister Vatsalabai stated that Gayabai immediately report the incident to her. The rest of the evidence examined before the learned Sessions Judge consisted of three panchas viz., the panch of the scene of offence and the panch of attachment of clothes. We have already referred to the medical evidence and the evidence of the investigating officer. 10. Accused No. 1 denied to have committed any offence. He stated that the witnesses belong to Dhangar caste while he belongs to Maratha caste, hence he has been falsely implicated. According to him he had given a shirt for stitching to Rama, the husband of Gayabai. Rama spoiled his shirt, did not stitch it properly, and hence there used to be quarrels between him and Rama over the shirt which was spoiled by Rama. According to him when he and accused No. 2 were going by the side of the road, they met Gayabai. He then asked her where her husband Rama had gone. He also told her that Rama did not stitch her shirt properly. At that time Gayabai became apprehensive that he as well as accused No. 2 would assault her and through fear she started running and fell down. He and accused No. 2 came back to the village. Gayabais husband told about this incident to his caste men and further charged them in the panchayat that they (accused Nos. 1 and 2) had outraged the modesty of his wife. According to him Gayabai is a woman of loose character and she has falsely implicated them. Accused No. 2 Kashinath admits his presence along with prosecution witnesses Gayabai and Kerubai. He practically supports the version of accused No. 1 and further states that all Dhangars had united and, therefore, both he and accused No. 1 were falsely implicated. 11. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence. He held that there was no reason for Gayabai to make a false charge. Her evidence as regards rape committed by accused No. 1 was corroborated by the direct evidence of Kerubai, and Gayabai was further corroborated, inasmuch as she charged accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences immediately before her sister Vatsalabai and lodged her complaint. The learned Judge fell that there was another piece of corroboration to her evidence viz., that she had injuries and the torn blouse which would go to corroborate the evidence of Gayabai. 1 and 2 for the offences immediately before her sister Vatsalabai and lodged her complaint. The learned Judge fell that there was another piece of corroboration to her evidence viz., that she had injuries and the torn blouse which would go to corroborate the evidence of Gayabai. In that view he held accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty as already stated and acquitted accused No. 3 in the absence of any evidence. 12. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction and sentence, both the accused have filed this appeal from jail. Shri Solshe, the learned Advocate who is appointed to undertake the defence of the appellants, urged that the learned Sessions Judge has not correctly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses in its proper perspective. He submitted that Gayabai was a woman of loose character. She had illicit relations with her brother-in-law. Gayabai was desorted by her husband and in order to get rid of this woman her husband asked her to charge the two accused for having committed rape on her. He conceded that accused Nos. 1 and 2 admitted their presence and also admitted the presence of Gayabai as well as Kerubai near the cannal where the incident had taken place. However, he urged that the evidence falls short for proving that an offence of rape has been committed. 13. On carefully considering the evidence we felt that a lesser offence of outraging the modesty of Gayabai must have taken place and there was not enough direct or circumstantial corroboration to the evidence of Gayabai as regards the implication of both the appellants for the offence of rape and its abetment. We, therefore, called upon the learned Public Prosecutor to submit as to why the evidence of these witnesses should be accepted for the offence of rape. Mr. Parkar submitted that the learned Sessions Judge was right in believing the evidence of Gayabai. He submitted that Gayabai had no axe to grind against the accused. There was absolutely no reason for her to implicate the two appellants falsely. Moreover, he urged that Kerubais evidence goes to show that she witnessed the incident and thus there is direct corroboration to the evidence of Gayabai. He further urged that an immediate disclosure of this offence is made by Gayabai to her elder sister Vatsalabai and Gaybai approached the Police Station at a distance of two miles in the evening. Moreover, he urged that Kerubais evidence goes to show that she witnessed the incident and thus there is direct corroboration to the evidence of Gayabai. He further urged that an immediate disclosure of this offence is made by Gayabai to her elder sister Vatsalabai and Gaybai approached the Police Station at a distance of two miles in the evening. All these circumstances, coupled with the injuries found on her person, go to show that what Gayabai tells must be the truth and that it should be accepted. 14. We have carefully considered the evidence on record. We have also pointed out the various contradictions from the evidence of Kerubai as well as Gayabai. It is, therefore, not necessary to repeat the whole evidence one again. We have pointed out that Kerubai appears to us to be a witness who has no regard for truth. She has implicated accused No. 3 and charged him as a person abetting the offence of rape. She has put the axe in the hand of accused No. 3. she has not disclosed the name of accused No. 3 and charged him at any time either to Gayabai or Vatsalabai. Though her statement was recorded on the next day, she comes out with a version that it was recorded on the very day. The learned Sessions Judge did find that Kerubai was exaggerating. There were many discrepancies in her evidence, but he placed reliance on her word. We do not agree with that appreciation of the evidence of Kerubai. We hold that Kerubai is a woman has no regard for truth. She is a person who can falsely implicate any one in the crime. Therefore, her evidence will have to be accepted with caution. It is not disputed even by the appellants that Kerubai was present. The question is whether Kerubai had an opportunity to witness what had taken place at the time of the incident. It does appear from her evidence that as soon as accused No. 1 caught hold of the hand of Gayabai, this woman had taken to her heels and, therefore, we are inclined to hold that she must not have witnessed the incident. It does appear from her evidence that as soon as accused No. 1 caught hold of the hand of Gayabai, this woman had taken to her heels and, therefore, we are inclined to hold that she must not have witnessed the incident. On her own showing, at the time when Gayabai was caught, she was at a distance of 50 feet and she further stated that she was on the other side of the streamlet and at a distance when accused No. 3 thereatened her. All this evidence, if cumulatively viewed, would go to show that she must not be a witness to what had happened at the time of the incident. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, in our opinion, erred in holding that Kerudais evidence is direct corroboration to the evidence of Gayabai. Excluding this direct, evidence, we are only left with the evidence of Gayabai. We have, therefore, to find out whether that evidence is true. 15. It is well settled that in the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be a corroboration; but the rule of corroboration must be present in the mind of the Court, because the rule of prudence requires that there should be some internal or external corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix. We have, therefore, to find out whether there is any internal or external corroboration in the shape of circumstances to the evidence of Gayabai in order to come to the conclusion that an offence of rape was committed on her by accused No. 1. We have already reproduced the medical evidence. Dr. Doijode is certain and has conclusively stated that from her examination and especially from the miscroscopic examination which she had conducted, she was of the opinion that no offence of rape was committed on Gayabai. We have already pointed out from the evidence of Gayabai that according to Gayabai she forcibly fell on her back. She was giving fist blows and kick blows to accused No. 1. She did not allow him to have sexual intercourse, but he did it forcibly and at that time she received certain injuries. We have referred to those injuries and from those injuries it is clear that they are on both the hands and not on the back. The medical evidence does not support her. She did not allow him to have sexual intercourse, but he did it forcibly and at that time she received certain injuries. We have referred to those injuries and from those injuries it is clear that they are on both the hands and not on the back. The medical evidence does not support her. In view of the hard ground on which Gayabai fell and was lying on that ground when the sexual act was being committed against her wish, we are of the opinion that there would have been some scratches or superficial injuries or abrasions on her back. The absence of any injury on her back, in our opinion, introduced a serious infirmity in the evidence of this witness that an offence of rape was committed on her. We do hold from the finding of broken pieces of bangles at the place of the incident and from the torn blouse that was on her person that some sort of struggle must have taken place between her on one side and accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the other side. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 did assault, according to her, to outrage her modesty. They might have intended to rape her; but it does not appear that this particular intention went beyond the stage of preparation. We do not even find any evidence as regards any attempt on their part to commit the offence of rape. We further hold that Gayabai has exaggerated her evidence by saying that there was a swelling on her private parts. The medical evidence is against her version. We further hold that in order to explain the absence of seminal stains and blood-stains on the sair, and in order to explain the absence of matting of public hair, a theory is developed that Gayabai was advised to take bath and her clothes were washed by her elder sister. If her clothes were washed by her elder sister, one fails to see the propriety of carrying them before the police immediately the offence is registered. All these circumstances make us allow in accepting the evidence of Gayabai to hold that an offence of rape was committed on her. However, we do hold from the evidence on record that accused Nos. 1 and 2 did criminally assault her in order to outrage her modesty. All these circumstances make us allow in accepting the evidence of Gayabai to hold that an offence of rape was committed on her. However, we do hold from the evidence on record that accused Nos. 1 and 2 did criminally assault her in order to outrage her modesty. We, therefore, hold them guilty of a lesser offence under section 354 I.P.C. and convict them, under that section. We acquit accused No. 1 under section 376 I.P.C. and accused No. 2 under section 376 read with 109 I.P.C. 16. The next question that arises for our consideration is that sentence we should award to these appellants for an offence under section 354 I.P.C. It appears that they were in jail as under trial prisoners for about three weeks and there after they are in jail from 4-12-1975 when they were held guilty, convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus, they have suffered a sentence for nearly ten months. They are agriculturists of village Adgaon. Under such circumstances we feel that the sentence already undergone by the appellants would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. With this modification, we pass the following order. 17. Appeal is partly allowed. Appellant No. 1 is acquitted under section 376 I.P.C. Appellant No. 2 is acquitted under section 376 read with 109 I.P.C. However, they are convicted under section 354 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment which they have already undergone. They shall be set at liberty forthwith unless otherwise needed. -----