JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by Sahab Singh alias Khadar Singh, Kundan Singh and Kulwant Singh against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar convicting the three appellants under Sections 366, 368 and 376 IPC. and sentencing them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month's rigorous imprisonment, for each of the offences under Sections 366 and 368 IPC and four years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under section 376 IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Smt. Balwant Kaur wife of Kaka Singh was picking cotton on November 27, 1973 in Murraba No. 48 in Chak 3/L in village Matilirathan. She was alone in her field as her husband had gone away to Kesharisinghpur to sell cotton. Ajmer Singh, brother of her husband, was also picking cotton in the adjoining field. It is alleged that at about 3 P. M. the three appellants Sahab Singh, Kundan Singh and Kulwant Singh went to the field where Smt. Balwant Kaur was picking cotton and Kulwant Singh gave a blow on her head with a `danda' and thereafter all the three persons carried her away near Phusewala Canal and there all the three persons committed rape forcibly upon her by turn. It has been further alleged that while the three persons were trying to carry away Smt. Balwant Kaur, her brother-in-law Ajmer Singh and Gurdayal Singh, who were also present in the nearby field situated in Murraba No. 46, had come to the place of occurrence, on hearing the cries of the lady and objected to the three appellants carrying her way, but the appellants did not listen to them. It has further been alleged that the three appellants kept Smt. Balwant Kaur near the canal during that night and in the next morning they carried her to their house situated in 18 F, at a distance of about two Murrabas, where she remained with the ladies of the family of the appellants on Wednesday i.e. November 28, 1973. It has further been alleged that the three appellants kept Smt. Balwant Kaur near the canal during that night and in the next morning they carried her to their house situated in 18 F, at a distance of about two Murrabas, where she remained with the ladies of the family of the appellants on Wednesday i.e. November 28, 1973. On Thursday the appellants again took her near the Phusewala canal and there Khadar Singh brought some liquor and all the three having taken excessive liquor lost their senses. Smt. Balwant Kaur then got an opportunity to run away as she saw a bus going on the read nearby. She made a sign to stop the bus and having entered the same, the reached Karanpur bus-stand at Ganganagar where Gurdayal Singh Sarpanch, Jugraj Singh and the husband of Smt. Balwant Kaur alongwith the Police Inspector met her and she narrated the entire episode to them. She was then taken to the Government hospital and there she was medically examined. On the return of Kaka Singh next morning, Ajmer Singh told him that the three appellants had forcibly carried away Smt. Balwant Kaur and thereafter Kaka Singh lodged the First Information Report at about 9-00 a.m. on November 28, 1973 at the Police station, Matilirathan. The appellants were reported to be absconding and they were eventually arrested on December 9, 1973. After usual investigation, the police produced a challan before the Magistrate First Class Karanpur, who committed the appellants to stand their trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar framed charges against the appellants under Sections 366, 368 and 376 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and after a trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. 3. In the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellants firstly contended that the First Information Report was lodged after a considerable delay, in as much as the incident of abduction is alleged to have taken place at about 3-00 p.m. on November 27, 1973 while the report was lodged at the police station, which is situated in the very village in which Smt. Balwant Kaur was residing at about 9-00 a.m. on the next day. It was contended that Gurdayal Singh and Ajmer Singh, who are alleged to be eye-witnesses, could have made the First Information Report much earlier but their failure to do so throws considerable doubt in respect of their testimony. The next contention of the learned counsel was that there are several improbabilities in the prosecution story and considering all of them the said story should not be accepted as it was highly unreasonable and improbable as it was not possible for the appellants to take away Smt, Balwant Kaur in broad day light when several people were working in the nearby fields, including her brother-in-law. Then the learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that Smt. Balwant Kaur was a lady of easy virtues and she is the solitary witness so far as the question of rape was concerned and in view of her antecedents and character, the prosecution story should not be believed. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the sentence awarded to the appellants was excessive. 4. In respect of the first contention of the learned counsel, it may be observed that Smt. Balwant Kaur had started living with Kaka Singh near about six months prior to the date when the incident took place and Ajmer Singh did not think it proper to lodge a First Information Report immediately on return to the village from his field, as he thought that it to be better to wait for the return of Kaka Singh, the husband of Smt, Balwant Kaur. It is in evidence that Kaka Singh came back from Kesharisinghpur in the morning of November 28, 1973 and it was soon thereafter that the First Information Report was lodged by him. Ajmer Singh also explained that on return to the village he collected some of the villagers but none of them was prepared to do anything in the matter as no-body was prepared to invite the wrath of the appellants. PW 4 Gurdayal Singh has stated that they sent the son of Kaka Singh to Kesharisinghpur to inform Kaka Singh. It appears from the record that these people did not wish to lodge the First Information Report before the return of Kaka Singh to the village and probably they also thought that Kaka Singh might return to the village by the evening. It appears from the record that these people did not wish to lodge the First Information Report before the return of Kaka Singh to the village and probably they also thought that Kaka Singh might return to the village by the evening. I find that the prosecution has furnished satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in lodging the First Information Report. 5. As regards the second submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the prosecutrix has corroborated fully the prosecution case and has stated that Kundan Singh caught hold of her wrist while she was picking cotton in her field and Khadar Singh closed her mouth while the third person who came alongwith them gave a blow with a `danda' on her head. Thereupon she made a noise which attracted the attention of Ajmer Singh and Gurdayal Singh, who reached the place of occurrence soon thereafter, but the three person forcibly carried her away to some place near the Phusewala canal. There Khadar Singh committed rape upon her forcibly and thereafter Kundan Singh did the same, followed by the third person whom they used to call Kanta Singh. She further stated that the three persons kept roaming near the canal during the night and took her next morning to their Dhani and left her with the ladies of their families. Then on Thursday the three persons again took her to a place near the Phusewala canal and finding a bus coming, she got an opportunity to escape by riding in the bus. The story relating to the forcibly carrying away of Smt. Balwant Kaur by the three appellants is fully corroborated by Ajmer Singh and Gurdayal Singh who were picking cotton in the adjoining fields and who stated that they were attracted to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries of Smt. Balwant Kaur and they objected to the three accused persons forcibly carrying her way, those persons did not listen to them. Learned counsel argued that these two witnesses should not be believed as in the first place they neither tried to rescue Smt. Balwant Kaur nor they reported the matter to the police. I have already considered the question of lodging of a report with the police by these two witnesses and there was nothing wrong if they waited for the return of Kaka Singh from Kesharisinghpur, before a police report was lodged. I have already considered the question of lodging of a report with the police by these two witnesses and there was nothing wrong if they waited for the return of Kaka Singh from Kesharisinghpur, before a police report was lodged. As the question of chastity of the lady was involved, these two witnesses thought it proper to wait for the return of Kaka Singh, the husband of Smt. Balwant Kaur, and it cannot be said that their conduct is of such a nature so as to lead to the rejection of their testimony. So far as the question of rescuing the lady from the three appellants is concerned, Gurdayal Singh is an old man of 65 years and Ajmer Singh has explained that when he tried to intervene the three accused persons told him that they would kill him and being afraid he came back, although he followed them for one or two kilometers. From a perusal of the statements of these two witnesses, it cannot be said that there is anything unnatural in their testimony and merely because they could not pursue the assailants and rescue Smt. Balwant Kaur from their clutches, their testimony can not be disbelieved. Then learned counsel submitted that these two witnesses were near relations and were interested. I find from the statement of Gurdayal Singh that he is an independent person and is not a near relation. He has stated that he is distantly related by three or four degrees to Kaka Singh. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Gurdayal Singh who fully corroborates the statement of Ajmer Singh. Ajmer Singh is no doubt a near relation of the husband of Smt. Balwant Kaur, but his presence at the place of occurrence being quite natural, his testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. Then Kaka Singh PW 2 has supported the testimony of these two witnesses and has stated that when he came back from Kesharisinghpur to his village in the morning on the next day, Ajmer Singh told him about the entire episode. Then Kaka Singh PW 2 has supported the testimony of these two witnesses and has stated that when he came back from Kesharisinghpur to his village in the morning on the next day, Ajmer Singh told him about the entire episode. It has been faintly suggested in the cross-examination of Kaka Singh that there was some dispute with the appellants about a right of way in his field but no evidence has been produced by the appellants in this respect and no enmity has been established between Kaka Singh and the appellants, Moreover, nothing has been suggested in respect of Ajmer Singh and Gurdayal Singh as to why they have deposed against the appellants. 6. Then the submission of the learned counsel was that so far as the question of committing rape by three persons upon Smt. Balwant Kaur is concerned, she is the sole witness and considering that she has been a lady of easy virtues, her testimony should not be believed. It is no doubt true that Smt. Balwant Kaur in her cross-examination admitted that she was married to one Bhola and thereafter she had started living with Kaka Singh and that during her stay with Kaka Singh she had been forcibly carried away by one Santa Singh and remained with him for about three months. But that does not in any manner lead to the inference that she had gone away with the appellants of her own freewill, as has been suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants. Besides the statement of Smt. Balwant Kaur there is circumstantial evidence to corroborate the fact that the there appellants had forcibly taken her away. Moreover her testimony in that respect is fully corroborated by the statements of Ajmer Singh and Gurdayal Singh and these two witnesses have clearly stated that Smt. Balwant Kaur cried as the three assailants took her away forcibly and the two witnesses were attracted to the place of occurrence on hearing her cries. Thus it cannot be assumed in the circumstances that Smt. Balwant Kaur went with the appellants with her consent. Moreover, the medical evidence also supports the testimony of Smt. Balwant Kaur. PW 7 Dr. Amreek Singh who medically examined Smt. Balwant Kaur on November 30,1973 at 6-15 p.m. found two injuries on her body. 1. One bruise 2'x 1" present over lateral surface of right thigh. Moreover, the medical evidence also supports the testimony of Smt. Balwant Kaur. PW 7 Dr. Amreek Singh who medically examined Smt. Balwant Kaur on November 30,1973 at 6-15 p.m. found two injuries on her body. 1. One bruise 2'x 1" present over lateral surface of right thigh. It was blue coloured and simple caused by blunt weapon. 2. Lacerated wound 1" x ⅙" x ⅛" over left side of forehead over left eye brow outer margin. It was dry and was dark clotted blood over it and she was complaining of pain over left shoulder. 7. Smt. Balwant Kaur stated that she tried to throw away the assailants with her legs when they forcibly tried to commit rape upon her, because the other assailant had held her hands and had closed her mouth and that is why she could not resist the assailants. From a consideration of all the circumstances of the case there is no person to discard the testimony of Smt. Balwant Kaur. It might be that she was living with Kaka Singh for some time but it is in evidence that the appellants forcibly took her away for the purpose of illicit sexual intercourse. No motive worth the name has teen brought out for false implication of the appellants and it is difficult to believe that Kaka Singh would have made a false police report against the appellants, who are residents of a different village and would have involved the chastity of his own wife and Smt. Balwant Kaur would have entered in collusion with him in falsely implicating them. The injury on the right thigh, which has been proved by the medical testimony, also supports the evidence of Smt. Balwant Kaur that the three appellants forcibly committed rape upon her and she tried to resist them with her legs. The statement of Smt. Balwant Kaur and the circumstances referred to above leave no doubt that she was forcibly subjected to illicit sexual intercourse by the three appellants, one after another. 8. Then learned counsel argued that the appellants should not have teen convicted under section 368 IPC. He has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the prosecutrix was concealed or confined by the appellants after being abducted. 8. Then learned counsel argued that the appellants should not have teen convicted under section 368 IPC. He has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the prosecutrix was concealed or confined by the appellants after being abducted. Smt. Balwant Kaur in her statement admitted that after committing illicit intercourse near Phusewala canal the appellants took her next morning to their village and left her with their woman folk. She remained there for the whole day. Then they took her again on the next day near the Phusewala canal, but she escaped in bus. Thus it cannot be said that after Smt. Balwant Kaur was abducted by the appellants, with the intention of forcibly committing illicit sexual intercourse with her she was forcibly concealed or confined. The offence under section 368 IPC. is, therefore, not made out in the present case. 9. Lastly it was argued by the learned counsel that in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the appellants is excessive. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence awarded to the appellants under sections 366 and 376 IPC. is reduced to two and half years' rigorous imprisonment for,each one of the aforesaid offences, although there is no reason to interfere with the sentence of fine imposed upon the appellants on both the counts. 10. The result is that the appeal is partly allowed and while all the three appellants are acquitted of the offence under section 368 IPC. their conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC is maintained. However, the substantive sentences awarded to all the three appellants under Sections 366 and 376 IPC, is reduced to two and half years' rigorous imprisonment on each count. The sentence of fine imposed for the aforesaid two offences is maintained. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention undergone by the three appellants during investigation, inquiry or trial shall be set off against the terms of imprisonment imposed upon them. *******