GULAB C. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THE two appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 100/. , in default of payment of fine, further R. I. for one month by Judgment dated 4-1-1980 passed by Shri B. S. Bhatjiwale, Sessions Judge, Raisen, in Sessions Trials No. 5of 979. They are challenging their aforesaid convictions and sentences in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that on 16-8-1978, at about 4 P. M. , the prosecutrix Kesharbai (P. W. 7) was working in her field when the appellants armed with gun and axe reached the spot. The appellant Rustam Khan alleged to have caught hold of her left hand and threatened her with dire consequences if she did not go with him. The appellant Munne Khan is said to have kept the barrel of the gun on her chest. On being so threatened, she quielty accompanied the appellants. The appellants took her into the forest of village Rashidpur a. nd committed sexual intercourse on her against her will. Thereafter she was taken to the house of Rustam Khan in village Rashidpur and kept in a room and subjected to sexual intercom 3e twice or thrice against her will by both the appellants. The prosecutrix is alleged to have been released at 10 P. M. with the threat that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, she would be killed. Kesharbai reached her home at about midnight and narrated the incident to her husband Hemsingh (P. W. 6 ). Hemsingh promised to lodge a report in the morning. However, on the morning of 17-8-1978, his bullock had strayed away and hence he went in search of his bullock. The husband, however, asked the prosecutrix to narrate the incident to Imratlal (P. W. 3) and Kaluram (P. W. 4) who are the neighbours. The husband could, not return during the day but returned in the night and thereafter next day on 18. 8. 1978 went to the police station Gairatganj to lodge the report Ex. P-5. Police Station Gairatganj is situated at a distance of 5 kilometers from the village of the prosecutrix. After investigation, the challan under section 376, Indian Penal Code was filed. 8. 1978 went to the police station Gairatganj to lodge the report Ex. P-5. Police Station Gairatganj is situated at a distance of 5 kilometers from the village of the prosecutrix. After investigation, the challan under section 376, Indian Penal Code was filed. ( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant Munne Khan was that he has been falsely implicated as his relations with the prosecutrix Kesharbai were not happy because of a dispute between them over the land. The defence of the appellant Rustam Khan was that he has been falsely implicated because of his enmity with Imratlal during the elections Both of them alternatively submitted that it was a case of consent. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the evidence of the prosecutrix Kesharbai (P. W. 7), her husband Hemsingh (P. W. 6), Imratlal (P. W. 3) and Kallu Karigar held that the appellants have committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will. The learned Judge has not accepted the story of consent even though he found any injury on the person of the prosecutrix. On the aforesaid evidence the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as-aforesaid. ( 4 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Information Report Ex. P-S had been lodged on 18. 8. 1978 at 4 P. M. at Gairatgaoj Police Station which is at a distance of 5 Kilometers only and there is no reasonable explanation for this delay. The incident had taken place between 4 P. M. and 10 P. M. on 16. 8. 1978 and the prosecutrix reached her village at midnight of 16. 8. 1978. The report could have, therefore, been lodged on 17. 8,1978. It is the settled law that if the F. I. R. is not lodged without any undue delay, it loses its efficacy and has to be looked upon with suspicion. It is also the settled law that the delay in lodging the F. I R. has to be explained satisfactorily in order to make it believable. If the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, no reliance would be placed on the F. I. R. (See Ramji Surjya v. State of Maharashtra1 ). In the instant case, the report has not been lodged immediately after the incident, as it should normally he. If the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, no reliance would be placed on the F. I. R. (See Ramji Surjya v. State of Maharashtra1 ). In the instant case, the report has not been lodged immediately after the incident, as it should normally he. The explanation for the delay is that the bullock of the prosecutrix was lost and the husband had to go out on the morning of 17. 8. 1978 int search thereof The submission is that the husband could not trace it out during the day and returned in the night of 17. 8. 1978 and that is why the F. I. R. could not be lodged on 17. 8. 1978. It is submitted that this explanation is not a reasonable explanation as any reasonable man would not go in search of his bullock instead of reporting the important incident of sexual intercourse upon his wife to the police authorities. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this to be sufficient to explain the delay. It has to be appreciated that the prosecutrix is an Adivasi woman living in a village and engaged in agriculture. Importance of bullock for an agriculturist cannot be over emphasised. Under the circumstances, if the husband thought it proper to search out the bullock and thereafter go to the police for lodging the report, it cannot be said that he intentionally delayed the report. It is said that the husband who had been told about the incident in the night, wanted not to suffer a new loss of his bullock. After all, the reasonableness of the explanation has to be judged from the stand point of the person giving the explanation The explanation appears to be reasonable and hence, it must be held that the delay in lodging the report has been satisfactorily- explained. This explanation is contained in the report itself. The matter is said to have been reported to the neighbours, viz. Imratlal (P. W. 3) and Kaluram (P. W. 4) and hence there will be no possibility of it suffering from exaggeration or untruthfulness. Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case because the F. I. R. was lodged after some delay. The delay has been sufficiently explained. Imratlal (P. W. 3) and Kaluram (P. W. 4) and hence there will be no possibility of it suffering from exaggeration or untruthfulness. Under the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case because the F. I. R. was lodged after some delay. The delay has been sufficiently explained. ( 5 ) IT was thereafter submitted that the circumstances appearing from the evidence clearly show that the prosecutrix Kesharbai was a consenting party and hence no offence under section 376, Indian Penal Code has been committed by the appellants. The circumstances necessary to draw such an inference are said to be (i) the appellants are intimately known to the prosecutrix from before, (ii) absence of injury on the person of the prosecutrix and (iii) absence of husband from the home giving the liberty to the wife to indulge in pleasure pursuit. These circumstances, it is submitted, when considered in the context of delay in lodging the F. I. R. would invariably give rise to the conclusion that the prosecutrix had willingly gone with the appellants and had consented to the sexual intercourse. It was also submitted that in case she was not a submitting party, she would have raised an alarm when being taken from her field to the forest and thereafter to the house of the appellant Rustam Khan. It is also submitted that her conduct in not raising cries after being released by the appellants would also point towards her being a consenting party. Thelearned Panel lawyer, however, submitted that the evidence of D. W. 1 Abdul Razzaque Khan and D. W. 2 Asalat Khan is sufficient to show that the relationship between the appellants and the prosecutrix was not good. In fact, a case was also going on between them. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the strained relationship, theprosecutrix could not have consented to sexual intercourse. The circumstances stated by the learned counsel for the appellants are no doubt present in the case but they are not sufficient to give rise to a presumption of consent on the part of the prosecutrix and that the appellants and the prosecutrix are known to each other, is beyond doubt but their relationship is not happy is also proved sufficiently by the defence evidence. Under the circumstances, it would not be reasonable to infer that prosecutrix would voluntarily and willingly not follow the appellants to the forest and submit herself to sexual intercourse. Absence of injury on her person can in certain circumstances lead to the conclusion that she may be a consenting party but even that is not possible in the instant case. In view of the fact that she was threatened with death and serious bodily injuries in case she raised an alarm. The appellants were armed with gun and axes and, hence it was natural for the prosecutrix to feel frightened with their threats. The absence of husband from the house during the day and her reaching home after the husband is, a circumstance Negativing the conclusion of her being a consenting party to the sexual intercourse. After all when the husband left in the morning to the market, the prosecutrix must have anticipated his return from the market in the afternoon, under normal circumstances. If she had to indulge in any pleasure pursuit, she would have done so before the expected return of her husband. She would not be a consenting party to an incident which may give rise to suspicion regarding her conduct. The fact that she reached late and narrated the incident to the husband also negatives such conclusion. It is, therefore, not possible to draw an inference of consent on the part of the prosecutrix on the basis of circumstances narrated by the learned counsel. ( 6 ) IT has been lastly submitted that the entire conviction of the appellants is based on uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. The relationship between the parties has not been happy and hence the possibility of her falsely implicating the appellants cannot be ruled cut. The prosecutrix Kesharbai has given a version which is fully corroborated by the F. I. R. , the evidence of Hemsingh (P. W. 6) and two neighbours Imratlal (P. W. 3) and Kaluram (P. W. 4 ). It is, no doubt, true that it is the prosecutrix who had informed the incident to these witnesses. Their statements only show that the story is not an afterthought. In view of this evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution story is based on uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix alone. It is, no doubt, true that it is the prosecutrix who had informed the incident to these witnesses. Their statements only show that the story is not an afterthought. In view of this evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution story is based on uncorroborated evidence of the prosecutrix alone. The corroboration is available in abundance from the evidence of the above mentioned three witnesses, the F. I. R. , Ex. P-5 and the report of the Serologist Ex. P. 6. It is, no doubt, true that the lady doctor, who examined the prosecutrix, has not been examined. But considering the fact that the prosecutrix is a married lady of about 25 years of age, her medical examination would not be of any help to decide whether she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellants is correct and needs no interference. As far as sentence is concerned, it is submitted that they are young men with family without there being say history of previous offences. The fact that the two appellants took advantage of the prosecutrix being alone in the field and committed sexual intercourse with her several times in sufficient to impose sentences upon them. Inspite of it, the ends of justice, in my opinion, would be sufficiently served if their sentences are reduced to 2 (two) years R. I. ( 8 ) THE appeal partly succeeds. The conviction of the appellants under section 376, Indian Penal Code is upheld. They are sentenced to 2 (two) years R. I. each for the same. The appellants are required before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen, to undergone the sentence. .