JUDGMENT Bhatt, J. -1. This is the appeal of the accused Ganesh and Kewalram who, on their conviction under section 376, IPC, have, each, been sentenced to five years' R. I. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly thus : Prosecutrix PW 1 Mst. Kripabai, a married woman, indisputably above 18 years of age, was living with her husband Ramesh at the house of the latter's brother Bansilal at village Bamangaon, and during the relevant period, her husband used to go to Piplani village for doing some labourer's job. In the early hours of the afternoon on 22-9-82, PW 1 Kripabai, accompanied with her Jethani (i.e. husband's elder brother's wife) PW 2 Sbantabai, had gone to jungle adjoining their village Bamangaon, to collect some fire-wood. Both had spread themselves for the purpose and were little away from each other while collecting fire-wood. The appellants-accused Ganesh and Kewalram, who belonged to their community and were probably related to them, a little distantly, suddenly arrived at the place where the prosecutrix Kripabai was collecting fire-wood. They had, in between them, a Tangiya (i.e. a small axe). The appellant-accused Kewalram was alleged to have forcibly caught hold other hand and then to have laid her on the ground surfaced by earth and committed rape with her against her will and without her consent. After this sexual act, his compansion viz. the other appellant-co-accused Ganesh equally committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly and against her will During these acts of sexual offence, the prosecutrix' mouth was kept gllgged, and the Tongiya was brandished for threatening her and for making her submit to their lust. After the commission of the sexual offence by both these appellants-accused, they fled away. The prosecutrix-Kripabai raised shrieks: and started towards her Jethani PW 2 Shantabai, who too, on hearing shrieks, started in the said direction. When they met, Kripabai apprised her about the incident, incriminating both the appellant-accused. On reaching home, Jeth ( tsB ) viz the elder brother of the husband was equally apprised. The Jeth Bansilal sent errand to the prosecutrix husband Ramesh who was doing some labourer's job in Piplani. On husband's arrival, he was also apprised about the incident, and it was then that at about 3 p. m. on 24-9-82, report of the incident was lodged at the police station Chhipabar which was about 15 Kms. from Bamangaon. The Jeth Bansilal sent errand to the prosecutrix husband Ramesh who was doing some labourer's job in Piplani. On husband's arrival, he was also apprised about the incident, and it was then that at about 3 p. m. on 24-9-82, report of the incident was lodged at the police station Chhipabar which was about 15 Kms. from Bamangaon. Prosecutrix was medically examined with regard to her injuries and so also of the appellant-accused. After due investigation, both' the appellants-accused were put up for trial. Both abjured the guilt and claimed to be falsely implicated, due to the ill-will of Sarpanch Sunderlal against them because of their refusal to do begar for him. No evidence, however, was adduced in defence. The trial Court, relying on the prosecution evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants-accused to the extent as stated at the outset. Hence, now, the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants-accused has urged in the first place, that FIR having been lodged by the prosecutrix 49 hours after the incident, the said FIR is not reliable due to inordinate delay, for which, there was no satisfactory explanation. It is also stated that there was like delay by the prosecutrix in disclosing about the incident to the family-folk and others. It is, next, urged that as per the medical evidence, there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix and so also on the person of the accused persons; and therefore, the absence of these injuries, was clearly indicative of the fact that the story regarding the commission of offence, was a fabricated one. It is also argued that the appellants-accused being closely related, it was not possible for them to commit such serious offence. Application and Affidavit, bearing thumb mark of the prosecutrix Kripabai have also been filed by the appellants' learned counsel for giving due weight to the same while disposing of the appeal. It has been stated in the application and affidavit that the appellant-accused Ganesh and Kewalram were the prosecutrix' nephew and brother-in-law. respectively and that "due to pressure he had made the report against these persons". 4. All arguments advanced are thoroughly devoid of merit, and application and affidavit filed by the prosecutrix in this Court, equally deserve no weight in the particular circumstances, in which, they had been filed. The prosecutrix and the appellants accused belong to Katia community. respectively and that "due to pressure he had made the report against these persons". 4. All arguments advanced are thoroughly devoid of merit, and application and affidavit filed by the prosecutrix in this Court, equally deserve no weight in the particular circumstances, in which, they had been filed. The prosecutrix and the appellants accused belong to Katia community. All are illiterate and are found to depend on the labourer's job for their livelihood. In a case of rape, the version of the victim i.e. of the prosecutrix deserves close scrutiny with due caution, for being on guard that innocent persons are not roped in, in such serious offence, out of enmity or for serving one's selfish interest. The defence contention that the appellants-accused have been falsely implicated at the instance of village Sarpanch Sunderlal due to their refusal to do Begar for him, is apparently false, since there is no evidence in this regard, and also since Sunderlal who has been examined as PW 4 is not found to have been cross-examined at all on this material aspect of defence. 5. Then again, the prosecutrix Kripabai or her husband or any other relations are not found to have any enmity or ill-will against the appellants-accused so as to falsely implicate them for nothing. No suggestion is found to have been given either to her or to her Jethani PW 2 Shantibai during the course of their respective cross-examination regarding the appellants-accused false involvement in the serious offence in question. The prosesutrix' own evidence as PW 1 indicates that both the appellants-accused were distantly related to her, Ganesh being a nephew and Kewalram being the brother-in-law. If such was the relationship, though distantly, there is all the more reason and justification that the prosecutrix or her sister-in-law (Jethani) would not falsely implicate these relations unless they or their husbands had animus against them so as to goad them for any revenge. 6. Prosecutrix PW 1 Kripabai's oral testimony, on scrutiny is found to be thorougly honest, straight forward and dependable. The fact cannot be lost sight of that she is a throughly illiterate village woman, belonging to a labour-class. No part of her statement shows any connection or embellishment. No doubt, there are some contradictions in the oral testimony of PW 1 Kripabai when judged in the light of her FIR and the evidence of PW 2 Shantabai. The fact cannot be lost sight of that she is a throughly illiterate village woman, belonging to a labour-class. No part of her statement shows any connection or embellishment. No doubt, there are some contradictions in the oral testimony of PW 1 Kripabai when judged in the light of her FIR and the evidence of PW 2 Shantabai. Some contradictions are also there in PW 2 Shantabai's statement; but all these Contradictions are of such minor and negligible nature that they do not go to destroy the credibility of these witnesses, in so far as, the main facts of the incident are concerned. These contradictions and inconsistencies, it may be pointed out, are regarding the particular day the incident as to whether it was Monday or Tuesday, and further regarding, as to whether the prosecutrix Kripabai, after flight of the accused persons, had herself proceeded toward the place where Mst. Shantabai was woking or Shantabai had herself walked, in the direction of shrieks of alarm. Some minor contradictions also exist as to which of the two appellants-accused had brandished the axe and which one had gagged her mouth and at what particular point of time. Such minor contradictions do not affect the credibility, considering the illiteracy and backwardness of such witnesses, and usually lawyers engaged for defending the accused persons are found to waste their time, by straining themselves in trying to bring out the inconsistencies of most minor nature in the course of the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses on the strength of their earlier police statements or FIR. What has to be seen is the basic fact whether the statement of the particular witness is overall honest and truthful, in so far as, the basic facts of the incident and the basic aspects of the incident are concerned. Just fumbling for some minor inconsistencies here and there, is of no avail and serves no useful purpose. The trial Court, in Paras 15, 17, and 19 of its Judgment, has already discussed the worth and value of the particular minor inconsistencies; and has rightly discarded them as being of no value. 7. The prosecutrix PW 1 Mst. Just fumbling for some minor inconsistencies here and there, is of no avail and serves no useful purpose. The trial Court, in Paras 15, 17, and 19 of its Judgment, has already discussed the worth and value of the particular minor inconsistencies; and has rightly discarded them as being of no value. 7. The prosecutrix PW 1 Mst. Kripabai is found to be consistent and emphatic in her averment that both the appellants-accused had suddenly arrived together at the place where she was collecting fire-wood in the jungle; and both of them, by gagging her mouth and by using force against her and by threatening her with life, had subdued her for submission to sexual intercourse by them. Both the appellants accused, one after the other, had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix who was unable to raise any shrieks of alarm during-the course of the commission of the offence. It was only after the appellants-accused had fled away that she had-raised the shrieks of alarm, attracting her Jethani i.e. PW 2 Shantabai who was collecting firewood at some distance from where, the place of incident was not visible. There is no reason to disbelieve the forthright statement of the prosecutrix PW 1 Kripabai, who has no animus, whatsoever, against the appellants-accused. No woman, whatsoever, more particularly a married one, would stake her chastity and reputation in the eyes of her husband and other relations, by falsely imp1icating any person, as her ravishers. 8. Thus, the prosecutrix' version, incriminating the appellants-accused is by itself, found to be completely reliable,-needing no corroboration; but all the same, there is more than sufficient corroboration to lend veracity to her statement. 9. The prosecutrix' Jethani PW 2 Shantabai who had accompanied her to the Jungle and who had been collecting fire-wood at 'some distance away from the prosecutrix, has fully corroborated the prosecutrix' version in the matter of the incident. She has stated that after hearing the shrieks of alarm, she had proceeded towards that direction, and it was then that Kripabai had met her and bad immediately apprised her that the appellants-accused, who had just run away, had forcibly ravished her. There is equally no reason why this witness would come forward with a false story. Apart from the corf0borative evidence of PW 2 Shanthbai, further corroboration is available from the prosecutrix' FIR (Ex. P-l). 10. This FIR Ex. There is equally no reason why this witness would come forward with a false story. Apart from the corf0borative evidence of PW 2 Shanthbai, further corroboration is available from the prosecutrix' FIR (Ex. P-l). 10. This FIR Ex. P-l is found to be lodged by the prosecutrix 49 hours after the incident,-the incident being of about 2 p. m. of 22-9-82, and the report was lodged at 3 p.m. on 24-9-82. This delay in lodging the FIR has been vehemently assailed by the appellants' learned counsel. This delay in lodging the FIR is found to be satisfactorily explained by the prosecutrix PW 1 Kripabai, her husband PW 3 Ramesh, her Jethani PW 2 Shantabai and so also by village Sarpanch PW 4 Sunderlal. The evidence on record clearly shows that the prosecutrix' husband Ramesh was not in the village Bamangaon on the relevant date, and he was out in another village Piplani, doing some labourer's job there. The evidence of these witnesses further shows that the message had been sent to the husband Ramesh, and it was on Ramesh's arrival at the family house in village Bamangaon that his wife viz. the prosecutrix and her sister- in-law had apprised him about the incident. So naturally, on the next day, the report, came to be lodged by prosecutrix, obviously with the concurrence of her husband. 11. When such a serious offence had been committed wherein the prosecutrix, a married woman, was ravished by two persons one after the other, she could not have dared to take the initiative, in lodging the report herself at the police station, in the absence of her husband. Her husband's elder brother, who was the solitary male member in the house at the relevant time, could also not take the risk and responsibility of lodging the report immediately, without contacting and knowing the reaction of his younger brother i.e. the prosecutrix' husband Ramesh. A husband, in the traditional Indian Society enjoys superior status than the wife; and it is he who dominates her will and controls all her actions, even insignificant ones. How could the prosecutrix, then, lodge the report without consulting and knowing the views of her husband who was away? A husband, in the traditional Indian Society enjoys superior status than the wife; and it is he who dominates her will and controls all her actions, even insignificant ones. How could the prosecutrix, then, lodge the report without consulting and knowing the views of her husband who was away? In his absence, the relations also could not have taken the liberty of lodging the report of such a serious incident involving the chastity and morality of a woman and the possible dent on the couple's honour and reputation. Natural hesitency to even apprise the local elite also, can, well, be appreciated in the particular circumstance. Thus, to await the husband's arrival for deciding the course of future action, appears to be quite a rational and reasonable conduct (Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 ). There being thus, quite a satisfactory explanation for delay in lodging the FIR, it obviously, is of no 'material consequence, in the attending circumstances of the ghastly incident (See Lalai alias Bindvo and another v. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 2118 . 12. There is equally no substance in the contention that absence of external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, negatives the prosecution story regarding the commission of the offence of rape. It may, well, be remembered, at first, that the prosecutrix was medically examined about 3 days after the incident, and naturally on medical examination, injures of minor nature are not possible to be found on her person after the lapse of 3 days or so. Moreover, considering the circumstances-of the incident, it was well, possible that the prosecutrix might not have sustained any external injuries on her person, more particularly on her buttocks and back-region. The prosecutrix has candidly stated during the course of her cross-examination and quite repeatedly, that she had been laid on the ground by the particular mode i.e. by holding her by waist. (See Para 4 of PW 1). If a woman is laid on the ground in this manner, absences of sustaining injuries on the rough ground, may, well, become quite remote. Absence of any injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, therefore, does not and cannot, by itself, lead to any inference regarding non-perpetration of the particular offence at the relevant time and place. If a woman is laid on the ground in this manner, absences of sustaining injuries on the rough ground, may, well, become quite remote. Absence of any injuries on the person of the prosecutrix, therefore, does not and cannot, by itself, lead to any inference regarding non-perpetration of the particular offence at the relevant time and place. Absence or otherwise of such corroborative piece of evidence viz., the injuries, loses its importance, when the direct oral testimony of the prosecutrix and of other witnesses is found to be completely reliable, without any scope for suspicion in the least. As earlier stated, the prosecutrix Kripabai's version, suitably corroborated by PW 2 Shantabai and the FIR, leaves no scope for doubt that the appellants-accused had forcibly committed the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix in the lonely jungle and bad fled away after the incident, leaving her to her fate. The appellants-accused are, thus, found to be rightly convicted of the offence punishable under section 376 IPC. 13. The application and the affidavit, bearing the thumb impressions of the prosecutrix, as have been filed by the counsel for the appellants-accused, do not deserve any weight either for appreciating the prosecution evidence or for considering the 'question of sentence This Court has already mentioned in its order-sheet dated 27-8-84 regarding the circumstances, in which, the application and affidavit had been drafted and later, presented in this Court. It may be observed that the application and the affidavit both, have been ingeniously drafted, with sufficient evasion. It has been stated in both that "the prosecutrix had lodged the report under duress". What duress and by whom? has not been disclosed. It is' also not mentioned whether 'report made by her', was a true report or a false one. It is clear that this ingenious drafting of the application and affidavit bas been done, keeping in view the possibility that the prosecutrix herself may not get embroiled in some criminal action against her, in this regard. has not been disclosed. It is' also not mentioned whether 'report made by her', was a true report or a false one. It is clear that this ingenious drafting of the application and affidavit bas been done, keeping in view the possibility that the prosecutrix herself may not get embroiled in some criminal action against her, in this regard. A new pernicious trend is found to be recently developing atleast in this State, affecting dispensation of justice, in as much as, after the accused persons are convicted, more particularly for serious offence, victims of offence and relations are gharaoed and pressurised willy-nilly; and then applications and affidavits are presented in Courts either for compounding the offences, or for mitigating the sentence, or for militating against the duly proved prosecution story, in an attempt to debunk it later as a false one. Such disparaging tendency deserves obviously to be curbed, before it gets epidemical and entrenches itself as an octopus in our ethical Society. 14. The present prosecutrix, however, being an illiterate rustic woman and a poor labourer, no action needs to be taken against her for the application and affidavit as purported to be filed by her; since she bas already suffered immensely, consequent to her ravishment by the two accused. It may be, incidentally stated that if the appellants-accused were really her such relations as they are purported to be shown, the offence, committed by these appellants-accused becomes all the more serious and grave, as being against their own relation. Considering, thus, the over all Circumstances, sentence of imprisonment as awarded, appears to be quite appropriate-calling for no interference. 15. In the result, thus, the accused' appeal being without any merit, is dismissed; and the order of conviction and sentence as passed against them, is maintained into to. The appellants-accused, who are on ball, do surrender to their bail on or by 29-9-84, for undergoing the sentence of imprisonment as a warded.