JUDGMENT The appellants stand convicted as under: u/s 376,IPC R.I. for three years u/s 376/34,IPC R.I. for two years. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The two appellants have been convicted as stated above. According to the prosecution, on 13.2.90atabout 4 p.m., while prosecutrix Premvati (P. W. l) was working in her field, the two appellants came there. According to the evidence of Premvati (P .W. l) appellant Tribhuvan caught hold of her by waist, felled her on the ground and committed rape; whereas appellant Chunnu alias Brijesh Prasad was helping him in his act by catching hold of her hands. After returning home, the prosecutrix reported the matter to her husband Ramlotan (P.W.2). Thereafter, they proceeded to the police station and lodged first information report (Ex. P-1). The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and after usual investigation, challan was filed for the offences as stated above. The trial Court accepted the prosecution version and convicted both the appellants and sentenced as stated above. Evidence of Premvati (P.W.I) discloses that the prosecutrix had informed her husband in respect of only the act of catching hold of her hands and not the act of rape. It appears that in the first information report (Ex. P-1) lodged by the prosecutrix, there was improvement in the story. . There is no medical evidence on record as no one has been examined. There is complete absence of medical evidence as regards the offence of rape. There appears to be some earlier dispute and because of that the two accused have been implicated for the offence of rape. Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, I find that the offence committed by the accused persons would be one under section 354, IPC and not under section 376,IPC. As such, the conviction and sentence of appellants is altered to one under section 354, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years. Similarly, the conviction under Sec.376/34, IPC, is altered to one under section 354/34, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. However, appellant Chunnu alias Brijesh is given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Similarly, the conviction under Sec.376/34, IPC, is altered to one under section 354/34, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. However, appellant Chunnu alias Brijesh is given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. Instead of sentencing him, it is directed that appellant Chunna alias Brijesh be released on his entering into a bond Rs.5,000/- for a period of two years with one surety in the like amount, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.