Judgment MEENA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 24-1-1985, whereby, he has convicted and sentenced the accused Chhindersingh for the offences under Ss. 302, 363, 376 and 201, IPC and also convicted and sentenced to accused Rajendrasingh for the offences under Ss. 363/34 and 366, IPC. Since both are connected appeals, hence, these appeals are disposed of by common judgment. ( 2 ) NECESSARY facts to be noticed, in short, are that on intervening night of 17/ 18/10/1983, accused Chhindersingh and Rajendrasingh came in the house of the complainant Daluram and kidnapped his daughter Sugani aged 14-15 years. Sugani along with his brother Badri was sleeping in the court-yard of the house. His brother Mohanlal along with his wife Pappi were sleeping in Kotha just adjacent to the court-yard of the house. The complainant Daluram was sleeping in front of the garage. The accused-appellants entered in the house at bout 3 a. m. and while Chhindersingh lifting the girl Sugani, she cried. On hearing the cries, PW 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi got up. The gate of Kotha, in which, they were sleeping, opens in the court-yard where the deceased was sleeping. PW 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi, both have seen that Chhindersing has lifted the girl and put her on his shoulder, while the accused Rajendra Singh was standing nearby. On seeing Mohanlal and Pappi, the accused Chhindersingh threatened them, if come nearer, he will shoot them. They were afraid of Chhindersingh and went back inside the kotha as shown in the site-plan. After 4-5 minutes, they again came out from the kotha and saw that the deceased Sugani is missing. PW 2 Mohanlal immediately came to his father Daluram PW 1 and narrated the incident. On that, PW 1 Daluram, PW 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi went out of the house and tried to search out the deceased Sugani but they failed to find out. P. W. 1 Daluram immediately went to his father-in-law Chandrams house, who was also living in the same village. Along with Chandram, he came back and saw the foot impressions of these two persons. In the morning of 18th, PW 1 Daluram also called one Sheonath Khoji, who is expert in foot impressions. P. W. 1 Daluram immediately went to his father-in-law Chandrams house, who was also living in the same village. Along with Chandram, he came back and saw the foot impressions of these two persons. In the morning of 18th, PW 1 Daluram also called one Sheonath Khoji, who is expert in foot impressions. After seeing the foot impressions they came to know that the accused went towards west side of the house and that foot impressions found up to pucca road. In the morning, other neighbours were also gathered. PW 1 Daluram along with Sheonath Khoji went to PW 5 Manphoolaram and narrated the incident, which happened in the night. Thereafter, Daluram, Chandram, Sheonath Khoji and Manphoola Ram went to PW 4 Gurdeosingh. All these persons, then, went to the shop of Dr. Rajendra Singh, Co-accused in this case. They inquired about the deceased Sugani. He pleaded ignorance. Thereafter, it is told that PW 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi have seen him (Rajendrasingh) along with Chhindersingh. He admitted that in the night, he was along with Chhindersingh but he was standing outside the house. Chhindersingh has taken away to Sugani. Now, he is not aware where Sugani is ? Thereupon, they proceeded to find out whereabouts of Chhindersingh accused. While they were just going out of the village, at a distance of 2-3 murbbas, they saw Chhindersingh coming towards the village Satrana. P. W. 1 Daluram asked him where is Sugani ? He became angry and said that whether he runs after Sugani. Then, P. W. 1 Daluram again told him that Rajendra Singh has already pleaded his guilt and he told that now the girl is in your possession. Again, he pleaded ignorance and then he was taken to Rajendrasingh, co-accused and it was told that Chhindersingh that you have taken away the girl Sugani. On that he admitted that he has taken away the girl. He has raped her. She was crying then he killed. It was also asked that where is the dead-body of Sugani. Without any reply, he left the place and went away. ( 3 ) ON these facts, it was decided to lodge the FIR. The FIR was lodged at police station, Anupgarh at 5 p. m. on 18-10-83. The FIR was registered. She was crying then he killed. It was also asked that where is the dead-body of Sugani. Without any reply, he left the place and went away. ( 3 ) ON these facts, it was decided to lodge the FIR. The FIR was lodged at police station, Anupgarh at 5 p. m. on 18-10-83. The FIR was registered. PW 12 Mahaveer Prasad, ASI and in charge of police station on that day, he came along with PW 1 Daluram on the site. He prepared the Halat Mauka (Ex. P/2) and foot impressions were taken and Ex. P/3 was prepared in this respect. He also seized Chhuni of the deceased from the spot and prepared the seizure memo Ex. P/12. The accused Chhindersingh was arrested on 19th vide arrest memo Ex. P/20. The accused Rajendra Singh was also arrested on the same day vide arrest memo Ex. P/21. Accused Chhindersingh has informed about the place of incident vide information memo Ex. P/22 and accused Rajendra Singh has given information about the place where he was standing at the time of kidnapping of Sugani vide Ex. P/23. The accused Chhindersingh has also informed about the dead-body of the deceased lying in the field of Kesara Ram. Panchayatnama of the dead-body was prepared i. e. Ex. P/5. Salwar and Jampher of the deceased were seized and prepared the seizure memo Ex. P/8. The pieces of broken bangles of the deceased were seized and prepared the seizure memo Ex. P/6. In the field of Kesraram, the impressions of foot-prints of the accused Chhinder Singh and deceased were taken and prepared Ex. P/9. Photographs of the deceased were taken in the field i. e. Ex. P/13 to Ex. P/18. Chappals of the deceased was also recovered from the house of the complainant where the deceased was sleeping before the incident and prepared the seizure memo Ex. P/12. ( 4 ) THE post-mortem of the deceased was got conducted. In the opinion of Dr. Satya Prakash (PW 14) before her death, she has been raped. Both the accused appellants were also sent to PW 9 Ramsingh, Tehsildar anupgarh, who has also obtained their foot-impressions. He has taken the foot-impressions of Rajendrasingh, while he was wearing the chappels and he has taken the foot impressions of accused Chhinder Singh, while he was bare foot. Satya Prakash (PW 14) before her death, she has been raped. Both the accused appellants were also sent to PW 9 Ramsingh, Tehsildar anupgarh, who has also obtained their foot-impressions. He has taken the foot-impressions of Rajendrasingh, while he was wearing the chappels and he has taken the foot impressions of accused Chhinder Singh, while he was bare foot. At the instance of the accused Chhindersingh, his Kachchha and pant was seized and they were sent for chemical examination. In FSL report, some human blood was found on the Salwar of the deceased and pant of the accused Chhindersingh. On examination, human semen was detected on viginal swab. The human semen was also found on the salwar of the deceased and Kachchha and pant of the accused. On these facts, challan was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh, who in return, committed the case to the court of Session for trial. The charges were framed by the learned trial court. The accused-appellants claimed for trial. ( 5 ) DURING trial the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and also collected the evidence, which connects the accused-appellants with the crime. They are Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/39-A. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the material on record, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused Chhindersingh is guilty for the offences under Ss. 302, 363, 366, 376 and 201, IPC. He convicted him for those offences and sentenced to undergo 5 years R. I. under S. 450, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months S. I. ; for the offence under S. 363, IPC to undergo 5 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 for the offence under S. 366, IPC to undergo 5 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 and for the offence under Ss. 376 and 302, IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 for each of the offences. He also convicted him under S. 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00. In case of accused Rajendrasingh, he convicted him for the offences under Ss. 376 and 302, IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 for each of the offences. He also convicted him under S. 201, IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00. In case of accused Rajendrasingh, he convicted him for the offences under Ss. 363/34 and 366, IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years R. I. for each of the offences and also pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00 for each of the offences, in default of payment of fine to further undergo I months S. I. ( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, both the appellants filed their separate appeals. ( 8 ) HEARD Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned counsel for accused-appellant Chhindersingh and Mr. B. N. Calla, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Rajendrasingh and Mr. V. R. Mehta, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. ( 9 ) THE prosecution case is that the accused-appellants Chhinder Singh and Rajendra Singh entered in the house of the complainant in the intervening night of 17/ 18/10/1983 and forcibly kidnapped the deceased Sugani, raped and killed her. The prosecution has placed reliance on the two eye-witnesses PW 2 Mohan Lal and PW 3 Pappi in respect of kidnapping of deceased Sugani on that fateful night by these accused-appellants. PW 2 Mohanlal brother of the deceased was sleeping in the room which opens in the court-yard of the house where the deceased was sleeping, stated that accused Chhindersingh came in their house. Accused Chhinder Singh and Rajendrasingh entered in their house and while Chhindersingh lifted Sugani on his shoulder, she cried. On hearing her cries. P. W. 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi got up, came out of the kotha and saw that Chhindersingh has lifted his sister Sugani on his shoulder and accused Rajendra Singh was standing nearby. The statement of PW 2 Mohanlal has been corroborated by PW 3 Pappi, wife of Mohanlal PW 2, who was also sleeping along with PW 2 Mohanlal on that night. Mr. The statement of PW 2 Mohanlal has been corroborated by PW 3 Pappi, wife of Mohanlal PW 2, who was also sleeping along with PW 2 Mohanlal on that night. Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned counsel for the accused-appellant Chhindersingh submitted that while PW 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi have seen the accused Chhindersingh and Rajendrasingh, why they have not tried to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused Chhindersingh, that is, not a normal act of these two witnesses. He further submitted that while Badri, another brother of deceased. Sugani, was sleeping on the cot beside the cot of the deceased at the time of incident, why he has not got up and saved the deceased from Chhindersingh. Perusal of the statement of PW 2 Mohanlal clarifies the doubt raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. PW 2 Mohanlal stated that while he along with his wife PW 3 Pappi came out from the kotha and saw the accused-appellants. Accused Chhindersingh has threatened him that if they come nearer, he will shoot them, therefore, they are afraid and went back in the Kotha. They, again, came out from the kotha and saw that the deceased Sugani was missing and the accused-appellants ran away. He immediately informed about the incident to PW 1 Daluram, who was sleeping in front of the garage of their house. He came along with PW 2 Mohanlal and tried to find out where she has gone but they could not trace her. Why Badri, other brother of the deceased, had not got up and saved her life. The explanation in this regard has been given that he is hard of hearing, therefore, he did not hear the cries and could not rescue her from Chhinder Singh. If we see the time and place of the incident, it appears that the presence of PW 2 Mohanlal, PW 3 Pappi and PW 1 Daluram is natural and they are not chance witnesses. We do not find any justification to disbelieve the testimony of PW 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi. Furthermore, on that day, it was full moon light, in which, they could easily recognise the accused. The accused appellants were known to them even before the incident as Chhindersingh was serving as Driver on their Tractor and Rajendra Singh is having a medicine shop in that village. Furthermore, on that day, it was full moon light, in which, they could easily recognise the accused. The accused appellants were known to them even before the incident as Chhindersingh was serving as Driver on their Tractor and Rajendra Singh is having a medicine shop in that village. If we see the distance in the site-plan, that is hardly about 10-12 ft. from where the accused-appellants could easily be recognised. ( 10 ) P. W. 1 Daluram informant lodged the FIR on 18-10-83 at 5 p. m. at police station Anupgarh, in which, he disclosed the names of these two accused-persons i. e. Chhinder Singh and Rajendra Singh. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant-Chhindersingh, submitted that the FIR was lodged on 18/10/1983 at 5 p. m. whereas the incident took place in the intervening night of 17/ 18/10/1983, therefore, the delay has not been explained by the prosecution, as such, the statement of PW 1 Daluram is not trustworthy. Daluram was informed by PW 2 Mohanlal just after the incident, therefore, his presence is natural. The incident took place at about 3 a. m. in the night in the house of the complainant, therefore, his presence cannot be doubted. The name of the accused-appellants were disclosed in the FIR but they never expected that she has been murdered by these accused-appellants, therefore, they are searching hard and only after the information given by Rajendrasingh accused and the facts about the murder are disclosed by accused Chhindersingh. On that day, immediately the FIR was lodged, therefore, in our opinion, there is no unreasonable delay in registering the FIR. PW 1 Daluram after this incident immediately went to his father-in-law Chandram, who was also living in the same village and they tried to search, which side those accused-persons had gone after kidnapping the deceased Sugani. They found the foot impressions of these accused-appellants, which go towards west and up to pucca road. But thereafter, it was not known where they were gone. This has been further corroborated by the statement of one Sheonath Khoji, who is expert in identifying the foot impressions, therefore, the testimony of PW 1 Daluram to that extent cannot be doubted. ( 11 ) SHEONATH Khoji is expert in identifying the foot impressions. But thereafter, it was not known where they were gone. This has been further corroborated by the statement of one Sheonath Khoji, who is expert in identifying the foot impressions, therefore, the testimony of PW 1 Daluram to that extent cannot be doubted. ( 11 ) SHEONATH Khoji is expert in identifying the foot impressions. He is not only identifying the foot impression found nearby the house of the complainant from where she has been kidnapped but also identified the foot impression of accused Chhinder Singh in the field of Kesraram where Chhindersingh has raped and killed her. ( 12 ) THE next evidence which is relied upon by the prosecution is extra-judicial confession of Rajendrasingh and Chhindersingh in the morning of 18/10/1983. P. W. 1 Daluram, Chandram, PW 5 Manphoolaram and PW 4 Gurdeosingh went to the shop of Rajendrasingh. They enquired from him about the deceased Sugani. He pleaded ignorance and then he was told that PW 2 Mohanlal and PW 3 Pappi had seen him while Sugani was kidnapped by Chhindersingh. He admitted that he was present at the time of incident outside the house. Chhindersingh has taken away Sugani. Where he has taken away, he does not know because he has not gone along with him. Then they started search of Chhindersingh. Chhindersingh met them at a distance of 2-3 murbbas from village Satrana. PW 1 Daluram asked him where is Sugani ? he became angry and said that whether he runs after Sugani. Then PW 1 Daluram again told him that Rajendrasingh has already disclosed the fact of the incident and kidnapping of Sugani by you and Rajendrasingh and particularly, the girl is now in your possession. Again he pleaded ignorance. Thereupon, he was taken to the shop of Rajendrasingh. There also, first time, he refused to have kidnapped the girl. But Rajendra Singh on his face told about the incident took place in the night where both the accused-persons were present. Thereupon, he also admitted that he has taken away the girl Sugani. He also confessed that in the field of Kesra Ram he raped her and thereafter killed her. Further a question was put to him where is the dead-body of Sugani. Without any reply, he left the place and went away. On that, FIR was registered. Thereupon, he also admitted that he has taken away the girl Sugani. He also confessed that in the field of Kesra Ram he raped her and thereafter killed her. Further a question was put to him where is the dead-body of Sugani. Without any reply, he left the place and went away. On that, FIR was registered. Though the extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence but it can be used for corroboration of other material on record, therefore, the extra judicial confession of these accused-appellants cannot be brushed aside. More so, after arrest of Chhindersingh, he has furnished the information with regard to the place of incident, where he committed rape and killed her. Body of Sugani was recovered at his instance. The foot impression was found in the field of Kesraram where the dead-body was found. This extra judicial confession is further corroborated by the opinion of Dr. Satya Prakash, PW 14 who conducted the post-mortem and in his opinion, the rape was committed on the victim before her death and she was expired due to Asphyxia. The clothes of the accused Chhinder Singh i. e. Kachchha and pant were recovered at his instance. A salwar of the deceased Sugani was also seized and all these three items along with other items were sent for chemical examination at Jaipur and from examination report it transpired that human semen was detected from Salwar, and vaginal swab of the deceased from kachchha and pant of the accused. The human blood was also detected on Jampher of the deceased and pant of the accused Chhindersingh. This further corroborates the story of the prosecution. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING these facts, in our opinion, the trial court is absolutely right in holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that Chhindersingh is guilty for the offences as aforesaid. ( 14 ) IN case of accused Rajendrasingh, no role has been assigned to him in the field of Kesraram, where the victim has been raped and murdered. He was wearing the chappal and no foot impression of chappal has been found in the field of Kesraram. Even in the house of complainant, he has been seen standing but not helping Chhindersingh physically in kidnapping her. He was wearing the chappal and no foot impression of chappal has been found in the field of Kesraram. Even in the house of complainant, he has been seen standing but not helping Chhindersingh physically in kidnapping her. But that does not create any doubt in the prosecution story that he has not taken any part in kidnapping, though no physical act has been assigned to him but he has accompanied the accused Chhinder Singh at 3 a. m. in the night 17/18th in the house of the deceased. That shows that he had common intention to kidnap her. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING these facts, we do not find any justification to interfere in the conviction and sentence of the accused Chhinder Singh, we also uphold the conviction of Rajendrasingh for the offences under Ss. 363/34 and 366, IPC. He remained in custody for about 1 1/2 years and considering his role assigned to him by the prosecution, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. ( 16 ) IN the result, the appeal filed by Chhindersingh is dismissed while the appeal of accused Rajendrasingh is partly allowed with the above observations. Order accordingly.