Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by Shri Chabbi Raj 2nd Addl. Asstt. Sessions Judge, Chatra, in S. T. No. 348/91 through which he found all these appellants guilty under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R. I. for 10 years and also to fine of Rs. 2,000 in the default to undergo R. I. for two years and further these appellants were found guilty under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC and they were sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years and one year each respectively. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 323 of the IPC. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this appeal is that on 27-5-1991 these appellants entered into the house of informant situate in Gram Pirri and after threatening the informant and other family members committed rape one after another and on the next day on the basis of the FIR loged by the informant this case was institued as against the appellants and others and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet as against all the appellants and two others. In the trial court all the appellants claimed themselves innocent and it is their defence that they have been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity and the doctor also had not found any sign of rape as against the informant. However, the trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction this appeal has been preferred. 3. At the time of hearing of this appeal learned counsel for the appellants Shri Mahesh Tiwari frankly conceded that there is sufficient evidence on the record to justify the conviction of the appellants under Section 376 read with Sections 452/354 of the IPC and he is pressing the appeal on the point of sentence only. It was contended on behalf of appellants that admittedly this is the first reported offence of the appellants and the doctor also had not found any sign of rape. In that view of the mattar the sentence as awarded by the trial court appears to be excessive and harsh. 4. It was contended on behalf of appellants that admittedly this is the first reported offence of the appellants and the doctor also had not found any sign of rape. In that view of the mattar the sentence as awarded by the trial court appears to be excessive and harsh. 4. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants and also in view of the gravity of the case the appellants aro found guilty under Section 376 of the IPC and also guilty under Section 452/354 and 323 of the IPC. His sentence of 10 years R. I. under Sections 376 of the IPC as awarded by the trial court is hereby modified to that of 6 years R. I. under Section 376 of the IPC and the fine amount imposed by the trial court is hereby set aside. So far as the sentence of the appellants under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC is concerned it does not require any interference and as such confirmed. But all the sentences as awarded by the trial court will run concurrently. 5. With this modification in sentence this appeal is dismissed. Sentence modified.