JUDGMENT 1. - The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the judgment dated 26.7.1997 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Baran in Sessions Case No. 6/95 whereby the Court convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants Lotu Ram and Ghanshyam u /ss. 376 & 342 IPC to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default to further suffer 1 year rigorous imprisonment) and 1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- (in default to further undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment). Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Shorn of details the prosecution case is as under:- (a) An FIR came to be lodged by informant Kanhaya Lal with the Police Station Kasbathana on 26.4.1994 alleging therein that he was going back to his village with his sister in law (Bhabhi) Prem. When they reached near river Tilpsi.the accused Lotu Ram and Ghanshyam and Bhappo restrained them. They overpowered the informant and abducted his Bhabhi Prem. Police Station Kasbathana registered a case under sections 341, 342, 363, 364 & 394 IPC, and investigation commenced. Smt. Prem was recovered and after recording her statement in which she deposed that she was raped by the accused persons, offence under section 376 IPC, was added. Charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Baran. Charges under sections 394, 394/34, 376 & 342 IPC were framed against the accused- appellants and Bhappo. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. thereafter were recorded. The accused produced three defence witnesses. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused Bhappo but convicted the accused-appellants Lotu Ram and Ghanshyam as indicated here in above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants vehemently canvassed that prosecutrix Prem entered in to Nata marriage with accused Lotu according to the customs prevailed in their community. She herself accompanied accused Lotu. This fact was proved by the defence witnesses but their testimony was not appreciated properly. It was further contended that report of FSL was withheld by the prosecution and statement of Dr. Renuka (PW 14) was not evaluated by the learned Court below. She herself accompanied accused Lotu. This fact was proved by the defence witnesses but their testimony was not appreciated properly. It was further contended that report of FSL was withheld by the prosecution and statement of Dr. Renuka (PW 14) was not evaluated by the learned Court below. There was a delay of 7 houis in instituting the FIR and it was not explained. There are inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witnesses and no reliance can be placed on them. Without corroboration testimony of prosecutrix Prem could not have been relied upon. 4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that the accused were rightly convicted. No corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix could be there in view of circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed on Bhanwar Singh & Anr. v. State of Raj., RCC 1998 page 197. 5. I have reflected over the rival submission and carefully scrutinised the record. 6. Smt. Prem (PW 5) the prosecutrix, categorically stated that the accused Ghan-shyam caught hold of her Devar Kanhaiyalal, pushed him down and beat him. Accused Lotu then dragged her and took her towards Jungle. Thereafter Ghanshyam also joined them. In the night she was kept in the huts of Bheels. When Lotu removed her clothes and raped her, Ghanshyam waited outside. After Lotu went out Ghanshyam came in and ravished her twice. Next day they took her to the cave of hills and raped her thrice. The barbaric act was again repeated third day. She was overpowered by the accused three days and two nights. On the third night the accused left her at the bank of river Bhanpur and fled. She categorically denied having entered Nata marriage with Lotu. Her statement could not be shattered in the cross- examination. 7. As per ossification test, the age of prosecutrix was between 18 to 20 years. She was medically examined and as per Medical report (Ex. P/13) she sustained following injuries:- (i) Bruise 4 x 2 cm. on Rt. genital region. (ii) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm. on Rt. thumb. (iii) Multiple linen abrasions 2 x 4 x 1 cms. on both the legs. (iv) Tenderness on both breasts, thighs and back. (v) Sign of inflammation was seen on labia majora and minora. (vi) Hymen was ruptured and redness was seen. on Rt. genital region. (ii) Abrasion 1 x 1 cm. on Rt. thumb. (iii) Multiple linen abrasions 2 x 4 x 1 cms. on both the legs. (iv) Tenderness on both breasts, thighs and back. (v) Sign of inflammation was seen on labia majora and minora. (vi) Hymen was ruptured and redness was seen. (vii) Insertion of two three fingers was with pain due to inflammation. The Medical Officer opined thus:- "It may be said that it should not be denied that fresh intercourse was not done. But she is habitual of intercourse." 8. Accused Lotu and Ghanshyam were also medically examined as per their medical reports Ex. P/15 and Ex. P/16 they wee found able to perform sexual intercourse. Dr. Renuka Sharma (PW 14) was examined and nothing material could extract in her cross-examination. 9. Kanhaiya Lal (PW 6) Dever of Smt. Prem was also medically examined and he sustained following injuries:- (i) Swelling 2 x 2 cm. around the angle of mandible right side. (ii) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm. on right knee. (iii) Swelling 2 x 1 cm. over dorsal surface of left foot. Medical report of Kanhiya Lal (Ex. /12) was proved by Dr. Rajendra Sharma. 10. Kanhiya Lal (PW 6) in his state nt gave the graphic version of the incident and his statement also could not be shatt red in the cross-examination. The delay of seven hours in instituting the report was explained by him. First he went to village Bamangavan and informed about the incident to Jagannath, the father in law of his brother. Thereafter he along with Jagan Nath and villagers went to Jungle in search of Smt. Prem and when they did not find her, he went to village Devri and got the FIR written by Sarpanch Hariom and then went to Police Station Kasbathana. 11. I have also closely scrutinised the testimony of all the three defence witnesses but none of them could establish Nata marriage of Smt. Prem with Lotu. They have given vague and sweeping statements which do not inspire confidence. 12. I am unable to persuade myself with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of Smt. Prem (PW 5) and Kanhiya Lal (PW 6). Ocular version of the incident has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 12. I am unable to persuade myself with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused. I do not see any reason to disbelieve the testimony of Smt. Prem (PW 5) and Kanhiya Lal (PW 6). Ocular version of the incident has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence. In view of this, non-production of FSL report does not render the prosecution case doubtful. Charge under section 376 & 342 IPC has been established by the prosecution against the accused Lotu and Ghanshyam beyond reasonable doubt, they have been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. 13. I do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal fails and stands dismissed. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******