Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 30.1.1988 passed by Shri B.N. Singh, learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1985 by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 376, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The appellants were placed on trial pursuant to a complaint filed by one Amita Bhatt, resident of refugee colony in the district of West Cham-paran alleging therein that on 31.8.83 she was raped by the appellants in the night when her husband was away. Anita Bhatt was married with Bishunpat Bhatt six to seven months prior to the institution of the complaint. The husband was engaged in a business of purchase and sale of paddy and in that connection he always remained away from the house. The complainant lived in a hut along with her old mother in law whose vision was defected. In the alleged on the night of occurrence her husband had gone to Narkatiaganj. She was sleeping in her room. She saw the appellants armed with Chura Both the appellants raped her one after other. On hearing hulla her mother in law, brother in law and other neighbours gathered. On the next day the complaint was filed. The case was forwarded to the police for investigation. According to the evidence of the prosecutrix the occurrence had taken place at 10 p.m. in the night when she was sleeping in the room. Appellant Gopal Chandra Das was having a Chura and Jagdish Chandra was having a torch. She was raped by Gopal Chandra Das. Thereafter Jagdish Chandra Das raped her on the point of dagger. Both the appellants are the resident of the same village and were known to her from before. 3. The Trial Court found the evidence to be absolutely trustworthy. She was medically examined after 15-16 days because of the delay in commencement of investigation. The witnesses who came after the occurrence have been examined as prosecution witnesses. Haripat Bhatt (PW 1), a neighbour of the complainant has stated that when he entered the room he found the victim lady without clothes. She disclosed the name of the appellants. Bhajan Chandra Bhatt (PW 2), brother-in-law of the victim has seen both the appellants running away. Pariman Datt (PW 5) seen the accused persons fleeing away. 4. Haripat Bhatt (PW 1), a neighbour of the complainant has stated that when he entered the room he found the victim lady without clothes. She disclosed the name of the appellants. Bhajan Chandra Bhatt (PW 2), brother-in-law of the victim has seen both the appellants running away. Pariman Datt (PW 5) seen the accused persons fleeing away. 4. The conviction of the appellants was challenged on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing the case. According to defence the victim lady should have gone to the police station instead of filing the complaint. This argument is totally misconceived. 5. The complaint was filed on 23.8.83. It cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in filing the case. True there is no medical report to corroborate the statement of prosecutrix but she was examined after 15 days of the occurrence. She was a married lady. There is no surprise that no evidence of molestation was found after 15 days. The most important fact is that there is no enmity between the prosecutrix or her husband with the appellants. 6. I find no merit in this appeal Although severe punishment is called in such cases but we cannot ignore the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1983 i.e. 16 years ago. Considering to fact that the case is of the year 1983, the ends of justice the sentence is reduced to three years imprisonment. The bail bonds of the appellants is cancelled. 7. In the result the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence Appeal dismissed and sentence modified.