Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.4.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 1989 convicting the appellant No. 1, Md. Nehal Mian under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C.) and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. but no sentence was awarded for the offence under Sec. 323 of the I.P.C. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Md. Balal and Md. Bashir Mian were convicted for the offence under Secs. 325 and 323 respectively and were sentenced to two years RI and one months SI. 2. The Prosecution case in brief is that on 29.4.1989 at about 6.00 p.m. the informant Pabia Devi (PW-6) was in her house alone and her husband Birchha Manjhi had gone to his sisters village Sikandfa. At that time, accused Nehal Mian arrived inside her house and pushed her on the floor and committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly. The informant raised alarm on which several persons including the family members arrived and accused fled away. It is further alleged that after some time other two accused, namely, Balal Mian along with his father Bashir Mian came there and they assaulted Rohi Manjhi, Ganesh Manjhi, Kari Devi, Marni Devi and Keli Manjhi with lathi. It is further alleged that informant and other injured witnesses were brought to Janrui hospital where they were examined by the Doctor. On the fardbeyan of the informant, the case was registered and after investigation charge sheet: submitted and after commitment the trial proceeded in the Court below. 3. The case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instigation of one Mehmood Mian. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses out of which PW-7 (Kali Manjhi) has been tendered for cross-examination. PW-1 (Rohi Manjhi), PW-3 (Ganesh Manjhi), PW-4 (Kari Devi), PW-5 (Marni Devi) and PW-6 (informant Pabia Devi) are material witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, PW-2 the husband of the informant has deposed as a hearsay witness to whom the victim Pabia Devi narrated about the occurrence after his arrival from Sikandra. PW-1 (Rohi Manjhi), PW-3 (Ganesh Manjhi), PW-4 (Kari Devi), PW-5 (Marni Devi) and PW-6 (informant Pabia Devi) are material witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case, PW-2 the husband of the informant has deposed as a hearsay witness to whom the victim Pabia Devi narrated about the occurrence after his arrival from Sikandra. PWs 1, 3, 4 and 5 are named witnesses in the FIR and it is the case of the prosecution that on the alarm raised by Pabia Devi all of them arrived the place of occurrence who were told about the occurrence by the victim lady. All these witnesses were injured at the hands of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who also threatened them not to institute the case. 5. The evidence of the Prosecutrix Pabia Devi is material in this case. She stated that on the date of occurrence at about 6.00 p.m. she was preparing meal in her house accused Nehal Mian entered inside her house and threw her on the ground and thereafter committed rape on her. On her hutta Kari Devi (PW-4) arrived there but accused Nehal Mian pushed her back, therefore, other witnesses named above arrived. In the meantime, accused had fled away. Thereafter, all the three accused again came inside her house and assaulted the above-named witnesses by means of lathi. At the police station have fardbeyan was recorded and from there she was referred to the hospital for treatment. She gave her thumb impression on the fardbeyan. Her petticoat was seized by the IO, which had stained of semen. She stated that at the there of occurrence she was alone in her house as her husband had gone to Sikandra. She identified the accused-persons including Nehal Mian in the dock. 6. PW-8 (Dr. Nirmala Singh) examined the victim girl on 29.4.1989 at 9.30 p.m. She did not find any mark of injury either on external part or on private part of the victim lady. The pathological report of the vaginal swab was received and no spermatozoa was found. According to the doctor, Multiple whitish stain found on the petticoat of the victim. The Doctor opined that no definite opinion about the rape could be given. She has proved the injury report (Ext. 1). 7. PW-9 (Dr. The pathological report of the vaginal swab was received and no spermatozoa was found. According to the doctor, Multiple whitish stain found on the petticoat of the victim. The Doctor opined that no definite opinion about the rape could be given. She has proved the injury report (Ext. 1). 7. PW-9 (Dr. Anjani Kumar Sinha) had examined the other five injured on 29.4.1989 at 9.10 p.m. and found the following injuries on the person of Smt. Kari Devi: (i) One lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" over left shin of libia. This injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Age of injury within six hours. On the same day at 9.20 p.m., he examined Kali Manjhi and found the following injuries on his person: (i) Longitudinal bruise 3" x 1" over right thigh. This injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. Age within six hours. On the same-day at 9:30 p.m., he examined Rohi Manjhi and found the following injuries on his person: (i) One abrasion 3" x 1/2" over right forearm. (ii) One abrasion 3" x 1/4" over calf muscle of left leg. These injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance-such as lathi age of injuries within six hours. On the same day at 9.40 p.m., he examined Ganesh Manjhi and found the following injuries onhis person: (i) One swelling 3" x 1/2" (ii) One swelling 3 x 1/4" over dorsum of right thumb with dislocation of metacarpophalalageal joint of right thumb. Injury No. (i) is simple in nature. Injury No. (ii) was grievous in nature. All these injures caused by hard and blunt substance, such as lathi. Age of injuries was with to six hours. On the same day at 9.50 p.m., he examined Smt. Marni Devi and found the following injuries on her person: (i) One swelling 2" x 1/2" over anterior chest wall on right side below breast. This injury is simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance, such as lathi. Age of injuries was within six hours. 8. PW-10 (Sushil Kumar) is the IO of the case. He has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 3) and the fardbeyan of the informant (Ext. 4). He has also proved the requisition of sending the injured including the victim lady for medical examination vide Ext. 2. Age of injuries was within six hours. 8. PW-10 (Sushil Kumar) is the IO of the case. He has proved the formal FIR (Ext. 3) and the fardbeyan of the informant (Ext. 4). He has also proved the requisition of sending the injured including the victim lady for medical examination vide Ext. 2. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses including the injured. He seized the petticoat of the victim lady and prepared the seizure-list (Ext. 6) and sent if for medical examination. The requisition sent for chemical examination is marked Ext. 7. On 30.4.1989 he visited the place of occurrence. According to him, the place of occurrence is mud built house of the informant. There was no door planked in the house. Straw was found scattered in the room which belonged to the informant Pabia Devi. The houses of other injured witnesses are situated at a distance of about 125 yards from the place of occurrence. After receipt of the medical report of the informant and other injury reports he submitted that charge-sheet. 9. On the basis of the evidence referred to above, the trial Court convicted all the three appellants and sentenced him accordingly, as indicated above. 10. The main contention that has been raised on behalf of the appellants is that the alleged occurrence took place in two different parts and they were not interlinked with each other. One part (if the occurrence in commission of rape by accused Nehal Mian with the victim lady (PW-6) and another part of the occurrence of assault took place after some time of the first occurrence. Since both the offences are distinct one, as such they should not have been charged together nor tried in the same trial. The joinder of charges of two separate offences is not in accordance with law. As such, the whole trial is illegal and the conviction of the appellants has vitiated. 11. Heard the learned APP. A careful scrutiny of the fardheyan of the information and FIR shows that offence of rape committed by accused Nehal Mian was correlated with the offence of assault at the hands of accused Nehal Mian and two other accused. At the time of commission of rape, the prosecutrix had raised hulla and the witnesses named, above had arrived at the place of occurrence and then accused-appellant Nehal Mian fled away. At the time of commission of rape, the prosecutrix had raised hulla and the witnesses named, above had arrived at the place of occurrence and then accused-appellant Nehal Mian fled away. Just after few minutes, he returned back with other two accused and started assaulting. The witnesses who had assembled to rescue the informant. In her cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that accused Nehal Mian asked her not to report about the occurrence of rape, but she declined arid thereafter all the three accused started assaulting. As such both the occurrence committed in such away as to form the part of the same and one transaction. Therefore, the joinder of charge in the same case was in accordance with law, as incorporated under Sec. 223 of the CrPC. As such, I do not find any substance in this contention of the learned appellants lawyer. 12. Another point that has been raised on behalf of the appellants is that the FIR was received in the office of CJM after two days of its institution. The date of occurrence is 29.4.1989 and the FIR was lodged or 29.4.1989 but it was received in the office of ACJM on 2.5.1989. A such, there was a chance of making improvement in the prosecution case and addition of the accused-persons at the instance of their enemy. 13. Heard the learned APP. The law provides that FIR should be received in the office of the Judicial Magistrate at the earliest point of time but in this case receipt of the FIR after two days is no ground to disbelieve the prosecution case or to suspect embellishment of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that there was any motive on the part of the prosecutrix or any of the witnesses to lodge a false case or falsely implicate any of the accused-persons. It has come in the evidence that just after the occurrence the victim lady and other PWs who were injured, were brought to Sadar Hospital, Jamui. PW-6 (the victim lady) was examined by PW-8 in the Jamui Sadar Hospital at 9.30 p.m. on 29.4.1989 and on the same day other injured were examined. In those circumstances, there was no scope for implication of any of the accused after due deliberation as suggested on behalf of the defence. PW-6 (the victim lady) was examined by PW-8 in the Jamui Sadar Hospital at 9.30 p.m. on 29.4.1989 and on the same day other injured were examined. In those circumstances, there was no scope for implication of any of the accused after due deliberation as suggested on behalf of the defence. As such on this ground the prosecution case is not to be doubted nor any benefit should be given to the accused persons. 14. In the last, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that no independent witness of the village has supported the prosecution case. All the PWs are related to each other. There were several houses in the vicinity of the place of occurrence as admitted by PW-6. Many villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence on hulla but no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. From the perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 7, it is clear that they are related to each other but on this ground their evidence cannot be discarded. Most of them are injured witnesses, as such, they are competent witness to depose on the point of assault and to corroborate the prosecution case of rape and also to corroborate the evidence of PWs. 6 (the victim lady). The evidence of related and interested witnesses should be subject to careful scrutiny and if there is inherent improbabilities and discrepancies touching the root of the prosecution case then only their evidence may not be accepted. In this case, the competency of the witnesses, though related, is not to be doubted because they are injured witnesses and they had arrived at the place of occurrence just after the commission of offence of rape. In an offence of rape, the possibility of an eye-witness is remote because the offence was committed inside the room when the prosecutrix was alone and it was dark. However, on the hulla of the prosecutrix these witnesses have arrived at the place of occurrence and when PW-6 was narrating before them about the occurrence of rape, other accused arrived there and assaulted them. As such, these witnesses are natural, probable as well as competent witnesses. 15. It was further argued on behalf of the appellants that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of rape against the appellant Nehal Mian. The Doctor has not find any sign of rape. As such, these witnesses are natural, probable as well as competent witnesses. 15. It was further argued on behalf of the appellants that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of rape against the appellant Nehal Mian. The Doctor has not find any sign of rape. It is true that doctor has not find sign of rape but the lady is married one and the Doctor (PW-8) stated that she found multiple whitish stained on the petticoat of PW-6 (the victim lady) which is a circumstantial evidence in support of commission of rape on her. The evidence of the prosecutrix is very consistent and she stated that accused Nehal Mian has committed rape on her forcibly. She further deposed on the point of assault as discussed above. In ordinary course, a woman does not make a false allegation against any one regarding her chastity and her character because her familys prestige is involved in such cases. It is the tendency in our society to generally conceal such offences. As such, prima facie there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix lady which finds corroboration from other witnesses who had just arrived after the occurrence of rape and to whom she narrated about the occurrence. As such, the evidence of PW-6 regarding the offence of committing rape on her by accused Nehal Mian is acceptable without any doubt. In view of the evidence of PW-9 which corroborates the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the point of assault, I further come to the conclusion that the trial Court has rightly convicted other appellants for the offence under Secs. 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. In view of the above discussions, I find and hold that no interference is required in the finding of the trial Court which is accordingly confirmed. 16. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3, who are on bail, shall surrender in the Court below to serve out their remaining period of sentence. The appellant No. 1 (Nehal Mian) is already in custody. 17. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Advocate argued the case as amicus curiae. He shall be paid fees by the Legal Aid Committee of the Patna High Court, in accordance with law. The appellant No. 1 (Nehal Mian) is already in custody. 17. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Advocate argued the case as amicus curiae. He shall be paid fees by the Legal Aid Committee of the Patna High Court, in accordance with law. Let a copy of this judgment be made over to him.