Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by Sri Aditya Sharan, Additional Session Judge, Madhepura, in Sessions Case No. 233/86 whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 354 and 448, IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief, is that the informant Sonia Devi was steeping in her house along with her sister Geeta Devi and her mother Katni Devi along with her children of the house. Subsequently, at 8 p.m. on 16.4.1985 both the accused accompanied by some others entered insider her house and dragged away the informant Sonia Devi towards Chakia. At the Chakia the informant was subjected to rape one by one by both the accused culprits. Subsequently Geeta Devi also came to the informant and told her that she was also subjected to rape by the two culprits as also by others. 3. Both the accused culprits were charged under Sections 376 and 440 IPC However, the trial Court after going through the relevant records found the charge under Section 376, IPC not proved because there was no medical evidence. He reduced the charge under Section 376 to one under Section 354, IPC and convicted the accused-persons for the offences under Sections 354 and 448, IPC. 4. I find that PW 1 was examined as a formal witness. PW 2 Katni Devi is the mother of the victim girls and she has supported the alleged occurrence of ravishment of her daughters Sonia and Geeta. However she was not an eye-witness but she stated that she had learnt from her daughters that they were raped by the accused appellants. The evidence of this witness will lend corroborative circumstance to the alleged crime committed upon her daughters who are the victims. PW 3 was tendered. PW 4 was also tendered. PW 5 was Rabbi Rishideo who supports the alleged . occurrence committed by the accused-appellants as also the occurrence of dragging away of Sonia Devi as also Geeta Devi. He also said that he could identify the accused-persons who committed the criminal assault upon Sonia and Geeta and they had threatened the witness not to tell anything to the police. PW 6 was another witness who was Sonia Devi herself, the victim. He also said that he could identify the accused-persons who committed the criminal assault upon Sonia and Geeta and they had threatened the witness not to tell anything to the police. PW 6 was another witness who was Sonia Devi herself, the victim. She has also supported the allegation of her dragging away and subsequent ravishment on her by them. She also speaks of the criminal assault upon her sister Geeta. PW 7 is Geeta Devi and she also lends support to the occurrence of rape upon her and her sister Sonia Devi. PW 8 is a formal witness. 5. I find that the learned trial Court analysed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the charges under Section 354 and 448 IPC but not the charge under Section 376 IPC for want of medical evidence. The cross-examination of the PWs who were the eye-witnesses failed to elicit any circumstances in order to show that the prosecution was deficient in proving the alleged occurrence and that the accused-appellants were falsely implicated. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is nothing on the record to disagree with the findings of the trial Court regarding guilt of the accused-appellants. 6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence is confirmed The appellants are directed to surrender before the Court below to suffer the remaining period of sentence.