( 1 ) THE appellants/accused 1 to 3 had been charged with offence under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC and were convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default, to undergo a further Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Medak in S. C. No. 235/97 on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 to PW-18, Exs. P-1 to P-10, Exs. D-1 to D-11 and M. Os. 1 to 5, arrived at a conclusion that the guilt of the appellants/accused had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the Criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) SRI J. Kanakaiah, the learned Counsel representing the appellants made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would submit that the husband of P. W. 1 was involved in an incident relating to kidnapping and this appears to be the motive for the commission of the offence in question which cannot be believed since the appellants/accused would not have resorted to this method for the purpose of coercing the husband of PW-1 to have a settlement in relation to the kidnapping episode. The Counsel also would contend that except the evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence available on record and PW-2, PW-3, PW-6 and PW-7 are all the close relatives of PW-1 and they are bent upon implicating the accused in view of the controversy between the accused on one hand and the husband of PW-1 on the other. The learned Counsel also further contended that there was delay in lodging the F. I. R. and the same had not been explained properly. The learned Counsel would submit that at any rate in the light of the facts and circumstances the sentence imposed is highly excessive. ( 3 ) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that this is a case of gang rape committed by A-1 to A-3 against a helpless woman. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that it is a case where there is motive on the part of A-1 to A-3 to perpetrate this crime since they have a grouse against the husband of PW-1 and unfortunately PW-1 was made a scapegoat in connection with the said controversy. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would contend that it is a case where there is motive on the part of A-1 to A-3 to perpetrate this crime since they have a grouse against the husband of PW-1 and unfortunately PW-1 was made a scapegoat in connection with the said controversy. The learned Counsel would submit that even if the contradictions are taken into consideration these are not contradictions touching the substance of the prosecution version and hence the learned Judge arrived at the correct conclusion in recording clear findings ultimately holding the accused guilty of the offence charged with. ( 4 ) THE Circle Inspector of Police, Narsapur laid charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No. 109/96 of P. S. Jinnaram under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC alleging that on the intervening night of 12/13-9-1996, A-1 to A-3 entered into the house of PW-1, committed rape one after another simultaneously from 02 Hours to 04 Hours and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. To prove the case of the prosecution PW-1 to PW-18 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-10, M. Os. 1 to 5 were marked and on behalf of the defence Exs. D-1 to D-11 were marked. The case of the prosecution is that on the date aforesaid when Smt. Pushpa, the defacto complainant, was sleeping in her hurt along with her son aged about 2 years at Solakpally, A-1 to A-3 criminally trespassed into her hut with malicious intention and knowing that her husband was not present in the house, threatened her with dire consequences, closed her mouth by tying with a piece of her saree and did sexual intercourse on her one after another much against her will. The motive behind the incident is that the husband of the defacto complainant Tonta Narasimulu kidnapped one Suguna, wife of Tona Veeriah, brother of A-3 and to take revenge against their family, A-3 in collusion with A-1 and A-2 committed sexual assault against the defacto complainant, PW-1. The motive behind the incident is that the husband of the defacto complainant Tonta Narasimulu kidnapped one Suguna, wife of Tona Veeriah, brother of A-3 and to take revenge against their family, A-3 in collusion with A-1 and A-2 committed sexual assault against the defacto complainant, PW-1. After commission of the offence, A-1 to A-3 while leaving the hut threatened the victim woman not to disclose the same to anybody or otherwise they would kill her and her husband and due to fear of the accused she left her son at her hut and without informing to her parents-in-law went to her relatives house at Jangampet village where she revealed the incident to her relatives and also requested to inform the matter to her parents and her parents reached the place and she narrated the entire incident to them and all of them went to the Police Station on 14-6-1995 and lodged the report. Ex. P-1 is the report lodged by PW-1. ( 5 ) PW-1 is the prosecutrix herself. PWs. 2 and 3 are the parents of the victim. PW-4 is brother-in-law by relation. PW-5 is the uncle of PW-1 by relation and a resident of Jangampet to whom PW-1 first informed the facts of the rape incident. PWs. 6 and 7 are the parents-in-law of PW-1 who are the residents of Solakpally. PW-8 is a resident of Solakpally and a relative of husband of PW-1. PW-9 is a resident of Solakpally village and an independent circumstantial witness. PW-10 is a resident of Solakpally village and he is a community elder. PW-10 is another caste elder. PW-12 and PW-13 are the panch witnesses to the scene of crime and recovery of MO-1 under Ex. P-2 recovery panchanama. PW-14, Medical Officer who examined the prosecutrix and accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the requisition of Police, Jinnaram Police Station, issued Medical certificates Exs. P-3 to P-6 and Ex. P-7 is the F. S. L. report. PW-15 and PW-16 are panch witnesses for recovery of M. Os. 2 to 5 from the possession of PW-1 under cover of panchanama Ex. P-8. PW-17 is the first Investigating Officer who registered the case and issued F. I. R. on the basis of written complaint Ex. P-1. P-3 to P-6 and Ex. P-7 is the F. S. L. report. PW-15 and PW-16 are panch witnesses for recovery of M. Os. 2 to 5 from the possession of PW-1 under cover of panchanama Ex. P-8. PW-17 is the first Investigating Officer who registered the case and issued F. I. R. on the basis of written complaint Ex. P-1. PW-18 is the C. I. of Police who investigated the case and arrested the accused 1 to 3 and produced them before Judicial First Class Magistrate for judicial remand the filed the charge sheet. On behalf of defence no witnesses were examined. ( 6 ) AS far as the incident is concerned, the evidence of PW-1 alone is available. It is needless to say the evidence of the prosecutrix, if can be believed in a case under Section 376 IPC, conviction can be sustained. PW-1 deposed that she knows all the accused persons and they are also residents of Solakpally and her marriage was celebrated about six years back and she got one son and about 2 years back she went to her parents house at Iynur village in connection with Rakhi festival and her husband also accompanied her to her parents house and they stayed at their parents house. Next day morning her husband told her that he would be at their house and asked her to remain at her parents house till he comes back and she waited for her husband for about four days and as he did not come PW-1 returned to her house on the fifty day along with her son and by the time she reached the village her husband was not present in the house and her mother-in-law and father-in-law informed her that the whereabouts of her husband were not known to them and they apprehended danger to his life and also questioned PW-1 as to why she came there. PW-1s in-laws also expressed fear that the accused persons may do away with her also and they expressed fear that the accused persons might have killed her husband also. Then PW-1 came to her house and slept in the house and her in-laws slept in another house and both the houses are situated side by side. PW-1 deposed that she was informed by her parents-in-law that the accused were under the impression that her husband had kidnapped the sister-in-law of A-3. Then PW-1 came to her house and slept in the house and her in-laws slept in another house and both the houses are situated side by side. PW-1 deposed that she was informed by her parents-in-law that the accused were under the impression that her husband had kidnapped the sister-in-law of A-3. After discussion with her mother-in-law for some time, PW-1 went inside the house to sleep. In that night at about 12 or 1 hours i. e. , in the mid-night all the three accused persons trespassed into the house of PW-1 and A-3 tied her saree around her mouth, A-2 caught hold of her hand and they threw PW-1 on the ground. A-1 Pochaiah raped her first and again Kistaiah raped her and lastly Venkataiah raped her and all the three accused raped her one after another. She deposed that as the accused tied cloth around her mouth, she could not raised any sound and her son was sleeping by her side and she became unconscious. She does not remember when the accused left from her house and early morning she came outside the house and went to Jangampet village due to fear of the accused and informed the matter to the paternal uncle of her husband and her brother-in-law Pentaiah went to her parents house and informed the matter and her parents came and she informed the incident to her parents and in the afternoon they went to eh Police Station and lodged Ex. P-1. This witness no doubt was cross-examined at length. Ex. D-1, a contradiction was elicited in the evidence of PW-1, which reads as hereunder: on 12-9-1996 the next day morning Tonta Pochaiah, his wife, Mante Venkataiah, his wife and Tonta Kishtaiah, his wife, came to my house saying that my husband Narsimulu eloped with Suguna, the wife of Veeriah and rebuked me, my aunt and uncle in filthy language while intimating to kill (us ). They left while threatening to kill him (my husband) if I do not disclose. ( 7 ) HERE itself it may be pertinent to note that this contradiction along with other contradictions were put to the C. I. of Police, PW-18, and in cross-examination he denied the suggestion that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 stated before him as in Exs. D-1 to D-11. ( 7 ) HERE itself it may be pertinent to note that this contradiction along with other contradictions were put to the C. I. of Police, PW-18, and in cross-examination he denied the suggestion that PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 stated before him as in Exs. D-1 to D-11. It is doubtful whether this witness had deposed in such a fashion or casually it had been recorded as though the said suggestion also had been denied. Be that as it may, PW-1 was recalled and she was further examined wherein she deposed that she can identify saree and blouse. MO-2 saree, MO-3 petty coat, MO-4 bra, MO-5 blouse belong to her and they were seized by the Police. ( 8 ) PW-2 and PW-3 no doubt deposed that they were informed about the incident and they came immediately and the incident was narrated to these witnesses. PW-4 is the witness who had gone to the parents of PW-1 i. e. , PW. 2 and PW-3 to inform them about the incident. PW-5 is the father of PW-4 who had deposed that PW-1 is her daughter-in-law by courtesy and about 2 years back she came to his house at 5 p. m. At that time, her husband also was present and on the next day her son (PW-4) came at 8 a. m. from duty and at first PW-1 was in sorrowful mood and on their enquiry first PW-1 told them that her husband had beaten her and asked them to send a word to her parents and as they were not satisfied with the version of PW-1 they further enquired as to what happened to her and PW-1 again told them that on the previous night three persons namely Pochaiah, Kistaiah and Venkataiah raped her in her hut and she asked her as to why she came to their house in stead of revealing the incident to their villagers and PW-1 told them that if she reveals the incident they will kill her and due to fear of the accused she ran from the village and took shelter in their house. Thus, this witness had deposed in detail about this incident. ( 9 ) PW-6 and PW-7 are the parents in law who had deposed in detail about the motive part and what had transpired between the daughter-in-law and this witness on the fateful day. Thus, this witness had deposed in detail about this incident. ( 9 ) PW-6 and PW-7 are the parents in law who had deposed in detail about the motive part and what had transpired between the daughter-in-law and this witness on the fateful day. In the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and also PW-5, the contradictions Exs. D-2 to D-8 were marked which read as hereunder"ex. D-2: konninti Ramulu s/o. Pentaiah, came to our house from the village Jangampet and revealed that the while Konninti Pushpa in her in laws village was sleeping alone in her hut along with her small son in the mid night the villagers of Solakpally viz. , (1) Tonta Pochaiah s/o. Pentaiah, (2) Mante Venkataiah S/o. Mallaiah, (3) Tonta Kishtaiah s/o/ Pentaiah all of the three entering into the Hut threatening her (Pushpa) have committed (Gang Rape) combined rape and spoiled her chastity. Ex. D-3: further when we enquired with out daughter Pushpa, she revealed that since her husband Narasimulu has got illicit intimacy with Suguna the wife of Veeraiah of the village and recently he has eloped with her and absconding from the village for that having born grudge ex. D-4: konninti Ramulu viz. , Pentaiah came to my house from the village Jangampet. The matter which he stated that yesterday night the three villagers of Solakpally have committed Gang rape of Pushpa and spoiled her chastity. Ex. D-5:. she was put to threat she came to the village Jangampet. When myself and my husband, both of us went to the village Jangampet and when enquired with my daughter Pushpa, she said on the night of 12-9-1996 when sleeping in her hut along with her small son after having seen nobody (present) her villagers viz. , 1. Tonta Pochaiah s/o. late Pentaiah, (2) Tonta Venkataiah s/o. Mallaiah, (3) Tonta Kishtaiah s/o. Pentaiah, after having entering into the hut, as a token of revenge that Narasimulu the husband of Pushpa eloped the wife of Veeraiah for that reason they have spoiled her (Pushpa ). She revealed the same. Ex. D-6:. . yesterday on Thursday night after observing my brother-in-law Narsimulus absence in the house, in the dark midnight, the villagers of Solakpally viz. She revealed the same. Ex. D-6:. . yesterday on Thursday night after observing my brother-in-law Narsimulus absence in the house, in the dark midnight, the villagers of Solakpally viz. , Tonta Pochaiah, Mante Venkataiah and Tonta Kishtaiah all the three persons colluding together, entering into the hut, questioning the Pushpa, about her husband Narasimulus illicit intimacy with the wife of Veeraiah viz. , Suguna and eloped with her for that in token of revenge they said we spoiling you. Ex. D-7: asked me to convey the message in the village Inavol I proceeded to the village Inavole and revealed the subject ex. D-8: when I questioned about the reasons (for the incident) she said (Pushpa) since the husband of Pushpa viz. , Narsimulu kept illicit intimacy, with the wife of Veeraiah, the younger brother of Tonta Pochaiah and Tonta Kishtaiah and eloped with her, for the that reasons they have spoiled her pw-8 deposed that he heard that PW-1 was raped by A-1 to A-3 and also heard that the motive behind the rape is due to enmity and disputes with PW-1s family and the family of the accused and he also deposed that they held several panchayats regarding the illegal connection between Suguna and Narsimulu, the husband of PW-1 and he also deposed that he heard that Narsimha did not heed to their advise and continued his illicit intimacy with Suguna. PW-9 simply deposed that he heard about the incident and he was not present in the village and earlier to the incident they called A-1 to A-3 and the husband of PW-1, PW- and PW-7 and there was a quarrel between them and they pacified the mater and they did not heed to their advise and they went away. PW-10 also deposed about the same. PW-11 deposed that he heard about the incident in the morning and this witness also deposed about the dispute relating to the illicit intimacy between the husband of PW-1 and brothers wife of A-1. PW-12 deposed about Ex. P-2, the scene-cum-recovery panchanama and also MO-1. PW-13 also deposed about Ex. P-2 and MO-1. PW-14, the Doctor, had examined PW-1 and opined that rape was committed and this witness also deposed that this witness received the Forensic Science Laboratory report and deposed that human semen and spermatozoa were detected on item Nos. 1 to 4. PW-12 deposed about Ex. P-2, the scene-cum-recovery panchanama and also MO-1. PW-13 also deposed about Ex. P-2 and MO-1. PW-14, the Doctor, had examined PW-1 and opined that rape was committed and this witness also deposed that this witness received the Forensic Science Laboratory report and deposed that human semen and spermatozoa were detected on item Nos. 1 to 4. Item No. 1 is in respect of vaginal swab collected from PW-1. This witness also further deposed that on the same day police produced three persons before him, namely, one Tonte Venkataiah, Tonte Pochaiah and Tonte Kistaiah for potency examination and he had examined those three persons and collected semen from them to send F. S. L. report. On physical examination he opined that they are capable of performing sexual intercourse and as per F. S. L. Report No. 974-S/96 dated 14-11-1996 human spermatozoa was detected on item Nos. 2 to 4 i. e. , semen sent for chemical analysis and he issued Ex. P-3 medical certificate of victim (PW-1), Ex. P-4 potency test of Manne Venkaiah, Ex. P-5 Medical certificate of Tonte Pochaiah, Ex. P-6 Medical certificate of Tonta Kistaiah. Ex. P-7 is the F. S. L. report (combined report) received by him on 14-11-1996. Basing upon the analysis report on item No. 1, he issued final opinion that rape was committed on victim Pushpa (PW-1 ). He further deposed that at the relevant time there was no lady Doctor in Government Hospital, Narsapur after obtaining permission from Superintendent, Head Quarters Hospital, Sangareddy though telephone he examined the victim who is a female and he is competent to examine female patients as he is a qualified Obsteritician and Gynaecologist. " ( 10 ) PW-15 deposed about the seizure of M. Os. 2 to 5 and Ex. P-8. PW-16 also deposed about the seizure of M. Os. 2 to 5 and deposed about Ex. P-8. PW-17 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who received the written complaint from PW-1 and registered a case in Cr. No. 109/96 under Section 376 IPC and Ex. P-9 is the F. I. R. and after registering the F. I. R. and recording statements of the victim, dispatched the F. I. R. to all concerned and handed over the file to Circle Inspector of Police, PW-1. No. 109/96 under Section 376 IPC and Ex. P-9 is the F. I. R. and after registering the F. I. R. and recording statements of the victim, dispatched the F. I. R. to all concerned and handed over the file to Circle Inspector of Police, PW-1. PW-18, the Circle Inspector of Police, in detail had deposed about the details of investigation, but as already referred to supra, a specific question was put to PW-18 in relation to Exs. D-1, to D-11, but it is recorded as though it PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 had not stated before him as in Exs. D-1 to D-11. However this aspect need not be seriously considered for the reason that even if Exs. D-1 to D-11 are taken into consideration these are not such material contradictions which would shatter the incident proper as such since the evidence of PW-1 is material and the evidence of PW-1 is well supported by the medical evidence. In the light of the same, findings in detail had been recorded by the learned Judge while arriving at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 11 ) IT is no doubt true that the motive for the crime appears to be the grievance as against the husband of PW-1 but it is really unfortunate that in this episode and controversy PW-1 was dragged and the heinous crime had been perpetrated by the accused on PW-1 and this Court has no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are clear, categorical and supported by reasons and hence the conviction under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC is confirmed. However, taking into consideration the episode elating to the illicit intimacy of the husband of PW-1 and the other panchayats said to have been held in this regard and the other circumstances, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of 7 years for the reasons specified supra, is modified to 5 years and the fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months is maintained. Except this modification in imposition of sentence for the reasons mentioned, in all other particulars, the findings are hereby confirmed. The Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed subject to the aforesaid modification.