P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Purushotham reddy, the learned eounsel representing appellants-accused Nos, 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE appellants-accused Nos, 1 and 2 preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed in S. C. No. 746 of 1993, dated 15-11-1997, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapally. ( 3 ) SRI Purushotham Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2 would contend that from the evidence of P. W. 5 and P. W. 6. it is highly doubtful whether the accused are the persons who had participated in the alleged offence on the fateful day, The learned eounsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of P. W. 13, the Munsif Magistrate, and would submit that even in the test identification parade, it is stated that one witness Govardhanagiri Venkatamma had identified A-l but she was not examined, and the other witness Gadem Venkatamma p. W. 6, who was unable to identify, had been examined. Even certain admissions made in the evidence of P. W. 5 would definitely throw some light on the aspect of identification, and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed as against the appellants- accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would contend that at the best this may be of defective investigation and the mere fact that P. W. 5 was examined in Court after sufficient lapse of time may not alter the situation in any way. since she was able to identify both A-1 and a-2 and specifically deposed about the commission of rape on her by both A-1 and A-2. This witness also deposed that the third person was standing outside. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that no doubt P. W. 6 was unable to speak about the identity but definitely she had spoken about the incident as such. In a case of this nature, even on the strength of the evidence of P. W. 5, conviction can be sustained. ( 5 ) THE appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged with Ss. 394 and 376 (g) of the indian Penal Code (for short I. P. C.) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class. In a case of this nature, even on the strength of the evidence of P. W. 5, conviction can be sustained. ( 5 ) THE appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 were charged with Ss. 394 and 376 (g) of the indian Penal Code (for short I. P. C.) The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Sulthanabad, committed P. R. C. No. 5 of 1993 on the file of the said Court and the court of Session made over the matter to the Assistant. Sessions Judge, Peddapally, and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, recorded the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 14 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-15 and also M. Os. 1 to 5, and the findings in detail had been recorded, and A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, for the offence under S. 394, I. P. C. . in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and A-l and A-2 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under S. 376 (g) of I. P. C. and both the sentences imposed against A-1 and a-2 to run concurrently. It is brought to the notice of this Court, the appellants/accused nos. 1 and 2 continued to be in jail. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the Chairman of Ranganadha swamy temple situated at Neerkulla village of Sullhanabad Mandal, adjacent to Manair river. It is brought to the notice of this Court, the appellants/accused nos. 1 and 2 continued to be in jail. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the Chairman of Ranganadha swamy temple situated at Neerkulla village of Sullhanabad Mandal, adjacent to Manair river. He deposed that on 6-6-1992, he came to know in the morning that theft took place in the said temple and he went to the temple and enquired with one Laxmi, Venkatamma and Gadem Venkatamma and found one brass pot, one Phillips radio and small brass pot were stolen by unknown persons and that Laxmi informed him that unknown culprits asked her money and demanded money from her, and when she refused to give money, the culprits have taken her in a room of the temple and committed rape on her and that when her mother Venkatamma resisted the acts of the culprits, they beat her with pestle on her right hand and caused fracture and that the culprits have beat gadem Venkatamma with the pestle on her left leg and they also informed him that not in disclose hie matter to anybody. This witness further deposed that one Satyanarayana chary is the poojari of the temple and Laxmi is his sister-in-law. At the time of the incident, Poojari was not present and P. W. 1 lodged a complaint Ex. P-l to the Police, sulthanabad. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 Satyanarayana Chary, poojari of the temple had deposed about the same. P. W. 3 was declared hostile and this witness deposed that Exs. P-2 to P-5 are his signatures on white papers and he does not know why the Police obtained his signatures. This witness specifically denied the suggestion that M. Os. 1 to 3 were recovered from the possession of the accused in his presence under the cover of Panchanama. P. W. 4 was also declared hostile and this witness also deposed that Exs. P-6 to P-9 are his signatures and nobody was in the custody of the police and nothing was recovered in his presence and this witness had also denied the suggestions put by the learned Additional public Prosecutor. ( 8 ) P. W. 5 deposed in detail that at about 12. 00 midnight, three unknown culprits entered into the temple premises. One person was standing outside the temple and a-1 and A-2 entered into the temple premises at about 12. ( 8 ) P. W. 5 deposed in detail that at about 12. 00 midnight, three unknown culprits entered into the temple premises. One person was standing outside the temple and a-1 and A-2 entered into the temple premises at about 12. 00 midnight and beat maidservant Venkatamma with pestle on her right leg and they beat her mother-in-law and her right and left hands were fractured and her right hand was dislocated. This witness specifically deposed that A-1 and A-2 came to her and committed rape on her one after another. First, A-1 committed rape and then A-2 committed rape on her. After committing rape, A-1 and A-2 had stolen away the brass pot and Phillips radio from the temple premises and she immediately reported this matter to village Sunkari, who in turn informed the matter to the Chairman p. W. 1. She deposed that Police referred her to the Government Civil Hospital for examination and the Lady Doctor examined her. This witness also further deposed that a-1 lifted her sari and fell her on ground and committed rape on her by doing sexual intercourse and A-2 committed rape by lifting her sari by doing sexual intercourse with her. This witness was cross-examined at length. This witness explained why there are certain omissions relating to the commission of rape and she specifically deposed that due to shy, these aspects were not revealed. She also deposed that she did not state before the Police about the descriptive particulars of the offenders and the offenders while committing rape, switched off the light and the culprits entered into the premises, put off the lights and beat her and they dragged her into the room and due to darkness she was not able to identify them but she identified them in the Police Station after the arrest of the accused. No doubt, this witness deposed that it is not true to suggest that the test identification parade was not conducted through her. On the strength of this evidence and certain aspects deposed by this witness in the cross-examination, elaborate submissions were made by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2, that this witness is not trustworthy or believable. On the strength of this evidence and certain aspects deposed by this witness in the cross-examination, elaborate submissions were made by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused nos. 1 and 2, that this witness is not trustworthy or believable. ( 9 ) P. W. 6 no doubt deposed that two culprits entered into the temple and they beat with pestle on her right leg and in similar manner they beat Venkatamma on her left and right hands and she fell unconscious and the culprits took P. W. 5 into the room and committed rape on her. Since, she was unconscious, she could not recognise the culprits at that time. P. W. 5 can recognise the culprits. Thus, the evidence of P. W. 6 is corroborative to that of P. W. 5 in relation to just what happened on the fateful day. ( 10 ) P. W. 7 deposed that he signed on ex. P-10 panchanama. M. O. 4 is the pounder and M. O. 5 is the broken bangle pieces had been seized and he can identify the seized property. ( 11 ) P. W. 8 just deposed that P. W. 5 is his brother-in-law s daughter. He deposed that at about four years back, theft took place in Rangaswamy temple near Mandir and that P. W. 5 came from Hyderabad and stayed with her. ( 12 ) P. W. 9 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who had examined P. W. 5 and found the following injuries :1. Bruise over the left thigh present. 2. Bruise over the left breast labia majora and Minora and tender inflamed. The vagina admitted two fingers tender, painful, hymen ruptured, she is already married and had one delivery. The evidence of sexual assault present. This witness also deposed that Ex. P-11 is the certificate issued by her and she had sent the vaginal smears to the Forensic Science Laboratory, hyderabad, for examination. Thus, the evidence of P. W. 9, the medical evidence corroborates the evidence of P,w. 5 relating to the commission of sexual intercourse. ( 13 ) P. W. 10 Circle Inspector. P. W. 11 head Constable P. W. 12 is another Circle inspector, who filed the charge-sheet. These witnesses deposed about all the details of investigation. ( 14 ) P. W. 13 Is the Munsif Magistrate. Sattupally, who conducted the test identification parade. ( 13 ) P. W. 10 Circle Inspector. P. W. 11 head Constable P. W. 12 is another Circle inspector, who filed the charge-sheet. These witnesses deposed about all the details of investigation. ( 14 ) P. W. 13 Is the Munsif Magistrate. Sattupally, who conducted the test identification parade. He deposed that one Govardhanagiri venkatamma Identified A-1 but this witness was not examined and P. W. 6 was unable to identify. Ex. P-13 test identification proceedings were conducted by this witness. It is no doubt true that this witness had not deposed about P. W. 5 participating in the test identification parade. ( 15 ) P. W. 14 Deputy Civil Surgeon in government Civil Hospital, Mahaboobabad, who had examined Gaddam Venkatamma and found the following Injuries :"defuse confusion over right thigh : simple in nature, caused by blunt object, age of injury 24 hours. There is fracture of lower right femur bone, grievous in nature, could have been caused by injury No. 1. "at the same time, this witness had examined govardhanagiri Venkatamma and found the following injuries on her body :"defuse confusion over left elbow at right wrist; simple in nature could have been caused by blunt object. The age of injury is within 24 hours. There is fracture of lower end of left femurs bone, grievous in nature, could have been caused by injury (sic) left elbow. "this witness issued medical certificates Exs. P. 14 and P. 15 respectively and both the patients were referred to Government Hospital, karimnagar. This evidence also supports the version of the prosecution that the Incident as deposed by P. Ws. 5 and 6 had happened. Ex. P-1 complaint lodged by P. W. 1, reads as hereunder :"i am a resident of Neetukulla village. Today i. e. , on 6-6-1992 at about 10. 00 a. m. in the morning, when I was in my house, heard that some thieves have entered the charitable house of the Temple pujari, staying near the Ranganayaka Swamy Temple in our village. When I visited the place, 1 saw govardhanagiri Venkatamma with the servant maid Venkamma and Govardhanagiri lakshmi resident of Vegurupalli, as I enquired them what had happened, Govardhanagiri venkatamma explained that right between 12. 00 and 1. When I visited the place, 1 saw govardhanagiri Venkatamma with the servant maid Venkamma and Govardhanagiri lakshmi resident of Vegurupalli, as I enquired them what had happened, Govardhanagiri venkatamma explained that right between 12. 00 and 1. 00 p. m. , while they all were in sleep, two unknown persons jumped into our compound, by hearing the sound the servant maid Venkamma woke up and shouted who is there, immediately, the thieves took a wooden pestle from the nearby place, injured her by beating her with it on her right leg and warned her not to shout, they also beat Venkatamma on her left and right hands, Lakshmi, on her left leg (and) searched them for money. As they did not get any money, threatened them not to shout, if they shout, they will kill them. They took Venkatamma s daughter-in-law lakshmi inside and bolted the doors from inside. After 15 minutes, they opened the doors, Lakshmi informed us that they both had raped her forcibly. These two persons while going, took one Phillips radio, brass flagon and an aluminium vessel along with them and fled away. These two persons talked in Telugu, wearing banians and lungis, aged about between 20 to 30 years, medium complexion they threatened us that they will fire us, if we reveal their address to anybody. They have stolen nearly Rs. 500/- worth articles on the whole and fled away. Hence, we request your honour to take necessary legal action against them in this regard. " ( 16 ) ON the strength of this Ex. P-1, crime was registered and investigation was taken up, completed and the accused were charge-sheeted referred to supra. From the evidence available on record, there cannot be any doubt that the incident as such happened but the only question which had been elaborately argued by the learned counsel representing the appellants is that these accused cannot be connected with these offences unless there is legally acceptable evidence. The counsel would submit that it is highly improbable that after a long lapse of time in view of the fact that this incident had happened at odd hours, P. W. 5 could have identified a-1 and A-2. By mere lapse of time or by the mere fact that the test identification parade was not conducted so far it relates to P. W. 5 is concerned. By mere lapse of time or by the mere fact that the test identification parade was not conducted so far it relates to P. W. 5 is concerned. The identification made by P. W. 5 in the open Court cannot be disbelieved. No doubt, she deposed that she had participated in the test identification parade but it appears to be not a fact. However, there was sufficient opportunity for p. W. 5 to identify the accused since the switching off the light and the other aspects, they are of at the later point of time. The medical evidence clearly supports the prosecution version that the offence of rape had been perpetrated as against P. W. 5. It is no doubt true, as far as the seizure of other material objects is concerned the panch witnesses were declared hostile. But as far as the offence relating to S. 376 (g), I. P. C. is concerned, the evidence is clear. The evidence of P. Ws. 5 and G is well corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused under s. 376 (g) of I. P. C. As far as the seizure of m. Os. 1 to 3 is concerned, both the witnesses p. Ws. 3 and 4 were declared hostile. No doubt, the Investigating Officer had deposed about the seizure of M. Os. 1 to 3, in the light of the fact that there is acceptable evidence in relation to the incident in the light of the clear evidence of Investigating Officer relating to seizure of M. Os. 1 to 3. Merely because p. Ws. 3 and 4 were declared hostile, the aspect of seizure of M. Os. 1 to 3 also cannot be disbelieved and hence the learned judge had arrived at the correct conclusion in recording the said findings. ( 17 ) IN the result, the conviction imposed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Peddapally in Sessions Case No. 746 of 1993 against the appellants accused Nos. 1 and 2 on 15-11-1997, for the offence punishable under ss. 394 and S. 376 (g) I. P. C. is confirmed. But. however, the sentence imposed as against the appellants accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under S. 394, I. P. C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 394 and S. 376 (g) I. P. C. is confirmed. But. however, the sentence imposed as against the appellants accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under S. 394, I. P. C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each. in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months is hereby confirmed. But the sentence imposed as against the appellants-accused 1 and 2 for the offence under S. 376 (g), I. P. C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years is hereby modified and the sentence is reduced to seven years and, however, the imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo, simple imprisonment for six months is hereby confirmed. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone by the appellant-accused Nos. 1 and 2 to be set off in accordance with law. Subject to the above modification in all other particulars, the findings are hereby confirmed and the criminal appeal shall stand dismissed. Order accordingly.