Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 25-9-2001/28-9-2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby he convicted appellants Titri, Bhajan Singh, Shallo Bai and Mukhtiar Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs, 4,000.00 each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 1 1/2 years. Further, he convicted all the four accused under Section 376(2)(g), I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one year each. Further, he convicted all the four accused under Section 449, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each, and in default, to further undergo RI for six months. 2. Appellant Mukhtiar Singh was convicted under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 , in default, 10 further undergo RI for nine months. He was further convicted under Section 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. 3. Appellants-Mukhtiar Singh, Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai were convicted under Section 342, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. 4. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 5. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PJ of Surjit Ram (PW-6) aged 14 years, given to Raj Kumar, SI/ SHO, Police Station Ratia, on 24-1-1998 at 2.10 p.m. at Bus-Stand. Village Nagpur, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex. PJ/1 was recorded. He stated that they are five brothers and sisters. Eldest sister is Paramjit, aged 20 years, who is married to Paramjit son of Khan Chand, Bazigar. Complainant is younger to her and younger to the complainant is Bhola Ram, aged 10 years, and younger to him in Gyani aged 8 years. Complainants father Joginder Singh had gone to village Rupwari to meet his Taya (fathers elder brother). On 23-1-1998, maternal grand-mother of the complainant Smt. Fatti, his mothers sister Chhindo and complainants sister Paramjit had come to meet them. Complainants father Joginder Singh had gone to village Rupwari to meet his Taya (fathers elder brother). On 23-1-1998, maternal grand-mother of the complainant Smt. Fatti, his mothers sister Chhindo and complainants sister Paramjit had come to meet them. After having their meals at 7 p.m., when they were preparing to go to sleep after bolting the door from inside the house. Titri and Mukhtiar sons of Bhajan Singh alias Bhani and Bhajan Singh alias Bhani son of Zaila and Shallo Bai, wife of Bhajan Singh caste Bazigar came in front of their house. All of them gave a push to the door of the house of the complainant, which opened. Mukhtiar Singh on entering the house, gave an iron Khundi blow on the head of Banso Bai alias Guddi, mother of the complainant. Titri took the complainants mother in his grip and started biting her face and breasts. Bhajan Singh caught hold of the hair of the mother of the complainant. Shallo Bai instigated the accused to give a beating to Guddi. They (complainant party), all got afraid and assembled by the side of their maternal grand-mother on a cot. The lantern which was burning, was broken by the accused. Shallo Bai gave kick blows and slaps to Banso Bai. Thereafter Bhajan Singh and Shallo came put of the house and stood in front of the door. On the instigation of Mukhtiar Singh, Titri removed the clothes of complainants mother Banso Bai and committed rape upon her. Titri then urinated on the face of his mother and then spat on her face and thereafter Titri and Mukhtiar Singh twisted the left arm of Banso Bai and fractured it from the elbow. Complainants mother raised a hue and cry, but the complainant party, out of fear, did not move to save her. Complainants mother got unconscious, but Mukhtiar Singh still gave blows to her with an iron Khundi. She died on the spot. Mukhtiar Singh forcibly took away complainants sister Paramjit Kaur. He suspected that Mukhtiar Singh committed sexual intercourse with his sister Paramjit Kaur. Thereafter Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai took the complainant party to his house. They were confined in the house. Titri remained present by the side of their mother in the house of the complainant. After about half an hour. Mukhtiar Singh took the complainant party to his room where his sister Paramjit Kaur was also present. Thereafter Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai took the complainant party to his house. They were confined in the house. Titri remained present by the side of their mother in the house of the complainant. After about half an hour. Mukhtiar Singh took the complainant party to his room where his sister Paramjit Kaur was also present. The motive for the commission of the offence was that father of the complainant had given a loan of Rs. 10,000.00 to Mukhtiar Singh. Banso Bai had demanded this amount from Mukhtiar Singh etc. 6. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Gurdev Singh, PW-2 Girish Kumar. PW-3 Dr. M. L. Gupta, PW-4 ASI Hawa Singh, PW-5 Dr. D.L. Bansal. PW-6 Surjit Ram complainant. PW-7 Paramjit Kaur, PW-8 Dr. Ramesh Chakarverti. PW-9 SI Raj Kumar and PW-10 Constable Satbir Singh. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that presence of the two eye-witnesses Surjit Ram (PW-6) and Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) at the place of occurrence is highly Improbable. In the Inquest Report, the Investigating Officer has opined that body of the deceased was of a stout lady. Dr. Ramesh Chakarverti (PW-8) who prepared the medico-legal report of the deceased, had opined that Paramjit Kaur is a well-built lady. In the community of Bazigars, both men and women do hard labour. Both the ladies i.e. deceased-Banso Bai and Paramjit Kaur were strong ladies. Banso Bai was aged 38 years and Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) was aged 19 years at the time of occurrence. As per the prosecution case, apart from the deceased and Paramjit Kaur (PW-7), the Mausi (mothers sister) of the complainant, Nani (maternal grand-mother) of the complainant and the other brothers and sisters i.e. Kanto aged 12 years, Bhola aged 10 years and Giyani aged 8 years were present at the time of occurrence. It is strange that none from the complainant party came forward to save the life of deceased-Banso Bai. It is not believable that the complainants (seven in number) were mute spectators to Banso Bai being injured and raped in front of their eyes. In natural course of events, they would have intervened to save Banso Bai. Such a crime cannot be committed with so many persons present in the room. Complainants would not have been silent spectators. 8. It is not believable that the complainants (seven in number) were mute spectators to Banso Bai being injured and raped in front of their eyes. In natural course of events, they would have intervened to save Banso Bai. Such a crime cannot be committed with so many persons present in the room. Complainants would not have been silent spectators. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has further stated that for argument sake, if the appellants had come to rape Banso Bai, there was no need to come to the room where there were seven eye-witnesses. She could have been way-laid, when she went out in the fields. Further, there was no need to murder Banso Bai after raping her, if rape had been committed in the room, as they had already been identified by seven persons of the complainant party. Where rape and murder takes place, the accused always want to hide their identity. In fact, it is a case of blind murder. Rape was committed on Banso Bai outside the house. After committing rape, the assailants then murdered her, so that they could not be recognized. 9. Occurrence had taken place on 23-1-1998 at 7 p.m. The F.I.R. came into existence at 3.05 p.m. on 24-1-1998 after a delay of about 20 hours. Special report reached the Magistrate on duty at his residence on 24-1-1998 at 5.30 p.m. In fact, this delay was being utilised by the police and the complainant party to falsely implicate the appellants. Nobody from the Panchayat came forward to state that they had freed the complainants from the room of Mukhtiar Singh-appellant. 10. There are no signs of rape on the person of Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) except for the Spermatozoa being present in the vaginal wall. Dr. Ramesh Chakarverti (PW-8) has opined that Spermatozoa is present for 72 hours in the vagina. 11. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellants has stated that, it is not believable that Bhajan Singh, a 60 years old man and Shallo Bai, a 55 years old lady would stand in the door of a room and see their sons Titri and Mukhtiar Singh taking off their clothes and then the clothes of Banso Bai and then raping her. The aged father and mother could not have been consenting parties to such like offence. The aged father and mother could not have been consenting parties to such like offence. Howsoever poor appellants-Bhajan Singh and Shalo Bai may be, but they would never have allowed rape being committed, by their naked sons, in front of their own eyes. 12. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that Surjit Ram (PW-6), the son of deceased-Banso Bai, and Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) the daughter of Banso Bai, are eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They are natural witnesses. Appellants wanted to insult the complainant party. After committing rape on Banso Bai, appellant-Titri urinated on her face. In the process of their lust: for committing rape, they extinguished her life by giving her blows with a Khundi. Appellants-Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai stood at the door of the room, so that nobody could enter it. Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai then took the complainants to their room which was just 1 1/2 acres away. From there, Mukhtiar Singh took them to his room and thereafter he committed rape on Paramjit Kaur. 13. Motive for the commission of the offence is very strong. Appellants had a grudge as to why Banso Bai had demanded Rs. 10,000.00 from them. The delay in lodging of the F.I.R. has been adequately explained by the prosecution. Surjit Ram (PW-6) has stated in his testimony before the Court that, out of fear, he did not run from the house in the night, but on the next day, when he got up, he slipped away and informed the Sarpanch, Sarpanch Nathu Ram then came and had the complainants freed. Surjit Ram meet the police at Bus-Stand of village Nagpur and recorded his statement at 2.10 p.m. on 24-1-1998. 14. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 15. Surjit Ram (PW-6), son of the deceased and Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) daughter of deceased-Banso Bai are natural witnesses. Occurrence took place on 23-1-1998 at 7 p.m. In the month of January at 7 p.m. it becomes dark, at that time, it is natural for the children to be present in the house. Appellants-Titri and Mukhtiar Singh wanted to insult the complainants family. Appellants house was hardly 40/50 yards away from the complainants house. Both the parties belong to Bazigar community and were financially weak. It has come in evidence that complainant party had only one room to sleep. Appellants-Titri and Mukhtiar Singh wanted to insult the complainants family. Appellants house was hardly 40/50 yards away from the complainants house. Both the parties belong to Bazigar community and were financially weak. It has come in evidence that complainant party had only one room to sleep. It was in this room where Banso Bai along with her children had got ready to go to sleep after taking meals. Her mother and sister had also come to meet her. The statement of Surjit Ram (PW-6) and Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) inspires confidence. Appellants-Titri and Mukhtiar Singh wanted to take revenge, and committed rape, as they felt insulted, since deceased-Banso Bai had demanded back Rs. 10,000.00 from them, which they owed to her. 16. Dr. D. L. Bansal (PW-5) in his testimony before the Court has stated that there were 14 lacerated and contusions on different parts of the body of deceased-Banso Bai. Rigor mortis was present on the lower limbs and was at the passing stage. Post-mortem was conducted on 25-1-1998. In the opinion of this doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Dr. D. L. Bansal (PW-5), after he went through the report of the F.S.L. (Ex.PN), opined that the possibility of rape with de-ceased-Banso Bai cannot be ruled out. He has further opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse with Banso Bai, 72 hours prior to her death cannot be ruled out. Spermatozoa remain alive and present in the vaginal canal after 72 hours of intercourse. Similarly, Dr. Ramesh Chakarverti (PW-8) has stated that he examined Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) on 25-1-1998 at 12,30 p.m. He has opined after seeing the report of the F.L.S. (Ex. PN), sexual intercourse had been committed upon Paramjit Kaur, Medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular account. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellants has laid much stress on this fact that the complainant party, who were seven in number, did not intervene to save the life of Banso Bai. This argument of the counsel for the appellants does not cut much ice. Nani (maternal grand-mother of the complainant) was an old lady. Complainant Surjit: Ram (PW-6) was only aged 14 years at the time of occurrence. His sister Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) was 19 years who was also subjected to rape. The other children were aged 8 to 10 years. This argument of the counsel for the appellants does not cut much ice. Nani (maternal grand-mother of the complainant) was an old lady. Complainant Surjit: Ram (PW-6) was only aged 14 years at the time of occurrence. His sister Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) was 19 years who was also subjected to rape. The other children were aged 8 to 10 years. The seventh lady was the Mausi (sister of Banso Bai deceased) who was present. The ferociousness of the attack of the appellants-Titri and Mukhtiar Singh on deceased Banso Bai, put such fear in the minds of the complainant party that they did not have the courage to come forward to save her. Surjit Ram (PW-6) in his testimony has stated, that they tried to intervene, but appellant-Mukhtiar Singh threatened to kill all of them, if they resisted or raised an alarm. In fact, such was the fear in the minds of the complainant party that appellant-Mukhtiar Singh and Titri led them away to his own house like dumb cattle, where they were kept for the night. 18. We are in consonance with the argument of the counsel for the appellants, that there is an unexplained delay of more than 18 hours in lodging of the F.I.R. This delay was being utilised by the police and the complainant party to weave a story to falsely implicate appellants-Bhajan Singh alias Bhagi and Shallo Bai wife of Bhajan Singh alias Bhagi. Surjit Ram in his testimony before the Court has stated that appellants-Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai went out and took position at the door of the house. Before Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai had left the room, appellant-Titri caught hold of Banso Bai and had bit her on several parts of her body. Appellant-Mukhtiar Singh had given Khundi blows on her head. As alleged by the prosecution witnesses, after appellants Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai stood in the door of the room, then appellant-Titri tore the clothes of Banso Bai and committed rape on her. He then took off his own clothes and after committing rape on her, urinated and spat on her face. Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) has stated that both Mukhtiar Singh and Titri had removed their clothes when they committed rape on her mother Banso Bai. He then took off his own clothes and after committing rape on her, urinated and spat on her face. Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) has stated that both Mukhtiar Singh and Titri had removed their clothes when they committed rape on her mother Banso Bai. It is not imaginable that appellants-Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai wife of Bhajan Singh, both aged 60 and 55 years respectively, would stand at the door and sec their two naked sons committing rape on a naked woman in front of their own eyes. They, in fact, would have left the place or stopped their sons from committing rape. It has been stated by the prosecution witnesses that appellant-Bhajan Singh caught hold of the hair of Banso Bai and pulled her long hair. Apart from the statement of Surjit Ram (PW-6), there is no evidence on record to show that the hair of Banso Bai was pulled. Delay in lodging of F.I.R. has been utilised to falsely implicate appellants-Bhajan Singh and Shalo Bai wife of Bhajan Singh. 19. The statement of Paramjit Kaur (PW-7) is truthful. Her testimony that she was raped and her mother Banso Bai was also raped and then murdered, inspires confidence. Dr. Ramesh Chakarverti (PW-8) has stated on the basis of the F.S.L. Report (Ex. PN) sexual intercourse had been committed on Paramjit Kaur (PW-7). 20. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court in convicting appellants-Titri and Mukhtiar Singh, sons of Bhajan Singh. The sentence awarded upon appellants-Titri and Mukhtiar Singh needs no interference. 21. Appellants-Bhajan Singh alias Bhagi and Shallo Bai wife of Bhajan Singh, as discussed above, have been falsely implicated. Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai are acquitted of all the charges framed against them, giving them the benefit of doubt. Their convictions and sentences are set aside. If already in custody, Bhajan Singh and Shallo Bai be released forthwith, if not needed in any other case. 22. Consequently, appeal qua appellants-Titri and Mukhtiar Singh is dismissed and appeal qua appellants-Bhajan Singh alias Bhagi and Shallo Bai wife of Bhajan Singh, is allowed.