JUDGMENT : A. GOPAL REDDY, J.:— The accused 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 1143 of 2002 preferred these two appeals challenging the judgment of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dated 24-11-2004 convicting them for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of Penal Code, 1860 (‘I.P.C.’) and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Since both the appeals are arising out of the very same judgment, though through different counsel, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: Duvvaka Shivaraju-P.W. 1 is the resident of Nookapalli village and lives by means of beedi folding and her husband is staying at Mumbai by doing coolie. On 31-1-2001 at about 7.00 p.m. she returned from Hyderabad, alighted the bus at Nookapalli bus stand and while she was proceeding towards Nookapalli on foot, Janga Saraiah-A-1 and Janga Sammaiah-A-2, who are also staying at Nookapalli village, followed her. On the way, A-1 suddenly lifted P.W. 1, took her to nearby chilli fields of Raillachandraiah and threw her in the chilli field. A-2 put the cloth into her mouth making her not to raise alarms. Later, both the accused forcibly raped the P.W. 1 one after another. They also beat the victim and threatened her not to raise alarms and caused her bleeding injuries. After committing rape, they fled away from the scene. The victim, after reaching her house, sent a word through her son to P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are the sister and brother-in-law of her husband. On their arrival, she informed the matter and all of them went to the police station and lodged Ex. P-1 complaint. On the basis of Ex. P-1, police registered the crime and sent P.W. 1 for treatment and medical examination. Panchanama of the scene of offence was conducted by the police under the cover of panchanama in the presence of panchas and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet for the above offence. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 and M.Os. 1 to 4 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The learned Sessions Judge after evolving (?) the oral and documentary evidence, found both the accused guilty for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence, the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused contend that the victim did not inform about the offence committed to the villagers particularly P.W. 4 and L.Ws. 5 and 6. There is a delay of more than twenty hours in giving the first information report and the victim did not receive any injuries on her back when allegedly she was raped in the field where the chilli crop is raised. Therefore, there is any amount of doubt about the accused committing the offence as alleged. Hence, sought to set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower Court. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 coupled with the medical evidence clinchingly established the offence of rape committed by the accused on the victim. Therefore, there are no grounds to disturb the judgment of the lower Court. 5. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the lower Court are liable to be set aside or modified. 6. P.W. 1, the victim in her evidence stated that at about 7.00 p.m. she got down the bus at Nookapalli village and while she was going towards her house, the accused came from her behind, A-2 caught her, placed his hand in such a way it covers her face and A-1 held her legs. A-1 and A-2 forcibly took her into the chilli garden of one Rayilla Chandraiah. A-i beat the victim on her chest and face. Later, A-1 removed her clothes and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. After completing his sexual intercourse, A-2 also had sexual intercourse forcibly with her. A-1 and A-2 forcibly took her into the chilli garden of one Rayilla Chandraiah. A-i beat the victim on her chest and face. Later, A-1 removed her clothes and had sexual intercourse with her forcibly. After completing his sexual intercourse, A-2 also had sexual intercourse forcibly with her. When one accused was raping, the other accused was pressing her neck and mouth so that she could not raise alarm and the incident had lasted about 20 minutes. After the accused left the place, for some time, she could not reconcile herself. Later she went to the house of L.W. 6-Laxmi, L.W. 5-Lachavva and L.W. 4-Gangamma and informed them about beating of two persons on her way to village. Through her son, the victim informed the incident to P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are residing at Jagtial and on their reaching the village, all of them went to be police station and lodged the complaint under Ex. P-1. 7. P.W. 2, who is the sister of the victim's, husband, deposed that on her arrival to the village along with her husband, P.W. 3, the victim informed that she was raped by the accused. P.W. 3 also corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 4, with whom the victim first informed that she was beaten by two persons on her way, stated that she saw the injuries on the face of the victim. She stated that on the next day, she was informed about the rape committed by the accused on arrival of P.Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 7, the doctor, who examined the victim, found the following injuries on the body of the victim: “1. Lacerated wound on the upper lip. 2. Lacerated 3. Lacerated wound on the left side of the nose. 4. Lacerated wound on the right eyebrow 5. Lacerated wound on the rights side of the neck.” 8. Further, P.W. 7 in his evidence, deposed as follows: “P.W. 1 has two living children, and she was subjected to tubectomy operation. Her lost menstrual period was 12-1-2001. On vaginal inspection we found that no evidence of injuries and mlucoid discharge. Hymen was not intact, and it was admitting two fingers easily. I sent vaginal swabs to FSL through police. Ex. P-4 is the report of FSL. On the basis of report of the FSL I gave my final opinion that the P.W. 1 was sexually assaulted. Ex. On vaginal inspection we found that no evidence of injuries and mlucoid discharge. Hymen was not intact, and it was admitting two fingers easily. I sent vaginal swabs to FSL through police. Ex. P-4 is the report of FSL. On the basis of report of the FSL I gave my final opinion that the P.W. 1 was sexually assaulted. Ex. P-5 is my detailed report. My report is based on physical biological and seriological examination and also on the basis of the opinion of the FSL.” 9. The Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W. 8, who registered the crime, deposed that he visited the scene of offence and conducted the panchanama under Ex. P-3 and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence under Ex. P-7. He recovered the M.O. 4 from the scene of incident under Ex. P-6. He stated that he went to the house of P.W. 1 from the scene of incident and recovered M.Os. 1 to 3 from her in the presence of P.Ws. 5 and another. The earlier statement given by P.W. 1 under Ex. P-1 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. The evidence of P.W. 1 is very clear that the accused 1 and 2 caught her on her way to the village and committed rape on her in the chilli fields and the said version is supported by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of P.W. 7. In the cross-examination, no information contrary to the prosecution was elicited by the defence counsel. The lower Court after considering all the oral and documentary evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the accused were responsible for the rape committed on the victim. 10. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a delay in lodging the complaint, in her evidence, the victim stated that as she was living alone, she sent her son to inform the said incident to P.Ws. 2 and 3, who are the sister and brother-in-law of her husband residing at Jagtial and on their arrival and after consulting them, she could lodge the report. The explanation offered by the victim about the delay in lodging the complaint is quite convincing and the accused are not entitled for acquittal on the said ground. 2 and 3, who are the sister and brother-in-law of her husband residing at Jagtial and on their arrival and after consulting them, she could lodge the report. The explanation offered by the victim about the delay in lodging the complaint is quite convincing and the accused are not entitled for acquittal on the said ground. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the absence of any injuries on the back of the victim, the same will create a suspicion of her being subjected to rape. But, as per the rough sketch under Ex. P-7, the scene of offence is water channel in the chilli field and it was wet. Therefore, there is no possibility of receiving any injuries on the back on the victim. Further, the victim stated that both the accused prevented her from raising alarm by pressing her mouth, due to which, she received injuries on the face. The explanation is consistent with the version of the prosecution. The time of offence is approximately at 7.00 p.m. and the scene of offence is at the outskirts of the village and as it is not completely dark it could be possible for the victim to identify the accused and there is no motive for implicating the accused in this crime. In view of the same, we are convinced that the lower Court has rightly found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted them for the said offence. So far as the sentence is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused are poor people, beggars and they have no fixed abode and therefore, a lenient view may be taken. In view of the said representation of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are inclined to reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life to that of rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The judgment of the lower Court is confirmed in all other respects. 11. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. is confirmed while altering the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.