JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - Both the Government Appeal and the Criminal Appeal arise out of the judgment dated 30.7.1987 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar in S.C. No. 2 of 1986. By the impugned order, the trial court convicted the accused persons under Sections 333/376/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 333 IPC and for two years u/s 376 I.P.C., both the sentences to run concurrently. The State Government has filed the appeal for enhancement of sentence u/s 377(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. and the accused persons have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2006 challenging their conviction and sentences as passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar. Originally, they had filed Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1999 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Banjanagar. 2. By order dated 2.1.2006 passed in the Government Appeal, this Court directed to call for the lower appellate court records for analogous hearing and disposal of both the Government Appeal and the Criminal Appeal by a common judgment in order to avoid conflicting decisions. Accordingly, the records of the above Criminal Appeal are transferred to this Court and re-registered as Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2006. 3. The case of the prosecution is that one Manorama Dei, P.W. 12 was working as A.N.M. at Banka Sub-Centre under Gobra P.H.C. On 23.6.1985 at 7.00 A.M. she had been to village Girisola to give injection to a patient. While she was returning to the Headquarters, near Gahangunala, both the accused persons stood in front of her, obstructed her movement and made her lie down on the ground. Thereafter, accused Prakash sat on her chest and accused Suryanarayan forcibly raped her. The victim raised hullah, hearing which P. Ws. 6 and 7 and others arrived at the spot. They gave water to her and brought her to her house. Thereafter, she went to Gobra and lodged the F.I.R. before the Medical Officer, who forwarded the same to police and law was set to motion. In course of investigation, she was medically examined on the same day. Subsequently, she was also examined by the lady Assistant Surgeon of Sub-Divisional Headquarters, Bhanjanagar and also by a lady doctor of P.M.I. department of MKCG Medical College, Berhampur. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. 4. In course of investigation, she was medically examined on the same day. Subsequently, she was also examined by the lady Assistant Surgeon of Sub-Divisional Headquarters, Bhanjanagar and also by a lady doctor of P.M.I. department of MKCG Medical College, Berhampur. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that the accused persons who were the front door neighbourers of the victim, had requested her to give her Government quarters at the time of their marriage to make arrangement for feast etc, to which the victim had refused. Hence, the accused persons bore a grudge against her and out of that grudge did the above act. 5. The defence plea is complete denial of the allegation. The further plea of the accused persons is that the victim lady had asked them who are the washer men by caste, to wash the cloths worn by her at the time of menstruation period. As they had refused to oblige, the victim with the help of the C.I. of Police, who belongs to her home district, have managed to file this false case against them. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including the victim and the doctor, and proved 16 exhibits. Defence examined none. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar who tried the case, by his judgment dated 30.7.1987 convicted and sentenced the accused persons as stated earlier, with the finding that both the accused persons caused grievous hurt to the victim, who is a Government servant and was discharging her duty as such, with intent to prevent her from discharging her duty as such public servant and also committed rape on her. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused assails the judgment on the following grounds: (i) The trial court has failed to appreciate that the victim-P.W. 12 had not mentioned about rape on her in the F.I.R. but disclosed the same at a belated stage, which finds no support from the materials on record. (ii) The trial court should not have accepted the evidence of the victim (P.W. 12) an adult woman connected with medical profession, particularly when she had not mentioned in the F.I.R. about rape and outrage of her modesty, but had only made complaint about forcible snatching of valuable goods. (ii) The trial court should not have accepted the evidence of the victim (P.W. 12) an adult woman connected with medical profession, particularly when she had not mentioned in the F.I.R. about rape and outrage of her modesty, but had only made complaint about forcible snatching of valuable goods. She had made one statement in the F.I.R. and another before Court, which is nothing but development of prosecution case from stage to stage. (iii) The trial court has failed to appreciate that non-examination of the A.S.I., Gangapur Police Station, who had received the F.I.R., without assigning any reason whatsoever is fatal to the prosecution. (iv) The trial court should not have accepted the most improbable story of elder brother committing rape while the younger brother was sitting on her chest. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently contends that the trial court has rightly convicted the Appellants basing upon the evidence of the victim. Both the accused have committed rape on a Government servant after causing grievous hurt to her person, which is heinous in nature. Lastly he submits that the trial court has taken a lenient view while passing the order of sentence, which is quite inadequate and is liable to be enhanced. 9. Perused the records. The victim-P.W. 12 herself reported the matter before Police Station through the medical officer of Gobra P.H.C. on the same day at about 5.00 P.M. The occurrence had taken place at 8 A.M. The case was immediately registered u/s 341/325/379/34 IPC. In the said report the victim had not mentioned about rape and about molestation. She had only stated about the assault given to her by the accused persons and removal of earring by them. She was examined by the Medical Officer of the same P.H.C. (P.W. 14), who noticed some injuries on her person including shaking of upper tooth. All the injuries were simple in nature. P.W. 14 in his cross-examination stated that except the injuries he had noticed on her person, she had not complained of anything more. P.W. 11 was the Assistant Professor, F.M.T. Department, M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur at the relevant time. She examined the victim on 27.6.1985 and found no sign of violence or injury on her person. She also specifically admitted in her cross-examination that the missing of tooth from the lower jaw might have been caused prior to 23.6.1985. P.W. 11 was the Assistant Professor, F.M.T. Department, M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur at the relevant time. She examined the victim on 27.6.1985 and found no sign of violence or injury on her person. She also specifically admitted in her cross-examination that the missing of tooth from the lower jaw might have been caused prior to 23.6.1985. The victim girl was habituated to sexual intercourse. Evidence of sexual intercourse in the recent past cannot be ruled out. P.W. 2-the lady Assistant Surgeon attached to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Bhanjanagar, who examined the victim on 26.6.1985 stated in her evidence that there was no discharge from her vagina, there was no matting of pubic hair, the hymen was absent, and there was no sign of local inflammation. She referred the victim to FMT, MKCG, Medical College Hospital, Berhampur for further examination and for determination of age. P.W. 12- the victim stated in her evidence that both the accused persons had participated in the above act. Accused Prakash Sethi pressed her neck and accused Surjya Sethi forcibly penetrated his penis inside her vagina. She lost her sense. Some persons including the villagers came and gave water to her. P. Ws. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 turned hostile, though according to the prosecution, P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 are the witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 8-Kumari Pradhan, from whose house the victim was returning after administering injection, has also not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 10 is the Sarpanch before whom the victim disclosed the story of rape for the first time after lodging F.I.R. This witness did not support the prosecution case. But there is no plausible explanation by the prosecution why victim did not disclose the fact of rape in the F.I.R. She also did not whisper a single word about outraging of her modesty. P.W. 12 herself admitted that she only narrated the story of rape before the Sarpanch and out of shame she did not disclose the fact before anybody else. But the Sarpanch did not support the version of the victim. P.W. 14 is the doctor who examined the victim and the victim was his subordinate staff. Even before this witness the victim had not disclosed the fact of rape. 10. But the Sarpanch did not support the version of the victim. P.W. 14 is the doctor who examined the victim and the victim was his subordinate staff. Even before this witness the victim had not disclosed the fact of rape. 10. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not accept the victim's story with regard to rape since there is no corroboration either by the oral evidence of witnesses or by the medical evidence to that effect. That apart, the victim had not disclosed the above fact in the F.I.R. or before the doctor who forwarded the F.I.R. It is the settled principle of law that the testimony of the victim can be accepted without corroboration. But, if the allegations do not find place in the F.I.R. itself, the uncorroborated statement in Court cannot be accepted or acted upon. In the instant case, the prosecutrix has alleged against two brothers, one sitting upon her chest while the other committing rape on her. This is highly improbable and creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case with regard to rape. But there are materials against the Appellants about commission of offence u/s 333/34 IPC for having assaulted a Government servant while she was discharging her lawful duties, which is corroborated by the medical evidence. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court sets aside the conviction and sentence of the accused persons under Sections 376 IPC. However, this Court confirms their conviction u/s 333/34 IPC, but keeping in view their age at the relevant time and since more than twenty years have elapsed in the meantime, sentences each of them to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand), in default to undergo R.I. for three months. If the fine amount is realized from the accused persons, 50% thereof shall be paid to the victim. 12. Both the Government Appeal and Criminal Appeal are disposed of accordingly.