ORDER This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr. P.C.), is directed against judgment and order dated 14-10-2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court 3rd, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2002, whereby said Court has convicted the accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi, under Sections 307 and 376 of I.P.C., and on each count he has bee sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila has been convicted under Section 201 of I.P.C., and instead of sentencing at once, she has been given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower Court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW1 Ms. Archana used to live in village Khadri Shyampur (Delhi Farm), within the limits of Police Station Rishikesh. Her father PW 2 Sohan Lal Nautiyal was posted as Patwari in Tehsil Lansdowne (Pauri Garhwal) and her mother used to live in Village Neelkanth, in an ancestral house of the family. On 5-5-2002, the girl (PW1) aged 23 years was all alone in her house in Delhi Farm, Khadri Shyampur, as her brother Pankaj had gone to her mother’s place on that day. She was preparing for her M.A. Final Examination. Accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi was her cousin (aunt’s son/BUA KA LADKA) who used to live in the neighbour-hood of PW1 with his family and accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila is his wife. It alleged that on 5-5-2002, in the wee hours, when the girl was studying, accused Jyoti Prasad Joshi who was cousin of the girl got opened the doors of her room under pretext that he had to attend the nature’s call. The moment, the girl opened the door, the accused Jyoti Prasad Joshi pounced upon her and pressed her breasts. PW1 Archana resisted with all her might and there was scuffle between the two. However, the accused succeeded in grounding the girl by thrashing her down again and again in the bed and the ground. When the girl became listless, the accused committed rape on her after closing her mouth with CHUNNI (piece of cloth). PW1 Archana resisted with all her might and there was scuffle between the two. However, the accused succeeded in grounding the girl by thrashing her down again and again in the bed and the ground. When the girl became listless, the accused committed rape on her after closing her mouth with CHUNNI (piece of cloth). The accused did not stop there, after committing the rape he again thrashed the girl on the ground and attempted to kill her by strangulating her with the help of Chunni. When the tongue of the girl started coming out, the accused treating her dead left her there and went out of the house after closing the doors from outside. After some time, the girl (P.W. 1) regained some consciousness, but the doors were closed from outside and she went to her roof by crawling through staircase, from where, she called accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila (wife of the accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi). Accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila opened the door, which was bolted from outside and the victim disclosed the horrifying incident to her. Accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila though sympathized with her (P.W. 1) but advised her not to report the matter to the police and promised her that she (P.W. 1) would be given all necessary medical treatment. Sushila (accused/appellant No. 2) cleaned the floor with a wet cloth, in which there were stains of blood and also washed the blood stained clothes of the victim. Thereafter, both the accused/appellants took the victim in a three-wheeler to the Government Hospital, Rishikesh, where P.W. 4 Dr. S. Kansal examined and recorded as many as ten injuries found on the person of P.W. 1 Ms. Archana and prepared report (Ex. A3). Thereafter, accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi sent information to the parents of the victim that she was in the Hospital due to some injuries suffered by her. On 6-5-2002, P.W. 2 Sohan Lal Nautiyal (father of the girl) came to Rishikesh, where his wife had already reached from her ancestral house. Archana and prepared report (Ex. A3). Thereafter, accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi sent information to the parents of the victim that she was in the Hospital due to some injuries suffered by her. On 6-5-2002, P.W. 2 Sohan Lal Nautiyal (father of the girl) came to Rishikesh, where his wife had already reached from her ancestral house. P.W. 2 Sohan Lal Nautiyal after he was told about the horrifying incident by his daughter gave First Information Report (Ex.A1) at Police Station Rishikesh on 7-5-2002, at 1.20 p.m. on the basis of which Crime No. 127 of 2002, was registered in respect of offences punishable under Section 376, 307 and 201 of IPC, against the accused/appellants Jyoti Prasad Joshi and his wife Smt. Sushila. P.W.6 Sub-Inspector B. K. Singh started investigation of the case. The girl (P.W. 1) was medically examined by P.W. 5 Dr. Susmita, a Gynecologist, who examined her private parts and prepared medical report (Ex. A4). The injuries suffered by the accused Jyoti Prasad Joshi in the alleged scuffle were examined by P.W. 3 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bansal. Statement of the victim (P.W. 1) was said have been got recorded before the Magistrate, P.W. 7 Sub-Inspector, Bhagwati Prasad was entrusted further investigation and Investigating Officer (P.W. 6) handed over the investigation to him. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet (Ex. A12) was submitted by P.W. 7 Sub-Inspector Bhagwati Prasad against the accused/appellants Jyoti Prasad Joshi and Smt. Sushila for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 376, 307 and 201 of IPC. 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the charge-sheet, after giving necessary copies to both the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr. P.C. appears to have committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. On 12-11-2002, Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court 3rd, Dehradun, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 307 of IPC, against the accused Jyoti Prasad Joshi, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As against accused/appellant No. 2 Smt. Sushila only charge of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was framed in reply to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Ms. Archana (the victim), P.W. 2 Sohan Lal Nautiyal (informant and father of the victim), P.W. 3 Dr. As against accused/appellant No. 2 Smt. Sushila only charge of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC was framed in reply to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Ms. Archana (the victim), P.W. 2 Sohan Lal Nautiyal (informant and father of the victim), P.W. 3 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bansal (Medical Officer, who examined the injuries on the person of the accused), P.W. 4 Dr. S. Kansal (The Medical Officer, who examined the injuries on the person of the victim), P.W. 5 Dr. Susmita (Gynecologist, who examined the private parts of the victim), P.W. 6 Sub Inspector, B. K. Singh (Who started investigation) and P.W. 7 Sub-Inspector, Bhagwati Prasad (who concluded the investigation). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused, in reply to which, they pleaded that evidence adduced against them was false. In defence D.W. 1 Dr. K. S. Rana (Village Pradhan) and D.W. 2 Shekhar Chandra (Pharmacist) were got examined. The trial Court after hearing the parties, found that the charge of offences punishable under Sections 376 and 307 of IPC is proved against the accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi and convicted him accordingly. The trial Court further found that the charge of offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, is proved against the accused/appellant No. 2 Smt. Sushila and convicted her accordingly. After hearing on sentence, the trial Court sentenced the convict Jyoti Prasad Joshi to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307 of IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 of IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In default of the payment of fine, the convict (Jyoti Prasad Joshi) was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. With regard to the accused/appellant No. 2 Smt. Sushila considering her conduct instead of sentencing her under Section 201 of IPC, immediately she was given benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Aggrieved by impugned judgment and order dated 14-10-2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court 3rd Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2002, this appeal is preferred by the convicts. 5. Aggrieved by impugned judgment and order dated 14-10-2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court 3rd Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 2002, this appeal is preferred by the convicts. 5. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the injuries said to have been suffered by the accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi in the incident, which were recorded by P.W. 3 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bansal on 7-5-2002. The same are being reproduced below from injury report (Ex. A2) : A lacerated wound over ring finger of left hand, near base of nail at dorsal aspect size 2.5 x .5 cm, deep to skin, brownish in colour, regular margins in all dorsal aspect. 2. An abrasion over left thumb of dorsal aspect size .5X .5 cm. over skin, brownish to black in colour over base of thumb, near to it two light abrasion also seen brownish in colour. 3. An abrasion over left elbow of posterior aspect size 1 x 1 cm, brownish in colour. The Medical Officer opined that the injuries suffered by the accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi were simple in nature. In his statement P.W. 3 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Bansal stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 could have been caused by cutting with the teeth and injury No. 3 could have caused with the impact of the body on the ground or on the cot. 6. Now this Court would like to mention the injuries found suffered by the victim (Ms. Archana) which were recorded by P.W. 4 Dr. S. Kansal of Government Hospital Rishikesh, on 6-5-2002. The same are being reproduced below from the injury report (Ex. A3) : i) 4 x 4 cm. contusion at occiput of scalp with pain and tenderness. ii) Complaint of severe pain at cervical spine and unable to turn and fold her neck. iii) Multiple abraded contusions at whole of anterior & both lateral surface of neck, brown colour. (Posterior surface are not visible). iv) Multiple abraded contusions at upper part of chest up to 3-4 ribs on both sides extending to clavicular region & up to shoulders. v) Upper half of left breast are red (contusions). vi) Lateral half of conjunctiva of right eye are red. vii) Conjunctive of left eye are red & swelling present. viii) 8 x 5 cm. iv) Multiple abraded contusions at upper part of chest up to 3-4 ribs on both sides extending to clavicular region & up to shoulders. v) Upper half of left breast are red (contusions). vi) Lateral half of conjunctiva of right eye are red. vii) Conjunctive of left eye are red & swelling present. viii) 8 x 5 cm. contusion at left cheek & left temporomandibular joint including the left maxilla & left mandle. ix) Multiple abrasions on flex (Palmar) surface of left palm. Brown colour. x) Tongue has multiple abrasions & swelling of whole tongue. Duration of the injury found by the Medical Officer is 1-3 days old. P.W. 4 Dr. S. Kanwal has stated that the injuries could have been caused on 5-5-2002, at about 4.00 a.m. He has further stated that injury Nos. 3-4 could have caused due to the strangulation with a Chunni (piece of cloth). According to said Medical Officer injury No. 10 could have been caused after the tongue got pressed with the teeth and rest of the injuries according to the Medical Officer P.W. 4 could have been caused due to scuffle. 7. Private parts of the victim (P.W. 1 Ms. Archana) were examined by P.W. 5 Dr. Susmita on 8-5-2002. Said Medical Officer P.W. 5 Dr. Susmita, a Gynecologist, has stated that on examination of the victim, she found that there was lacerated wound at 6 O’clock position in the hymen of the victim of almost 0.25 cm. x 025 cm. x hymen deep, margins inflamed. P.W. 5 Dr. Susmita further stated that six slides of vaginal smear were taken and were sent for examination of sperm. She further told that the vagina of the victim admitted two fingers. She opined in her examination in chief that the injuries suffered by the victim in her private parts could have been caused due to sexual intercourse. 8. In the light of the above medical reports of the accused and the victim, the statement of P.W. 1 Ms. Archana is required to be seen. She (P.W. 1 Ms. Archana) aged 23 years has stated that she was student of M.A. Final Year. She further told that she was living in her house in Delhi Farm, Khadri, Shyampur. She further told that her father was a Patwari. Narrating the incident P.W. 1 Ms. Archana is required to be seen. She (P.W. 1 Ms. Archana) aged 23 years has stated that she was student of M.A. Final Year. She further told that she was living in her house in Delhi Farm, Khadri, Shyampur. She further told that her father was a Patwari. Narrating the incident P.W. 1 Ms. Archna stated that on 5-5-2002, her father was away, on is duty in Tehsil Lansdowne, and her mother was in Neelkanth. The victim stated that her brother Pankaj who used to live with her had also gone on that day to Neelkanth. She was all alone in the house. She further stated that between 3.30-4.00 a.m. she was studying her books when accused Jyoti Prasad Joshi who was son of her aunt (BUA) came and got opened the door under the pretext that he has to ease out himself in the wash room. She further told that the moment she opened the door, the accused pounced on her and pressed her breasts. P.W. 1 Ms. Archana told that she resisted the accused, but he caught her by her hairs and dragged her to the adjoining room, and thrashed her on the bed. The victim further told that she made every effort to get herself freed, but the accused thrashed her head here and there and ultimately, grounded her. P.W. 1 Ms. Archana narrating the horrifying incident stated that when she became listless, the accused tied her mouth with a DUPATTA (piece of cloth/Chunni) and committing rape on her. She further told that accused did not stop there and after committed rape on her he tied Chunni around her neck and attempted to kill her. When her tongue came out of her mouth and got stuck between her teeth, the accused left the house and closed the room by bolting the door from outside. She further told that after some time she regained consciousness, but the room was closed. The victim further told that she crawled through staircase and reached on the roof at 6.00-7.00 a.m. P.W. 1 Ms. Archana further told that the house of the accused was in the neighbourhood at the distance of 10-15 metres. She told that accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila wife of accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi was standing out of her house. The witness further stated that by gestures she called her. Archana further told that the house of the accused was in the neighbourhood at the distance of 10-15 metres. She told that accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila wife of accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi was standing out of her house. The witness further stated that by gestures she called her. She (Sushila) came to her house and opened the door (as it was bolted from outside). The victim told her about the incident. The victim further stated that her Salwar Suite was blood stained and there was blood on the ground. On hearing the story, accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila (wife of accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi) told her not to disclose the incident to anyone and she would get her medically treated. It is further stated by the witness (P.W. 1) Ms. Archana that accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila cleaned the blood stains on the floor with a wet cloth and took the blood stained clothes of the victim for getting them washed. According to P.W. 1 Ms. Archana after some time both the accused came and took her in a three wheeler to Government Hospital, Rishikesh, where they told to the Doctor that the victim had fallen from the staircase. The accused informed the parent of the victim. P.W. 1 Ms. Archana further stated that on 7th of May 2002, she told about the horrifying incident of rape to her mother, who in turn told the story to the father of the victim. She has further stated that thereafter her father directly asked her about the incident and she told about it. She further told that her father gave a report of the incident. The victim (P.W. 1) has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has come out in her statement, which creates reasonable doubt in her testimony. Her statement is fully corroborated from the medical evidence already discussed above. 9. P.W. 2 Sohan Lal Nautiyal (father of the victim) has further corroborated the prosecution story and proved the First Information Report (Ex. A1) lodged by him at the Police Station. 10. D.W. 1 Dr. K. S. Rana who was a Village Pradhan of Village Khadri has stated that in 1989, there was a dispute relating to a piece of land between Sohan Lal Nautiyal (informant) and his neighbour Joshiji, who were relatives. But mere this much of statement of D.W. 1 Dr. A1) lodged by him at the Police Station. 10. D.W. 1 Dr. K. S. Rana who was a Village Pradhan of Village Khadri has stated that in 1989, there was a dispute relating to a piece of land between Sohan Lal Nautiyal (informant) and his neighbour Joshiji, who were relatives. But mere this much of statement of D.W. 1 Dr. K.S. Rana is not sufficient to create reasonable doubt in the story narrated by P.W. 1 Ms. Archana, who suffered as many as ten injuries on her person apart from the injury suffered on her private parts. D.W. 2 Shekhar Chandra, Pharmacist of Government Hospital, Rishikesh, simply filed a photocopy of Bed Head Ticket of the victim. His evidence is formal in nature and does not help the defence, rather from the cross-examination of this witness (D.W. 2) it is clear that (P.W. 1) Archana was admitted in the hospital and she was conscious. 11. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that there is delay in lodging of First Information Report, as the same was got lodged after a period of two days. However, this Court finds that merely delay in lodging the First Information Report is not fatal to this case, as there is ample explanation on the record, for lodging the First Information Report after a period of two days. The victim was all alone on the day of incident in her house. She was admitted with the injuries on her person in the hospital, where her father came on 6-5-2002, and after she told about the incident to her father, he (P.W. 2) Sohan Lal Nautiyal gave First Information Report (Ex. A1) at the Police Station. It is also pointed out on behalf of the accused/appellants that the medical examination of the girl was highly belated. In the opinion of this Court the private parts of the girl were medically examined only after her father lodged First Information Report relating to the incident of rape. As such, there is sufficient explanation on record for delayed medical examination of the private parts by P.W. 5 Dr. Susmita (Gynecologist). 12. It is also pointed out on behalf of the accused/appellants that the pathological examination report on the slides of smear taken is negative to spermatozoa. In the opinion of this Court said fact is not of much relevance in this case. Susmita (Gynecologist). 12. It is also pointed out on behalf of the accused/appellants that the pathological examination report on the slides of smear taken is negative to spermatozoa. In the opinion of this Court said fact is not of much relevance in this case. For the reason that the slides of smear were not taken immediately after the incident of sexual intercourse. The incident took place on 5-5-2002, and the slides were taken on 8-5-2005 at the time of examination of private parts of the victim. 13. Mr. L. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the story of commission of rape by the cousin of the victim who was a married person having two children is not natural and the accused have been implicated due to enmity. Had there been no injury on the person of the victim, or had there been no lacerated wound found in the hymen by the Medical Officer, what was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant could have been accepted. But in the present case, the injuries found on the person of the victim speak volumes of truth regarding the incident. 14. Lastly, it is submitted that the conduct of both the accused (that they admittedly took the victim to the hospital and informed her parents) has not been considered by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record. This Court has gone through the evidence on record carefully. What appears in the present case is this that after accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila (wife of accused/appellant No. 1) came to know about the incident, she, to make the victim not to report the matter to Police, took the victim to the hospital with her husband and got informed her parents. Needless to say that admittedly, the victim and accused are relatives. In the opinion of this Court the trial Court has already taken into consideration the conduct of the accused as above and that is why the accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi has been awarded the minimum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under the law, and accused/appellant No. 2 Sushila has been given the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Learned counsel for the appellants drew attention of this Court to the case of State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 SC 391 and submitted that in exceptional circumstances the sentence of imprisonment may be further reduced from seven years. However, facts of said case were different to the present case, as in the case referred, the victim and accused had a love affairs. It is not so in the present case. As such, this Court is of the view that State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar (supra) is of no help to the appellants. 15. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court finds no force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi under Sections 307 and 376 of IPC, is hereby affirmed. The conviction of accused/appellant No. 2 under Section 201 of IPC, is also affirmed. Accused/appellant No. 1 Jyoti Prasad Joshi is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Lower Court record be sent back to the Court concerned to make the accused/appellants No. 1 to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.