Anil Kumar Sharma, J. We have heard Sri S.C. Tiwari and Sri V.S. Singh, Advocates, appearing for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. This criminal appeal challenges the judgement and order dated 30.11.2007 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Mahoba in Special Case No. 76 of 1996, ( arising out of Case Crime No. 331 of 1995) under sections 450, 376 ( 2) G/323 IPC and under section 3 ( 2) ( v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Charkhari, District-Mahoba, convicting the appellants to undergo five year R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000/- under section 450 I.P.C. in default of payment of fine one year further imprisonment, to undergo one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- under section 323/34 I.P.C. in default of payment of fine one month further imprisonment, to undergo 10 years R.I. with fine of Rs.8,000/- under section 376 ( 2) G IPC in default of payment of fine one and half year further imprisonment and to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 3 ( 2) ( v) of S.C./S.T. Act in default of payment of fine two years further imprisonment to each appellants. The facts culled out from the record are that a written report dated 09.12.1995 was submitted to the S.H.O., Police Station-Charkhari by the complainant-Brij Lal son of Balram, R/O Village-Riwai, P.S.-Charkhari, District-Mahoba, inter alia that in the previous night he along with his wife were sleeping in their house. At about 12.00 P.M., accused-Asharfi son of Kandhi Lal and Udaibhan son of Raja Ram Yadav, came to his house and shouted to open the door. On their refusal, the accused persons after forcibly opening the door entered inside the house, raped his wife one by one while he was kept away on the point of country made pistol. On raising hue and cry, Baghraj son of Phool Chand and Rassu son of Mukunda both R/O Village-Riwai came there and challenged the accused persons. On this, the accused persons ran away giving threat that in case report is lodged, they will be killed. On raising hue and cry, Baghraj son of Phool Chand and Rassu son of Mukunda both R/O Village-Riwai came there and challenged the accused persons. On this, the accused persons ran away giving threat that in case report is lodged, they will be killed. On the basis of written report of the complainant, chick report was prepared on 09.12.1995 at about 15.30 P.M. and thereafter, G.D. entry was made and an FIR was lodged registering Case Crime No. 76 of 1996, under Sections 376/452/323/506 IPC & under Section 3 ( 1) 12 SC/ST Act, against accused- Asharfi son of Kandhi Lal and Udaibhan son of Raja Ram Yadav, aforesaid. The investigation of case was taken up by S.H.O. Narain Singh. The complainant and his wife ( victim) were sent for medical examination with chitthi majrubi on 09.12.1995 to the hospital where they were examined by Dr. Aneeta Sagar who reported weight of victim 50 k.g. and height 154 cm. and reported the following injuries: "Internal genital examination: Hymen torned and vagina admitting 1 finger easily and uterus A/V and normal size. No evidence of any injuries over vulva, prinum and majora and no bleeding. Vagina smear taken and sent to pathologist for confirmation of spermatozoa." She was also examined for other injuries by Dr. R.P. Gupta, who reported the following injuries on her body: 1.Abraded contusion 4 x 4 cm over left side of face, 1.5 cm away from left angle of mouth, Reddish blue. 2.Abraded contusion 2 x 1 cm over right side of face, 2 cm away from right angle of mouth. Reddish blue. 3.Abraded contusion 6 x 2 cm over left side of back, 9 cm below to lower margin of scapula. Reddish blue. All injuries are simple in nature caused by hand & rough object. The complainant-Brij Lal son of Balram was also examined by Dr. R.P. Gupta, who reported following injuries on his body: 1.Lacerated wound 2 x 1/2 cm x skin over right parietal region of head, 9 cm above to tragus of right ear, clotted blood present around the wound. 2.Contusion 4 x 2 cm over right side of face, 4 cm anterior to tragus of right ear. Reddish blue. 3.Contusion 7 x 2 cm over lateral side of right thigh 13 cm below & lateral to anterior back spine. Reddish blue. 2.Contusion 4 x 2 cm over right side of face, 4 cm anterior to tragus of right ear. Reddish blue. 3.Contusion 7 x 2 cm over lateral side of right thigh 13 cm below & lateral to anterior back spine. Reddish blue. 4.C/O pain over right side of chest, marks of injury not seen. In the opinion of doctor, injury no. 1 to 3 are simple in nature, caused by hard & blunt object and duration is about 12-24 hours. After investigation, the case was committed to the Court of Session and charges were framed against the accused persons as stated above. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses namely Rassu- P.W.1, Baghraj-P.W.2, Phoola Devi-P.W.3, Brij Lal-P.W.4, Dr. Anita Sagar- P.W.5, Dr. M.S. Rajput-P.W.6, Dr. R.P. Gupta-P.W.7, and Amar Singh-P.W.8 in support of its case whereas the accused produced Ram Murti as D.W.1 in support of his case. P.W.1-Rassu son of Mukunda, R/O Village-Riwai, P.S. Charkhari, District-Mahoba, stated that six and half years back he had not seen accused Asharfi and Udaibhan in torch light, coming out from the house of Brij Lal and running away; that he has no knowledge that the accused persons had raped the wife of Brij Lal one by one. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. However, in his cross-examination by the State counsel he stated that the police inspector had not taken his statement and the alleged statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. read over to him was not given by him to the Inspector; that he neither had heard any noise nor had gone to the house of Brij Lal. He also denied suggestion that he is not giving truthful deposition due to fear of accused persons. P.W.2-Baghraj son of Phool Chand, R/O Village-Riwai, P.S.-Charkhari, also corroborated the statement given by P.W.1 denying that about six and a half years earlier he had seen Asharfi and Udaibhan of his village running away from the house of Brij Lal. He has no knowledge of the incident. The accused persons had not raped the wife of Brij Lal at about 12.00 midnight and he was not told about it by the wife of Brij Lal. This witness too was declared hostile. In cross examination by the State counsel he also stated that he had not given any such statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. which was read over to him. This witness too was declared hostile. In cross examination by the State counsel he also stated that he had not given any such statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. which was read over to him. He has further stated that neither he had colluded with accused persons nor he had reached the place of occurrence at the time of midnight. There was no cross-examination of the witness by the defence counsel. P.W.3-the victim wife of Brij Lal in her examination-in-chief, corroborated the facts stated by her husband in the written report and stated that on the following day of the incident, she with her husband went to the police station and lodged the FIR against the accused persons. In the cross-examination of victim, the defence counsel could not elicit any thing which could benefit the accused. She also stated that before rape her hands were tied. Regarding question as to why FIR could not be lodged earlier, she stated that there was no conveyance available at 12.00 P.M. and as she was having pain she could not cover the distance of 5-6 km. to the police station at that time. She also stated that she was raped by gap and denied that any false report has been lodged against the accused persons. P.W.4-Brij Lal son of Balram also corroborated the statement of her wife, stating that he had lodged the report against the accused persons; he does not remember who had written it but it was written on his dictation. He has further stated that he could not lodge the FIR earlier due to fear as the assailants while running away had threatened him with dire consequences. In his cross-examination he has stated that the report was written out side the police station where police inspector was not present. He denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused persons rather he emphatically stated that he and his wife had gone on foot to lodge the FIR. P.W.5- Dr. In his cross-examination he has stated that the report was written out side the police station where police inspector was not present. He denied the suggestion that he falsely implicated the accused persons rather he emphatically stated that he and his wife had gone on foot to lodge the FIR. P.W.5- Dr. Aneeta Sagar, C.M.S., Women Hospital, Banda, stated that she had examined the victim, wife of complainant who had been brought by Constable- Hakim Singh and had submitted the report of injuries which she proved before the Court wherein she stated that as per injuries she does not know whether on 09.12.1995 at about 12.00 P.M. rape was committed or not as the victim was habitual of sex and there was no injury on internal parts of her body. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had not examined the external injuries of victim which were examined by Dr. R.P. Gupta and that she had not prepared the supplementary report regarding chemical examination for spermatozoa. P.W.6-Dr. M.S. Rajpoot, Medical Officer, District-Hospital, Orai, stated that after examination of victim he did not found spermatozoa in smear. According to him, spermatozoa can be found in vagina till 24 hours since rape. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there can be difference of 6 hours either way in the life of spermatozoa. P.W.7-Dr. R.P. Gupta, District Hospital-Sultanpur, stated that on 9.12.1995 he was posted in Primary Health Centre, Charkhari and had examined Brij Lal son of Balram Chamar at about 4.00 P.M. who was brought by Constable-Hakim Singh. Sri Gupta narrated the wounds stating that injury nos. 1 to 3 were simple in nature caused by solid object of wood about 12-24 hours earlier. He had also examined the victim for external injuries and was of the opinion that all three external injuries received by her were 12-24 hours earlier and were caused by blunt object. He also proved injury report prepared by him in respect of victim as well as of complainant-Brij Lal as Ex. Ka-4 and Ex. Ka-5. In his cross-examination he has stated that in his report he has shown the injury 12-24 hours earlier, but they can be of 18-20 hours earlier also. P.W. 8- Amar Singh, retired Inspector of Police, son of late Bhagwat Swaroop, was examined by the prosecution who had investigated the case. Ka-4 and Ex. Ka-5. In his cross-examination he has stated that in his report he has shown the injury 12-24 hours earlier, but they can be of 18-20 hours earlier also. P.W. 8- Amar Singh, retired Inspector of Police, son of late Bhagwat Swaroop, was examined by the prosecution who had investigated the case. He stated that earlier the case was investigated by Narain Singh and on his transfer he had taken over the investigation and arrested the accused persons on 13.12.1995 and they were sent jail by the Court. The statement of accused persons was taken in jail and he has submitted charge sheet against them. He proved the FIR and copy of General Diary in the hand writing of Constable-Ram Murti, who was posted with him. In his cross-examination he has submitted that case was registered in his presence, but neither he had taken statement of any witnesses nor prepared the site-plan as all this was done by his predecessor. The accused persons in their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charges and claimed to be tried. They also produced D.W.1-Ram Murti son of Durga Prasad, R/O Village-Riwai, P.S. Charkhari, District-Mahoba in support of their case. Ram Murti stated that he knows the accused persons who belong to his village, and that he heard that accused person had entered in the house of Brij Lal who have beaten him and his wife, but no offence of rape was committed by them. He further stated that there are two parties in the village and the accused persons have been implicated because of partibandi in the village. In his cross-examination he has stated that house of accused persons is about 1 km. away from his house as such he had not heard any hue and cry from the house of complainant; that he had come to know about marpeet from others, but he had not made any inquiry in this regard or with regard to the allegation of rape by the victim. He also denied the suggestion that he had come in the Court to give false statement on behalf of accused persons. He also denied the suggestion that he had come in the Court to give false statement on behalf of accused persons. The Court after hearing the parties, and on perusal of record held that though there had been no evidence of rape from internal private part of the victim samples of spermatozoa was taken about 48 hours after incident of said rape, but the injuries received by the victim, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused persons cannot be falsely implicated due to enmity or village partivandi. The Court has found that even the statement of sufferer or victim and her husband which is fully corroborated by medical evidence and by supporting facts & circumstances is sufficient to up hold the guilt of accused as no person would like to falsely implicate any person alleging rape with his wife. The victim and her husband have received external injuries during rape committed by the accused. They have been beaten by the butt of the pistol and made to succinct forcibly to the dictates of the accused persons and has therefore convicted and sentenced them as stated above. The external injuries found on the person of victim and her husband themselves speak volumes about the incident and the manner in which the victim was ravished by both the accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has committed an illegality in convicting the appellant without considering the evidence available on record. According to him, the prosecution could not prove its case with cogent and reliable evidence; that their conviction is against the weight of evidence on record, as such is liable to be set aside. He has also argued that the medical evidence do not corroborate allegations of forcible rape as doctor has not found any sign of rape committed to the victim, therefore, sentence by learned trial court is liable to be quashed and in any case no sign of injury or spermatozoa has been found by the doctors in the vaginal smear of victim which may indicate that she was raped by the accused persons. It is further argued that story of prosecution is unreasonable and unbelievable as no body will commit rape etc. It is further argued that story of prosecution is unreasonable and unbelievable as no body will commit rape etc. in the presence of husband of lady after breaking open the door of the house in the late night, therefore, the whole story had been concocted by the complainant just to implicate the appellants in collusion with the local Pradhan who is having enmity due to election politics. The other motive behind their false implication by the complainant was to get compensation from the Government as per SC/ST Rules, 1995 as they belong to SC/ST category; that independent persons, P.W. 1 Rassu, P.W. 2 Baghraj, who were examined, have not supported the prosecution case and only witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution are P.W. 3-wife of Brij Lal and P.W. 4-Brajlal ( complainant) alleged victims in the case. It is stated that initially the case was registered under sections 376/452/323/506 IPC and 3( I) 12 SC/ST Act and charge was also made in the similar sections on 19.12.1995 by SHO, Charkhari, who was not competent officer; and that sufficient evidence is not available on record on the basis of which conviction could have been held even then the trial court has convicted the appellants against the record ignoring the evidence in favour of the appellants. After hearing counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., we find that there is clear version by the victim of rape, wife of Brij Lal and her husband, who narrating the manner of incident proved that they were sleeping inside the house and when accused appellants who were already known to them asked to open the door they refused to open the door. The accused persons then insisted upon for opening the door but when the complainant declined to open it, they forcibly opened the door and thereafter beaten the husband of the victim and raped his wife by making them to comply with their orders at gun point. It also appears from the record that the victim and her husband were medically examined and the doctor found that they had sustained simple injuries on external parts of their body. The injured complainant had also lodged the F.I.R. which has been discussed above in this judgment. It also appears from the record that the victim and her husband were medically examined and the doctor found that they had sustained simple injuries on external parts of their body. The injured complainant had also lodged the F.I.R. which has been discussed above in this judgment. Considering the case of the complainant that her wife was raped at gun point, it is apparent that there was no question of any grievous injury required to be inflicted upon them in the facts and circumstances of the case. As stated earlier spermatozoa can be found in vaginal smear up to 24 hours with difference of 6 hours i.e. 18 to 30 hours on the either side. Vaginal smear of victim was taken after 40-48 hours, hence there could not be even a remote possibility of finding any spermatozoa as evidence of rape in the circumstances, particularly when victim is found to be a married woman and habitual of sex. As regards false implication due to partibandi is concerned, suffice it to say that normally no person would like to incriminate his young wife in such case, merely on the ground that he belongs to other party. Evidence of victim is sufficient for this purpose, if it is consistent and supported by other evidence. In the instant case, victim has been consistent in her statement about the facts and circumstances before and after rape had been committed on her person as well as the manner in which the appellants had committed it. Her statement is also corroborated by her husband and both of them have stood the cross-examination unflinchingly. The counsel for accused-appellants in the court below could not elicit any thing from their statement even after framing questions in a crude manner. Her statement is also proved from the medical evidence and the manner in which rape was committed. Merely because P.W. 1 and 2 have been declared hostile, the incident itself would not become suspicious. For all the reasons stated above, we are of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned in the present appeal, and the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under sections 376 ( 2) ( g), 450, 323 IPC and section 3( 2)( v) of S.C. & S.T. Act. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Let a certified copy of judgment be sent to the court concerned for ensuring compliance which should be reported to this Court within two months.