JUDGMENT : AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The two appellants have preferred this appeal against their convicted and sentence for the offences under Sections 376 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and two years respectively, which are to run concurrently, as awarded on 16th April 2002, by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Motihiari, in Session Trial No. 370/7 of 1998/99 arising out of Turkaulia P.S. Case No. 92/95. 3. The prosecution case, based on the fardbeyan of prosecutrix P.W.4 on 4th June, 1995, at 23 hours at police station Turkaulia, is that in the same evening about 6.00 P.M. the appellant Bindeshwari Rai and Jhapsi Mahto had earlier assaulted informant’s brother, Mathura Bhagat, who had gone to complain about such assault to the uncle of appellant Bindeshwari Rai, in between around 7.30 P.M. both these appellants arrived at her house and intimated that her brother has gone to police station and asked to accompany them with some money, she proceeded with Rs. 500/- and when they were going through lonely place on her objection they explained as going through one diversion, in the mids of the way, the appellant Bhera Rai took away cash, wrist watch and locket and both committed gang rape upon her and threatened not to complain anyone, thereafter she could anyhow arrived at the said diversion informed the Chowkidar and thereafter came to police station where her statement was recorded. After institution of the case, police submitted charge-sheet and after commitment of the case trial commenced. 4. In order to substantiate the charges prosecution produced the following documentary evidence besides examining seven witness:– Exhibit 1 – Signature of Mathura Rai on Fardbeyan Exhibit 2 – Injury Report Exhibit 2/1 – Injury report Exhibit 3 – F.I.R. Exhibit 4 – Seizure list. 5. Out of whom, P.W. 2 Baliram and P.W.3 Upendra Kumar, since did not support the prosecution version declared hostile. 6. P.W.1 Mathura Rai, brother of the informant states about the incident of rape etc. being narrated by the informant to him who also brought her to police station and he has also stated that she misguided during the period, he had gone to complain about assault etc. at the house of Bindeswari Rai. 6. P.W.1 Mathura Rai, brother of the informant states about the incident of rape etc. being narrated by the informant to him who also brought her to police station and he has also stated that she misguided during the period, he had gone to complain about assault etc. at the house of Bindeswari Rai. In cross-examination, he asserts that informant is married sister but resides in a separate house in same village with her husband. He has proved his signature (Exhibit – 1) on the fardbeyan. P.W.5 Dr. Dhrub Prasad Gupta who examined P.W.1 and proved his injury report (Exhibit 2). P.W.6 Dr. Vidya Gupta, the doctor who examined the informant on 5th June 1995 at 2.30 P.M. and proved injury report (Exhibit 2/1). P.W.7 Bhuneshwar Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, proved Exhibit – 3, stated about place of occurrence etc. and production of stained sari, petticoat of the informant, prepared the seizure list in presence of P.W. 1 & 3 and proved the same as Exhibit – 4. 7. The most vital and relevant witness is the prosecutrix (P.W.3) who has stated the prosecution version and said that she was duped by the appellants who intimated about her brother being taken to police station and at their call she joined their company with some required money and was in the way finding lonely place subjected to heinous gang rape committed by the two appellants, in spite of the fact that she had gone some surgery just two or three months back and due to the incident some damage was also caused. She further states about production of her wearing to the police. In cross examination, she has stood the test and stated about the fact that appellants were well known to her since childhood (all are co-villagers) and when they called her there was no male members at her house, under compelling circumstances she joined their company in rescue of her brother, but was deprived of some cash and articles besides being subjected to heinous gang rape. There appears nothing in her evidence to disbelieve. 8. There appears nothing in her evidence to disbelieve. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants tried his level best by submitting that in spite of knowing some acquired land dispute between the appellant Bindeshwari Rai, and her brother joining the company of the appellants appears improbable, but deposing confidence upon co-villagers in spite of petty disputes especially the circumstances the appellants are coming to intimate about her brother being apprehended by the police and brought to police station. It was her natural conduct and only due to this, her entire testimony which attracts commission of the offence under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, carrying risk of her prestige and even matrimonial relationship cannot be discarded. 9. On overall consideration of the materials available, there appears no reason to disturb conviction of the appellants. However, since 19 odd years have been consumed and the appellants who after about eight months detention has been availing the privilege of bail for the last about twelve years and are to go behind the bars to suffer remaining sentence awarded subject to deposit of Rs. 30,000/- (15,000/- each) within a period of three months the sentence awarded may be reduced under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code from ten years to seven years respectively. The amount so paid shall go to the prosecutrix if alive, if not to her heirs. 10. With the above conditional modification in sentence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be at once transmitted to the court below through FAX at the cost of the appellants. 12. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court below forthwith. ?