JUDGMENT : AKHILESH CHANDRA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) each, in default, further to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, as awarded by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, on 22nd April 2002, in Session Trial No. 166/2000 arising out of Chapra Mufassil (Jalalpur) P.S. Case No. 80/99. 3. The prosecution case in short, based on Exhibit – 2, written report of the informant (P.W.2), submitted on 7th March 1999 to police station, is that in the previous evening Tilak ceremony of her cousin was organized and at 11.30 p.m. she intimating her mother P.W.1 going out to meet natural call and while she arrived in the field of one Rangi Singh, suddenly appellant no. 1 Basant Singh got hold of her hands and pulled down in the field, on alarm, appellant no. 2 beside one Santosh Singh (absconding during trial) and Mantu Sharma co-accused facing trial but acquitted by same judgment, arrived, all the three completely overpowering her paving way to appellant no. 1 to commit rape upon her followed by appellant no. 2, meanwhile, she unsuccessfully tried to escape and raised alarm and after satisfying their evil desires appellant no. 2 took away her payal and ear ring and locket and all were fled away, but before leaving the place they also assaulted her, anyhow she could come to her house and narrated the incident to her parents P.Ws. 1 & 3. 4. All the four miscreants were put on trial for the offences under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in fact under law under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code) and to substantiate the charges prosecution besides producing documentary evidence examined altogether 7 witnesses.– Exhibit 1 – Death Certificate Exhibit 2 – Signature of Shambhu Prasad on First Information Report Exhibit 3 – Injury report Exhibit 4 – Seizure list Exhibit 5 – Formal F.I.R. 5. On the other hand, the defence besides producing documentary evidence produced one witness. Exhibit A – Photocopy of true F.I.R. Exhibit B – Order in S. Tr. On the other hand, the defence besides producing documentary evidence produced one witness. Exhibit A – Photocopy of true F.I.R. Exhibit B – Order in S. Tr. No. 49/97 Exhibit Y – Photocopy of para 6 of the case diary 6. On consideration of the materials on record, trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner aforesaid. 7. Out of seven witnesses, P.W.4 Raj Kishore Mahto is a formal witness proved Exhibit 1 i.e. death certificate and P.W. 1 who is none else than his own sister and P.W.5 Shankar Prasad is another formal witness proved Exhibit 2. P.W.6 Dr. Pratima Gupta has examined the prosecutrix on 7th March 1999 at about 2.00 p.m. and found the following injuries and proved her report Exhibit 3 and also point her age between 16 to 20 years.– “Hymen torn, one lacerated injury about 1” x 1/4” x 1/10” extending from hymen at 5’clock position to the perenium. Blood oozing from the lacerated margin, time of injury within 24 hrs. Vaginal swab taken for pathological examination & x-ray advised for confirmation of age. Radiologically age appeared above 16 yrs. & below 20 yrs. Opinion – (I) From physical examination & pathological report the possibility of rape cannot be denied. (II) Age – The age of victim girl is between 10 to 20 yrs.” 8. P.W.1 Shanti Devi, mother of the prosecutrix has almost stated prosecution version with only difference that at 7.00 p.m. prosecutrix left her company, but on arrival, stated about the miseries faced by her and this witness also found bleeding from private part of the prosecutrix whose wearings were also blood-stained. She was tested by one line cross examination and admits she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. Thereafter, as is evident from the record, one application was filed without complying the legal requirement to recall her for further cross examination but by the time any order could be passed on such application, she died on 9th September 2001, vide Exhibit 1. 9. P.W.3 Bhardul Prasad is father of the prosecutrix and husband of P.W.1 Shanti Devi also states the prosecution version, since he was busy in function, her wife P.W.1 Shanti Devi came to him and intimated about the incident. He also found blood-stained cloths which were produced to police at police station. 9. P.W.3 Bhardul Prasad is father of the prosecutrix and husband of P.W.1 Shanti Devi also states the prosecution version, since he was busy in function, her wife P.W.1 Shanti Devi came to him and intimated about the incident. He also found blood-stained cloths which were produced to police at police station. This witness was cross examined at length with only intention to establish that present case was instituted at the instance of one Brahmdeo Sharma with whom defence side is at inimical terms and this witness is his employee, but the defence could not be able to take all these things from this witness. This witness has also developed the prosecution version by saying that all the four committed rape upon his daughter. 10. P.W.2 Ramawati Kumari, the prosecutrix has stated the prosecution version with simply change of sequence of committing rape upon her in the written report, it was appellant no. 1 followed by appellant no. 2 committed the offence whereas in her statement she stated the absconding accused has the person committing such offence followed by remaining two. She also states about the report being ascribed by one Shambhu and on production of her blood-stained wearings one thing more is imparting to mention roughly two months after the occurrence she became married. In cross examination, she states about snatching of her ornaments by the miscreants and on coming to house intimated her parents and appearing police station from where sent for medical examination. She further denied her father being the employee of Brahmdeo Sharma at whose instance case was instituted. 11. Now, last but not the least, P.W.7 Sudheshwar Pandey, Investigating Officer, after investigation submitted charge-sheet on 26th June 1999, and during investigation, recording further statement of the prosecutrix and statement of other witness inspected the place of occurrence and found the crops crushed within a particular range and also seized the wearings of the prosecutrix with only difference on comparison with Exhibit 4 which indicates such seizure on 8th March 1999 at 11.00 a.m. at the house of the prosecutrix whereas P.Ws. 2 and 3 have said about its production and seizure at police station and this P.W.7 in examination in chief has said nothing about the place of such seizure. 12. 2 and 3 have said about its production and seizure at police station and this P.W.7 in examination in chief has said nothing about the place of such seizure. 12. The defence documents are just to show the enmity between the Brahmdeo Sharma and defence side, but nothing more similar is the position of D.W. 1 namely, Laxman Singh. 13. The statement of prosecutrix (P.W.2) is itself sufficient to establish that she was subjected to gang rape at the hands of two appellants besides their associates and P.Ws.1 & 3 have stated about immediate and natural conduct of the prosecutrix. The doctor examining her also found the wrong though some after effects like spermatozoa etc. were not traced. It make no difference to the prosecution version which substantially established and proved by the prosecutrix itself and further strengthen by corroboration. In view of the above submission on behalf of the appellants as regard to false implication due to enmity with the others, even taking risk of family prestige as well prestige of young prosecutrix who was about to be married is not at all acceptable. 14. The facts and circumstances discussed above needs no interference in conviction of the two appellants. However, taking into consideration their respective ages as they were respectively 23 & 27 years of age at the time of recording statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 1st February 2002, that means at the time of occurrence they ought to have been respectively 21 & 24 years of age and the sentence awarded to them may be reduced from ten years to seven years, but that too only on deposit of fine of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) each within two months. 15. With the above conditional modification in sentence the appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellants are to surrender immediately to serve remaining period of their sentence. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below as aforesaid through Fax at the cost of appellants. 17. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court below forthwith. ?