JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same FIR. 2. Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 46/2006 registered at Police Station, Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC). Prosecution story in brief was that the prosecutrix aged about fifteen years was a Bengali girl. Appellant Subhash on the pretext to perform marriage with her, brought her to his village. Prosecutrix stayed with the appellant Subhash for two months. Appellant Subhash on the promise that he would perform marriage with the prosecutrix raped her. Appellant Subhash however, did not perform marriage with the prosecutrix and told her that he would perform her marriage with a blind teacher, who was having lot of money and in this way, prosecutrix would get lot of money. About three days prior to the registration of FIR, prosecutrix was left by appellant Subhash in the house of appellant Sumundra Singh. Prosecutrix averred in her complaint that she did not want to perform marriage with the teacher and wanted to return to her village and live with her parents. 3. After registration of FIR, statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 04.04.2006. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the appellants. 5. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined nine witnesses during trial. Appellant Subhash when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stated that he had nothing to do so. Appellant Sumundra Singh stated that he was blind by birth. Appellant Sumundra Singh appeared in the witness box as DW-1. 6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 18.12.2006 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 376 I.P.C. Appellant Subhash was also convicted and sentenced under Section 363 & 366 I.P.C. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish is case. Appellants have been falsely involved in this case. So far as learned counsel for the appellant Sumundra Singh is concerned, he has submitted that the appellant was blind by birth. In the initial statement made by the prosecutrix Ex. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish is case. Appellants have been falsely involved in this case. So far as learned counsel for the appellant Sumundra Singh is concerned, he has submitted that the appellant was blind by birth. In the initial statement made by the prosecutrix Ex. P-1, there was no allegation of commission of offence of rape by him. However, at a later stage, it was falsely alleged by the prosecutrix that appellant Sumundra Singh had also raped her. 8. Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the appeals. 9. Prosecutrix had made the complaint Ex. P-1, wherein, she had stated that she had been raped by appellant Subhash on the pretext that he would perform marriage with her. Later, appellant Subhash had left her in the house of blind teacher, so that she could perform marriage with him. Blind teacher had proposed to perform marriage with her but she had declined. 10. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Ex. P- 19) on 04.04.2006, wherein, prosecutrix stated that she had been raped by appellant Subhash on the pretext that he would perform marriage with her. Appellant Subhash had brought her from her village to his village and she had stayed with him for two months. Then, appellant Subhash, had sold her to appellant Sumundra Singh and she had stayed in the house of appellant Sumundra Singh for three days. Appellant Sumundra Singh had raped her. 11. PW-5 Dr. Anuradha deposed that on 02.04.2006 she had medically examined the prosecutrix. She further deposed that pregnancy test of the prosecutrix was conducted and the prosecutrix was found pregnant. 12. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box deposed as per her statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 13. Although, in the complaint Ex. P-1, prosecutrix had alleged that she had been raped by appellant Subhash on the pretext of marriage and had been thereafter left in the house of appellant Sumundra Singh but in her statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prosecutrix has specifically alleged that appellant Subhash had raped her on the pretext that he would peform marriage with her and she had lived with him for two months and thereafter, she had been sold by appellant Subhash to appellant Sumundra Singh. She had categorically deposed that she stayed with appellant Sumundra Singh for three days and he also raped her. Prosecutrix while appearing in the witness box has supported her version given by her before the Magistrate under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Statement of the prosecutrix being natural inspires confidence. Statement of the prosecutrix with regard to commission of offence of rape by both the appellants could not be shaken during her cross examination by the learned defence counsel. Statement of the prosecutrix is duly corroborated by medical evidence. 14. Prosecutrix is a Bengali girl. It is her case that she was not very much conversant with hindi language. Prsoecutrix was uneducated. Ex. P-1 is the complaint moved by the prosecutrix but the same is not in her hand writing. It is probable that the person who had written Ex. P-1 had not given the entire facts. When the prosecutrix appeared before the Magistrate on 04.04.2006, she had narrated the entire facts and has duly proved her version during trial. 15. A perusal of Ex.P-27 Medical Examination Report of appellant Sumundra Singh reveals that the said appellant is aged about fifty two years, whereas the prosecutrix was a minor girl. So far as, appellant Subhash is concerned, he was aged about twenty four years. Appellant Subhash enticed the prosecutrix to run away from her home with a view to perform marriage with her. Appellant Subhash kept the prosecutrix with him for two months and sexually assaulted her. Instead of performing marriage with the prosecutrix, appellant Subhash left the prosecutrix, who was a minor girl with appellant Sumundra Singh, who was fifty two years old and was blind. 16. offence committed by the appellants is grave and serious. Prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Both the appellants had raped the prosecutrix and she had also become pregnant. 17. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected file.