Judgment

The three appellants were tried in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Sessions Case No. 117/83, for the offences punisha­ble under Sections 376 and 342 IPC. The trial Court acquitted them but their acquittal was reversed by the High Court. Therefore, they have filed this appeal.

2. It was alleged against the appellant that on 28.7.83, at about 11 O’clock, they committed rape of Gangu Bai when she had gone to the shop of appellant No. 1 for purchasing a match box. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined P.W. 3-Gangu Bai and P.W. 4-Shankar, brother-in-law of Gangu Bai. The prosecution had also led evidence of the doctor who had examined Gangu Bai. The circumstance that from the house of appellant No. 1, some beads of broken necklace of Gangu Bai were found, was also relied upon. The trial Court, howev­er, found that the evidence of P.W. 3-Gangu Bai could not be relied upon safely as it suffered from serious infirmities. Her evidence was found to be inconsistent with the FIR lodged by her on material as­pects. The trial Court also took note of the fact that no injury was found on her person even though her version was that she was dragged and had