JUDGMENT

KOSHAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated the 12th Oct. 1976 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombauy (Nagpur Bench) reversing a judgment of acquittal of the two appellants of an offence under S. 376 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, on the 1/06/1974, and convicting Tukaram, appellant No. 1 of an offence under S. 354 of the Code and the second appellant names Ganpat of one under S. 376 thereof. The sentences imposed by the High Court on the two appellants are rigorous imprisonment for a year and 5 years respectively.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is this. Appellant No. 1, who is a Head Constable of police, was attached to the Desai Gunj police station in March 1972 and so was appellant No. 2, who is a police constable. MATHURA (Prosecution witness 1) is the girl who is said to have been rap\ed. Her parents died when she was a child and she is living with her brother, Gama (Prosecution witness 3) - Both of them worked as Labourers to earn a living. Mathura (P. W. 1) used to go the house of Nushi (Prosecution witness 2) for work and during the course of her visits to that house, came into contact with Ashok, who was the sisters son of Nushi (Prosecution witness 2) and was residing with the latter. The contact developed into an intimacy so that Ashok and Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) decided to become husband and wife. ON the 26th of March 1972, Gama (Prosecution witness 3) lodged report Ex. P-8 at police station Desai Gunj alleging that Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) had been kidnapped by Nushi (Prosecution witness 2), her husband Laxman and the said Ashok. The report was recorded by Head Constable Baburao (Prosecution witness 8) at whose instance all the three persons complained against as well as Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) were brought to the police station at about 9 p. m. and who recorded the statements of the two lovers. By then it was about 10. 30 p. m. and Baburao (Prosecution witness 8) told them to go after giving them a direction that Gama (Prosecution witness 3) shall bring a copy of the entry regarding the birth of Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) recorded in the relevant register and himself left for his house as he had yet to take his evening meal. At that time the two appellants were present at the police station. AFTER Baburao (Prosecution witness 8) had gone away, Mathura (Prosecution witness 1), Nushi (Prosecution witness 2), Gama (Prosecution witness 3) and Ashok started leaving the police station. The appellants, however, asked Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) to wait at the police station and told her companions to move out. The direction was complied with. Immediately thereafter Ganpat appellant took Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) into a latrine situated at the rear of the main building, loosened her under-wear, lit a torch and stared at her private parts. He then dragged her to a chhapri which serves the main building as its back verandah. In the chhapri he felled her on the ground and raped her in spite of protests and stiff resistance on her part. He departed after satisfying his lust and then Tukaram appellant, who was seated on a cot nearby, came to the place where Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) was and forrdled her private parts. He also wanted to rape her but was unable to do so for the reason that he was in a highly intoxicated condition. NUSHI (Prosecution witness 2) Gama (Prosecution witness 3) and Ashok, who had been waiting outside the police station for Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) grew suspicious when they found the lights of the police station being turned off and its entrance door being closed from within. They went to the rear of the police station in order to find out what the matter was. No light was visible inside and when Nushi (P. W 2) shouted for Mathura (Prosecution witness 1) there was no response. The noise attracted a crowd and some time later Tukaram appe