JUDGMENT

Tej Shankar, J. - This appeal has been preferred by Mujia alias Maujilal and Badam against the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them by Shri R.C. Sharma, Second Additional Sessions Judge. Shivpuri on 7-6-1991 whereby they have been convicted and sentenced u/s 376 I.P.C. for a term of 7 years R.I.

2. Shortly narrated the facts are that the prosecutrix PW 13 resided in village Bachronalong with her family. At about 12 in the night of 29-4-1989 when she was sleeping on the roof of her house and her husband Natthu had gone to Athai, she heard the noise of foot steps and woke up. She saw Bhujia and Badam had come, who happened to be her Jeth of Bakhar. She asked them why they had come to her roof, Badam pressed her mouth and Bhujia upturned her dhoti and committed rape up - on her. After he committed the act Bhujia pressed her mouth arid Badam committed rape. She remained crying as her mouth had been pressed she could not cry. When they left the cried as a result of which her husband Natthu reached there. The accused persons escaped. Her husband and Bari tried to catch hold of the accused but they did not succeed. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were living at well. She disclosed the appending to them in the morning. She lodged report Ex. P-12 which was prepared by PW 16 S.S. Bhadoria, who registered a case u/ s 376 I.P.C. He also conducted the investigation. He took into custody a blouse of the prosecutrix Kamta and prepared memo Ex. P-9. He recorded her statement and sent her for medical examination to Primary Health Centre Pichor where she was exchanged by Dr. Shashi Sharma. PW 3,who prepared her report Ex. P-7. The 1.0. Shri Bhadoria went to village Bachron on the same day and prepared site-plan Ex. P-11. He recovered broken bangles and prepared memo Ex. P-12. He recorded statements of Hanram and Natthu on the same day. He took into custody unbroken bangles of Kamta and prepared memo Ex. P-13. The accused persons were arrested by him on 19-5-1989 and prepared memo. Ex; P-l 7. The accused persons were sent for medical examination and they were medically examined by PW 1 Dr. O.K. Sharma who gave his report, Ex. P-2 and 3. After completing investigation he submitted charge - sheet.

3. The accused persons denied the charge and contended that they were falsely implicated on account of election rivalry and on account of the fact that there had been persistent quarrel between the Bhabhi and mother-in-law of the prosecutrix on one hand and members of the accused family on the other.

4. The prosecution examined PW 1 Dr, O.K. Sharma who had medically examined the accused persons. PW 3 Dr. Shashi Sharma who had examined the prosecutrix, PW 12 Ramsingh, PW4 Shriram Verma, PW5 Madanlal, PW 6 Chatursingh and PW 10 Shri Ram as formal witnesses. PW7 Mst. Deshrani had been examined to prove that the prosecutrix disposed about the occurrence to her; PW 8 Mst. Maharani and PW 9 Arjun are mother-in-law and father-in-law of the prosecutrix. PW 11 Noneju, PW 12 Ramsingh, PW 14 Natthu, husband of the prosecutrix, PW 15 Hariram and PW13 prosecutrix were also examined, PW 15 5.S. Bhadoria is the investigating officer. Besides this the prosecution has, also relied upon documents, Ex. P.1 to P-IB. The accused persons have not entered upon their defence. The learned trial court after considering the entire material on record and hearing the parties accepted the prosecution story and held the accused persons guilty, of the offence punishable u/s 376 IPC. They were accordingly sentenced to 7 years RI. Hence this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that no injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix and the evidence on record clearly - goes - to show that she was a consenting party. She was a grown up married lady and had the occurrence been taken place against the wishes of the lady she must have resisted and there must pave been signs' of resistance. The evidence, however, does not show that there