1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.12.1998 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No.213 of 1998 convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants as under:

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation
Under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation
Under Section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on the date of alleged incident, the prosecutrix (PW1), who was a married woman and mother of 3 children, was aged about 30 years. Her eldest daughter Mona (PW2) was aged about 11 years. On 6.4.1998, the prosecutrix lodged First Information Report (Ex.P1) in Police Station Dharsinwa alleging that in the night of 8.3.1998 at about 11:00 p.m., she was at her home with her children only. Her husband was not present in the village. After taking dinner, she had slept along with her children. While they were sleeping, all the four Appellants came there and some person called the name of her daughter Mona. At that time, she, thinking that her husband had returned, opened the door. As soon as she opened the door, the Appellants threatened her that she will be killed if she shouts and they took her inside the room of her house and thereafter they committed rape with her one by one. They, at the time of going out of her house, threatened her that if she tells the incident to anyone, she will be killed. Therefore, she kept mum and slept. It is further alleged that next day, i.e., on 9.3.1998 also, at about 9:00 a.m., when she was alone at her house and cooking food in kitchen, Ramkrishna (not made accused by the prosecution), son of Chatur Singh and father of Appellant Madho Prasad, came her house and he also, after threatening her, committed rape with her. Since she was threatened, she did not disclose the incident to anyone. On 5.4.1998, when her husband returned home, she disclosed the incident to him. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR (Ex.P1) on 6.4.1998. She was medically examined by Dr. Suniti Manglurkar (PW6). Her report is Ex.P4 in which she did not find any injury over any part of the body of the prosecutrix. She found the prosecutrix to be habitual to sexual intercourse. No definite opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. During the course of investigation, un-derwears of Appellants Rishi, Kamlesh, Madho Prasad and Hukum Singh were seized vide Ex.P6, P7, P8 and P9, respectively and petticoat of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P3. Spot-maps (Ex.P2 and P10) were also prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed only against the present four Appellants for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g), 450 and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code followed by framing of charges against them under the same provisions.

4. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the Appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. 5 witnesses have been examined in their defence.

5. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly. No justified reason has been assigned by the prosecutrix for the delay in lodging the FIR. After the alleged incident, the prosecutrix did not disclose t