1. - Appellants Noor Mohammed and Gul Mohammad have preferred this appeal against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated February 7, 1975 convicting and sentencing each of them under Section 366 Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs 50/-, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. They were also convicted and sentenced under section 341 IPC. to rigorous imprisonment for two months. The sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case was this Lalkhan resident of village Gulam wala has to daughters Fatti and Ajmat aged 13 and 10 years respectively. On 20.12 1973 Fatti and Ajmat were in their field. Lalkhan and his wife had gone to another field in village Jodasar. In the evening the two appellants came to the field of Fatti and Ajmat and told them their father was calling them.He would come to their appellants 'dhani' in the evening. Appellants came on a camel. Ajmat and Fatti believed the appellants and went with them to their field. Lalkhan returned to his field in the evening at about sunset and did not find his daughters. Hussainkhan is the son-in-law of Lalkhan. His field is in the neighbourhood of the field of Lalkhan. Hussainkban informed Lalkhan that the appellants had taken the two daughters to their field. Lalkhan therefore, with Hussainkhan went to the field of the appellants. They heard the cries of Ajmat and Fatti and rushed to the spot. They found that the appellants were holding the two daughters and further they threatened Lalkhan and Hussainkhan. Lalkhan raised an alarm and therefore, the appellants escaped on their camel. Ajmat and Fatti told their father that the appellants represented them that he was to come to their field and were being called by him. They, therefore, accompanied the appellants to their field. There the appellants requested them to marry and they also promised them rich rewards. They did not agree and therefore, the appellants abused and misbehaved with them. They even tried to commit rape. It appears that Lalkhan did not immediately make a report to the police but on 26-12-1973 presented a written report Ex. P.1 to S.P., Bikaner which ultimately came to police station Baju. On receipt of this report FIR. Ex P. 12 was drawn up and Kishankant Circle Officer, p.W.7 started and completed the usual investigation. A charge sheet was preferred against the appellants in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bikaner, who committed the case to the Sessions for trial.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP. and perused the record of the case carefully.

4. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Sessions Judge was in error in believing the inherently improbable story of the prosecution which was sought to be proved by the interested testimony of the four witnesses which was not corroborated by any other circumstance. The learned Sessions judge failed to consider the fact that she first information report of the incident was lodged on 26-12-1973, six days after the incident. The prosecution did not explain the delay in lodging the FIR, I have considered the contention carefully. The learned Sessions Judge with regard to the delay observed:

"If some occurrence is found to have taken place, then delay in lodging of the first information report would cease to be material. Though the evidence of the witnesses is to be appreciated in the context that the first information report in the case has not been promptly lodged."
The learned Sessions judge while believing the two girls observed:-

"The testimony of these two witnesses is to be read as a whole and if ring of truth pervades through their testimony, then stray infirmities, if any, found in their statement would not in any way affect their reliability. Both these child witnesses have been cross- examined at length. They have well withstood the cross-examination and