Maheshwari, J.

1. Both these appeals have been filed by accused appellants ram pal and doulat, assailing the judgment dated 28.8.1991 passed by Special Court (Sati Nivaran) & Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 18/90 convicting them for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and awarding both of them sentence for rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and imposing a fine of Rs. 100/- and additionally awarding rigorous imprisonment for one month in default of payment thereof.

2. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the appeals are that an FIR was lodged by one Bhanwar Singh at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur on 10.10.1988, alleging that when he came back home after his work at about 11 p.m. in the night on 9.10.1988, his wife Rukma told him that when she was sleeping in her home, at about 9.30 p.m., Doulat came there and forcibly took her to her other house, which was lying vacant. He pulled her down on the floor and with the intention to commit rape entered his part of the body in her body. She tried to push her away. Thereafter, Rampal also came there and told her to do the same with him when she denied, Doulat while showing her knife forced her for the same, then Rampal also forcibly did the same. She could not make any hue and cry out of fear. When she came out, Bhagirath Singh saw them and shouted. Both these persons ran away and many other persons from the neigh-bor-hood gathered there. Bhanwar Singh also mentioned that when he tried to come to police station to lodge the report, the neighbors withheld him. After holding a meeting, they told him to file the FIR.

4. On this written report, FIR for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC was registered. Prosecutrix Rukma was also accompanying Bhanwar Singh. While getting the FIR registered, she was examined and no injury was found on her body.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against both the accused appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

6. After hearing both the sides, charge was framed against both the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

7. During trial, prosecution got eight witnesses examined and documentary evidence was also produced in support of the charge. Both the accused appellants were got examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence witness was produced. After hearing the arguments, learned trial Court proceeded to convict the accused appellants and awarded them sentence as mentioned above.

8. During arguments learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of both the accused appellants has contended that FIR was not lodged just after the incident and it was lodged after deliberations and taking legal advice, thus, it smells of concoction. He has further argued that despite important witnesses have turned hostile and nothing has come against the accused appellants, learned trial Court has convicted both the accused appellants without appreciating the evidence properly. While lodging the FIR, no injury was found on the body of prosecutrix. Ex. P/15 has been produced, which is medical examination report of Smt. Rukma. In the column in respect of injuries on the genitals of Rukma, it has been mentioned "Nil". It cannot be believed that two too persons commit rape with prosecutrix even then no injuries are found on her genitals This also makes the prosecution story unbelievable.

9. No FSL report has been produced by the prosecution with regard to vaginal swab. He has argued that even on the perusal of FIR, it clearly comes out that whatever incident has taken place was a consented one. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution also confirms the same inference. He has also contended that charge was framed against the accused appellants only for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC simpliciter but learn