A.K. Awasthy, J.

This judgment will also deal with Criminal Appeal No. 736/2003. Appellant/accused have filed the appeal u/s 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 12-1-1999 in Special Case No. 49/97 by Special Judge, Shajapur of their conviction and sentence u/s 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code for the rigorous imprisonment of 10-10 years and fine of Rs. 500-500 and in default of payment of fine, R.I. of 1-1 month.

The prosecution case is that on 12-3-1997 at about 7.30 PM in Village Khoria when prosecutrix Jatanbai (PW1) was returning from her field to the house, the accused persons caught her near their field and firstly accused Bhagwansingh committed rape with her and thereafter accused Gordhan committed the forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. When on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix Puralal (PW3) reached from the nearby field, on seeing him the accused ran away. The FIR Ex.P/2 was lodged by the prosecutrix on 13-3-1997 at about 10 PM in the Police Station Susner and she was sent for her medical examination to the District Hospital Shajapur where Smt. R. B. Jafari (PW5) found that there was no external injury on her body and the opinion about the rape with her was not possible. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 3(1)(xi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

The accused has abjured the guilt and pleaded his false implication due to enmity. The accused has examined three witnesses in their defence.

The learned Trial Court has examined 8 prosecution witnesses and the accused were acquitted from the offence punishable u/s 3(1) (xi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) and they were convicted and sentenced as above.

The appellant has assailed the conviction on the ground that the FIR is belated and the medical report is not supporting the statement of the prosecutrix and there is contradiction in the statement of the eye witnesses and the prosecutrix and as such, the appellant should be acquitted.

Prosecutrix Jatanbai (PW1) has testified that at about 7 PM when she was coming back from her field, both the accused caught her near the Nala and dragged her upto 30 steps and thereafter raped her. Jatanbai (PW1) has further stated that on hearing her cries Puralal (PW3) reached on the spot and the accused persons ran away. Jatanbai (PW1) has lodged the report Ex. P/l on the next day. The explanation of the delay is given by the prosecution that her husband Kishan (PW2) was not in the Village. From the statement of Kishan (PW2), Jatanbai (PW1) and Puralal (PW3) it is proved that on the date of incident the husband of Jatanbai was out of the Village. In these circumstances, the delay of one day in lodging the FIR is inconsequential as properly explained by the prosecution.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has not received any injury although the incident has taken place on the rough place. Jatanbai (PW1) has stated in Para 10 of her deposition that she did not receive the injury. Jatanbai (PW1) is a married woman and a mother of four children. In these circumstances, absence of injury on the body of the prosecutrix is not a circumstance to discard her statement. Jatanbai (PW1) is a married lady having four children and she has no reason to falsely implicate accused persons in serious offence of gang rape. A village lady having four children will not put herself and her family in embarrassment by cooking up a false story of rape with her and thereby make herself a subject of ridicule in the society.

The eye witness Puralal (PW3) has stated at about 7 PM when he was working in his field, he heard the cries of Jatanbai (PW1) and saw the accused persons near her and at that time Gordhan was committing the sexual intercourse with her. He has further testified that on seeing him both the accused persons