A conviction cannot stand when the prosecutrix provides inconsistent statements affecting credibility.

1. Since the aforementioned two appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 27-8-1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 281/1995 convicting the accused / appellants under S.376 (2) (g), IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 30-3-1994 FIR Ext. P3 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW 4 - A) aged about 14 years at the relevant time alleging that on 29-3-1994 at about 8 p.m. when she was returning after answering the call of nature from behind the fences of one Jhaduram, accused / appellant Bhagat came there, caught hold of her hand, asked her to accompany him to a nearby barren field and on refusal by her, he slapped her twice and threatened to kill her in case she raised cries. Thereafter, it is alleged that he gagged her mouth with the handkerchief, lifted her away near the beshram shrubs, threw her down and after removing her salwar and underwear committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and when she tried to raise an alarm, he gave two - three slaps to her. It is further alleged that after the act was over, the accused / appellant was leaving the spot with her underwear and salwar but when she started weeping, he put the same back and ran away. Thereafter, she went to her house and narrated the incident to her maternal aunt, one Jhaduram (PW 5) and Samari Bai (not examined) and then fell asleep. It is the further case of the prosecution that as father of the prosecutrix had gone to her sister's house, the report could not be lodged on the same day and it was lodged on the next day after he got back there from. Based on this FIR, offence under S. 376, IPC was registered against accused / appellant - Bhagat. On 31-3-1994, statement of the prosecutrix under S.161, CrPC was recorded in which she has alleged that on the date of incident at about 8 p.m. she had gone to answer the call of nature, accused Palu, Kanahiya (juvenile), Radho and John were cleaning their teeth near a bore well and while getting back as soon as she reached near the said bore well, all four lifted her away near the beshram shrubs where she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse first by Palu, then by accused Kanhaiya (juvenile), then by accused John and then by accused Radho and when she tried to raise alarm, all of them had threatened to kill her. It is alleged that her salwar and underwear were removed by accused John and rest three had held her. While leaving the spot after their act was over, all the four had threatened her to do away with in case she lodged a report naming them. It is alleged that in the incident, her bangles were also broken. She went on alleging that after the four accused i.e. Palu, Kanahiya (juvenile), Radho and John had left the place of occurrence and when she was going to her house, accused / appellant - Bhagat who was standing near the bore well, asked her to accompany him to the nearby barren field and on refusal by her he gave her two slaps, gagged her mouth with the handkerchief, took her near the beshram shrubs, threw her on the ground and after removing her underwear and salwar committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. When she started weeping, he gave her two - three slaps and started leaving the spot with her underwear and salwar but when she started weeping he left the same and went away. It is alleged that in the incident her bangles were broken and she had sustained injuries on her cheeks and left