Kanta Bhatnagar, J. - (1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by tie learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 17.10.81, by which the appellants were convicted for the offence under section 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to eight months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default to under go 15 days simple imprisonment each. As these two appeals arise out of the same judgment propose to dispose them by a common judgment.
(2.) The appellants were tried for the offence under sections 366 and 376 read with section 114, I.P.C. for forcibly taking away one Mst. Ansi on 8.1.81. The information of the occurrence was lodged on 9.1.81 at police station Dhorimana. During the course of trial, the learned Judge did not find the offence under Section 375, I.P.C. made out against any of the accused, but held the prosecution case established for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and passed the judgment under appeal.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the inordinate unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. Another ground raised to assail the finding of guilt against the appellants is, that, while disbelieving the prosecutrix for the alleged offence of rape, the learned Judge was in error in believing her for the offence under section 366, I.P.C.;