Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded by Assistant Sessions Judge, Latehar vide his judgment dated 27.11.90 in ST. No. 268/89 through which the sole appellant was found guilty under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 6-4-89 the victim lady Niraso Devi along with her cousin mother-in-law, Geeta Devi, Sister-in-law Bifia Devi and Munia Kumari had gone to collect Mahua flower and at about 1.30 P.M. or so they reached Matwa Tongri and they were collecting Mahua flower under the Mahua tree belonging to one Sibu Mahto. At that very time this appellant came running and began to abuse the victim lady and others then out of fear mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the informant escaped towards Eastern side whereas the informant escaped towards western side. It has been allowed that while the informant was escaping her sari got entangled with Putush bushes and she had fallen on the ground and the moment she got up the appellant appeared there and caught hold of her and also thrown on the ground. It has also been alleged that inspite of protest and raising of alarm the appellant forcibly committed rape. After commission of rape when the appellant escaped away then the victim lady got up and come to her residential house in the village and narrated the entire incident to her relation but at that time her husband who was doing work of labourer was not present and he came in the evening and it was late so on the next day he want to the P.S. with her husband and relation and lodge the F.L.R. at 3 P.M. and on that basis a case under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. was instituted as against the appellant. 3. The appellant claimed himself innocent and denied the to have committed rape as alleged by the prosecution and he set up a defence version in the court below that at the instance of local Mukhiya to whom he got enmity he had been falsely implicated. However, the trial court believing the prosecution story found the sole appellant guilty under Sec. 376 of I.PC and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. However, the trial court believing the prosecution story found the sole appellant guilty under Sec. 376 of I.PC and convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of conviction the appellant preferred this appeal and has challenged finding of the court below on various grounds 4. According to prosecution case the alleged occurrence took place in the after-noon of 4-6-89 near Matwa Tongri i.e. a hilly place when the victim lady, P.W 2 Niraso Devi along with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law i.e .P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 had gone there for collecting Mahua flower. The informant (P.W 2) the victim lady is the most competent witness. It is the evidence of P W 2 Niraso Devi who is a married lady aged about 22 years that on Thursday about a year ago i.e. on the date of occurrence she along with her mother-in-law, Geeta Devi and two sister-in-laws Bifia and Munia had gone to collect Mahua flower and at about 1 P.M. or so they reached Matwa Tongri and collecting Mahua flower. It is her evidence that at that time the appellant to whom she identified also in the court came running and was abusing them so out of fear they all began to escape and her in-laws escaped towards eastern side whereas she escaped towards Southern side but on the way her Sari got entangled in throny bushes i.e. Putush and she remained busy in removing throny bushes. In the mean time the appellant came and apprehended her and them forcibly committed rape and after commission of rape escaped away and in that process due to resistence she also sustained injury and her bangles also broken in that very place. This witness has further stated at that at some distance she met her in-laws i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 and also narrated the entire incident to them. On the next day this witness had gone to P.S. along with her husband and other relations and lodged the F.I.R. at about 3 P.M. i.e. Ext. 1. The victim lady has also stated that after investigation of the case the police officer came to P.O. and seized the broken bangles and she was also referred to Daltonganj hospital where she was examined by a lady doctor. 1. The victim lady has also stated that after investigation of the case the police officer came to P.O. and seized the broken bangles and she was also referred to Daltonganj hospital where she was examined by a lady doctor. Admittedly this occurrence took place in the afternoon of 6-4-89 and them she had gone to her husband and narrated the incident to her husband who came late in the evening and then on the next day they left for P.S. and lodged the F.I.R. at 3 P.M. The P.S. is at a distance of about 25 K.M. from of the informant. In that view of the matter, practically there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in the F.I.R the informant has given all material facts about the occurrence and has also named the appellant because he was known to them as he is a resident of nearly village. 5. The victim lady was cross-examined at length but she constantly stood the test of corss-examination and only discrepancy which has come that in the F.I.R. she has stated that while she was escaping towards Western side she was apprehended by the appellant whereas in her evidence in court she has stated that she was escaping towards Southern side. Such discrepancy is natural. Moreover the victim lady is a rustic lady and is also a member of the weaker Section i.e. she is a member of he Schedule caste and her conduct appears to be quite natural because out of poverty the lady of such class used to go and collect Mahua flower from the Jungle side and they used Mahua flower as a food. The appellant has not alleged any enimily with the victim lady or her family members and simply claimed in his statement under Sec. 113 of the Cr.P.C. that she was implicated in the instant case at the instance of local Mukhiya. Practically nothing has come on the record as to how this rustic lady of the weaker section will institute such a case that too at the instance of local Mukhiya who is not related to her in any way. Thus, the false implication can be rules out. 6. Practically nothing has come on the record as to how this rustic lady of the weaker section will institute such a case that too at the instance of local Mukhiya who is not related to her in any way. Thus, the false implication can be rules out. 6. The eviction of this witness also finds corroboration and supports from the evidence of P.W. 1, Getta Devi, mother-in-law, P.W. 3, Bifia Devi who is the sister-in-law and admittedly there witnesses along with P.W 3, Munia Kumari who has been tendered by the prosecution, had gone with the victim lady for collecting Mahua flower when this occurrence took place. This witness had also consistently supported the prosecution case that on the date of occurrence at about 1 P.M. or so when they were collecting Mahua flower the appellant came running and abusing them so out of fear they escaped towards Eastern side of the jungle whereas Niraso Devi, the victim lady escaped towards western side and on the way her saree was entangled in bush and then she was apprehended by the appellant and the appellant committed rape which they had seen from a distance of 1 mile or so and after the rape when the appellant escaped away then the victim lady came and had also narrated the incident to them. 7. The learned Advocate for the appellant criticised their evidence mainly for the reason that they are close relations of the victim lady and it is not possible for them to see the incident of rape from a distant of 1 mile. At the very out set it can be said that though these witnesses are relations but for that reason their evidences are to be scrutinised with great care and caution. Admittedly, there is no enmity between the appellant and these witnesses and the conduct of these witnesses are natural as they are coming from weaker section of the society so they had gone to collect Mahua flower together and without any enmity they are not expected to implicate the appellant. So far as the distance of 1 mile is concerned being rustic lady they had no clear idea about the distance and they exaggerated the same. So far as the distance of 1 mile is concerned being rustic lady they had no clear idea about the distance and they exaggerated the same. Even it it is assumed that these witnesses had not seen the actual rape but at least it can be said that in their presence they had seen the appellant apprehending the victim lady and this is a strong circumstances against the appellant also. So the evidence of these witnesses also supports the prosecution case to a large extent. 8. The prosecution case further finds supports from the evidence of P.W. 9, Baleshwar Mochi, husband of the victim lady and P.W; 10, Siban Ram, father- in-law and from their evidence it can be said that in the evening on the date of occurrence when they returned from doing work as labourers they learnt about the incident from P.W. 2 and as it was late so on the next day they had gone to P.S. and F.L.R. was lodged and Investigating Officer also seized patticoat of the victim lady at the P.O. and prepared the production list in presence of the witnesses i.e. Ext. 5 and on that very day i.e. on 7-4-89 the Investigating Officer came to P.O. and seized broken bangles from Matwa Tongi i.e. the P.O. and prepared seizure list i.e. Ext. 4. The seizure of bangles at the P.O. further indications that the occurrence of rope had taken places there. 9. It has come in evidence that after loding of the F.I.R. the victim lady was referred to Daltonganj hospital and P.W. 8, Dr. Mridula Sharma examined the victim lady on 8-4-89 at about 5.45 P.M. The lady doctor found abraison on the knee and lenier abraison on the left side of the back and also on the wrist and according to doctor all these injuries were caused within 72-96 houss. No doubt doctor has not found any spultunzoa in the veginal swap for the reason that the victim lady was examined after more than 46 hours of the occurrence but as the doctor found several abraisons which clearly indicate that there was scuffle and as her sari was entangled in bushes and bangles were broken so these injuries were caused in the process of rape. So evidence of doctor also supports the prcecution case that the lady was subjected to rape in the afternoon of 6-4- 89. 10. So evidence of doctor also supports the prcecution case that the lady was subjected to rape in the afternoon of 6-4- 89. 10. So the entire evidence as discussed above clearly proves without any shadow of doubt that in the afternoon of 6-1-89 when the P.W. 4 has gone to Matwa Tongri along with her in-laws i.e. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 then the appellant who is a man of nearby village and known to them, came all in a sudden abusing and her in-laws escaped away and the lady was apprehended and she was raped. The defence version that he was implicated by local Mukhiya is without any foundation. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the Investigating Officer who is an important witness who had visited the P.O. and seized broken bangles the petticoat of the victim lady could not be examined and those material exhibits could not be produced in the court and thus, the defence was prejudiced and as such entitled for benefit of doubt. No doubt the Investigating Officer could not be examined but no serious contradictions has become in the evidence of the witness. Moreover, the P.O. had not been challenged and the seizure list witnesses proved the seizure of bangles from the P.O. and the eye witnesses are consistent and the lady doctor found marks of violence on the victim lady In such a situation the alleged occurrence of rape ins definitely well proved. 11. In the result, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and so far the trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I for 8 years under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. is concerned, the same appears to be reasonable and it does not requires any interference. So this appeal is dismissed and conviction and sentence as awarded by Assistant Sessions Judge. Latehar in S.T. No, 268/89 is hereby confirmed and maintained. The bail bond of the appellant is hereby cancelled and he should surrender in the trial court without any further delay for undergoing the remaining portion of the imprisonment failing which the trial court will take steps for his apprehension for undergoing the imprisonment as awarded by him.