Judgment 1. The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-9-1997 passed by Shri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, the then learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro (Camp at Tenughat) in S.T.No. 220 of 1995, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/S. 376(I)/366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years u/S. 376(I) of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000.00 and in default of which to further undergo R. I. for one year. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years u/S. 366, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00 in default of which further to undergo R. I. for a period of six months. However, both the sentences ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Ramayan Chouhan, the Informant submitted a written report before the police (Gomia) alleging therein that on 10-8-1995 due to urgent work he had gone to his village home situated in the district of Deoria. His daughter, Sanju Kumari aged about 15 years and his younger son Manoj Kumar were present in the quarter situated at Swang New Mines. It is further alleged that on 10-8-1995 on the eve of Raksha Bandhan, Manoj along with Mahadeo Mahato, a neighbour had gone to the place of father-in-law but they could not return on the same day. On 12-8-1995 they returned when it was found that the daughter Sanju Kumari was not present in the quarter. On an enquiry she could not be traced and thereafter Manoj Kumar and Ghamru Mahto went to Behra Dabar on 12-8-95 and informed about the incident to the Informant. Thereafter, the informant came to Swang and started searching his daughter at the places of his relations, but she could not be traced. In course of search it was detected that the appellant Md. Imtiaz took away his daughter for the purpose of marriage. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted chargsheet against the appellant u/Ss. 366A and 376, IPC. 3. The appellant appeared before the Sessions Judge. The charges were also framed against him for the offences u/S. 366A and 376, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted chargsheet against the appellant u/Ss. 366A and 376, IPC. 3. The appellant appeared before the Sessions Judge. The charges were also framed against him for the offences u/S. 366A and 376, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment in the manner as stated above. 4. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove its case. PW-1, Sanju Kumari stated in her evidence that in the night of 11-8-1995 some person knocked the door and she opened the door thinking that her brother Manoj came back but she saw that the appellant was present there and he put knife on her neck and also threatened to be killed and thereafter he closed her mouth with his handkerchief as a result of which she became unconscious and when she regained her Hosh she found herself in the bus. When she tried to raise Halla, the appellant Imtiaz threatened her and again the appellant administered something in her mouth and thereafter she became unconscious. Thereafter, she was found herself in a house when she regained Hosh and she started weeping. The appellant stated that we have reached to Orissa now and he again threatened for dire consequences at that place and she was kept confined. He further claimed that she was also raped forcibly several times. She further claimed that on 5-9-1995 she managed to escape from the house and she came to the Bus stand and from there she came to Ranchi and thereafter she came to Gomia by train with the help of bus driver and she was caught by the police at Gomia Railway Station. She further deposed that she was sent for medical examination on 7-9-1995 and she also gave her statement before the Magistrate on 11-9-1995. She stated in her cross-examination that she was alone in her house in the said night on which the appellant came to her house and took her away forcibly. Some photographs were produced before this witness during trial but she emphatically deposed that the said photographs were made under duress and force by the appellant. 5. She stated in her cross-examination that she was alone in her house in the said night on which the appellant came to her house and took her away forcibly. Some photographs were produced before this witness during trial but she emphatically deposed that the said photographs were made under duress and force by the appellant. 5. PW 2, Umesh Kumar stated that he came to know on the next day of the occurrence that Sanju Kumari is not present in herhouse. According to him, Manoj Kumar, the brother of Sanju Kumari had gone along with Mahadeo Mahto on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. He further deposed that he had seen the appellant Imtiaz roaming near the house of Sanju Kumari on 10-8-1995. He stated in his cross-examination that there are several quarters situated near the quarter of Sanju Kumari. 6. PW-3 also deposed that Sanju Kumari was present alone in her house on the day of occurrence. He being the informant had gone to the village home Debariya whereas his younger son had gone to the village along with Mahadeo Mahto on the occasion of Raksha-Bandhan and he returned back on 12-8-1995. He came to know at the village home about the occurrence after hectic search about his daughter, he submitted a written report before the police (Ext. 1). Sanju Kumari was apprehended by the police at the Railway Station on 6-9-95. Sanju Kumari had stated that Imtiaz took away her Orissa forcibly. He stated in his cross-examination that he came back to Swang on 15-8-1995 and thereafter he started searching his daughter. 7. PW-4, Ramdeo Singh, the Judicial Magistrate claimed to have recorded the statement u/S. 164, Cr. P.C. of the victim Sanju Kumari and he proved the said statement, Ext. 2. PW-5 is the doctor Aarti Shukla, who examined the victim Sanju Kumari on 8-9-1995 and she found that rape was committed on her as hymen was raptured. She proved the medical report, Ext. 3. PW-6, Gopal Nonia stated Manoj had gone to the village home of his sister with Mahadeo on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and Sanju Kumari was alone present in the house. Sanju Kumari was not found in her house on 11-8-1995 in the evening. PW-7 has been tendered by the prosecution. She proved the medical report, Ext. 3. PW-6, Gopal Nonia stated Manoj had gone to the village home of his sister with Mahadeo on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and Sanju Kumari was alone present in the house. Sanju Kumari was not found in her house on 11-8-1995 in the evening. PW-7 has been tendered by the prosecution. PW-8 stated that Manoj Kumar and his son Mahadeo had gone to the village of his daughter on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan and they came back on 12-8-1995. He further stated that he along with Manoj had gone to the village home of the Informant to inform about the incident. He along with Binod also searched Sanju Kumari at Argada Colliery but she could not be traced there. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer who lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of the written report of the Informant and he recorded the evidence of the witnesses and thereafter he submitted the chargsheet against the appellant. According to him, Sanju Kumari was apprehended at the Railway Station and she was also sent for medical examination. Her statement u/S. 164, Cr. P.C. was also recorded.No any other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the appellant Md. Imtiaz was also examined u/S. 313, Cr. P.C. and he denied the allegation. 8. One defence witness has also been examined who claimed that there was a love affairs with victim Sanju Kumari with Imtiaz (appellant) from before and Sanju Kumari used to write letters to Imtiaz. He proved some letters Ext. B series. 9. PW-1, the victim consistently deposed that she was kidnapped by the appellant Imtiaz at the point of Chaku and she was taken to Bhuneshwar (Orissa). She also claimed that she was forcibly raped by the appellant several times. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are also consistent that Sanju Kumari was alone in the quarter at the relevant time and she was not found present in the quarter and thereafter the Informant, father of Sanju Kumari was informed at his village home (Debaria). The Informant, PW-3 claimed to have gone to his village home at the relevant time. The doctor, who examined the victim, Sanju Kumari, has opined that rape has been done as hymen is raptured and she was found aged about 16/17 years. The Informant, PW-3 claimed to have gone to his village home at the relevant time. The doctor, who examined the victim, Sanju Kumari, has opined that rape has been done as hymen is raptured and she was found aged about 16/17 years. The informant claimed about the age of Sanju Kumari as being 15 years as alleged in the written report (Ext. 1). In this way, the victim Sanju Kumari was found to be minor at the time of occurrence. All the witnesses examined from the side of the prosecution are consistent and definite about the kidnapping of Sanju Kumari from the quarter and this fact has fully been supported and corroborated by Sanju Kumari herself. The doctor, who examined the victim girl also found the sign of rape. Moreover, it is well settled that corroboration is not necessary in a case of sex offence when the victim is very consistant and definite about the occurrence. Conviction can be founded on her testimony alone unless there are compelling reasons seeking corroboration. Corroborating evidence is not essential as she is not an accomplish or in the category of child witness. 10. In the instant case, victim is very definite and consistent in her evidence about kidnapping and also about committing rape on her forcibly. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the prosecutionhas been able to establish the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. In the result, the learned Court below has rightly convicted the apellant for the offences charged.As regards the sentence, it appears that the appellant has already been in custody for more than four years. 11. Mr. A. K. Sahani, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted in this connection that the appellant, Imtiaz Ansari has already been in custody for more than four years and he has been sufficiently punished for the offence. 12. It is true that the appellant has already been in custody since 12-9-1995. In the above facts and circusmtances, in my view, the sentence already undergone by the appellant will serve the ends of justice in the instant case. In the result, the appellant, namely, Imtiaz Ansari is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone in the jail custody. The appellant, namely, Imtiaz Ansari is directed to be released forthwith from the jail custody, if not required in any other case. 13. In the result, the appellant, namely, Imtiaz Ansari is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period already undergone in the jail custody. The appellant, namely, Imtiaz Ansari is directed to be released forthwith from the jail custody, if not required in any other case. 13. The appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence only.Appeal dismissed.