Judgment D.P.S.Choudhary, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Chuni @ Chunu Hembram who stands charged under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. for committing rape on Panbati Soren. The 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka (S.P.) by judgment dated 15th December, 1993 passed in Sessions Case No, 593/92 convicted the appellant under Sec. 376, I.P.C arid sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 23.6.92 the victim Panbati Soren had gone to Bahiyar for grazing herds of cattle. At about 5 p.m. the accused Chuni Hembram came there and caught hold of her and forcibly made her naked and after pushing her down on the ground forcibly committed rape on her. No other person was present near the place of occurrence except a girl namely Marsila Hansda aged about 10 years, who had seen the occurrence; The accused also threatened the victim of dire consequences, if she disclosed the occurrence to anybody. The victim return back to her house and narrated the story to her parents. It was night, hence the police was informed on the following day, i.e., on 24.6.92, she along with her father came to the police station and on her fardbeyan the case was registered against the accused and after investigation charge-sheet submitted and the trial proceeded in the Court below. The case of the defence is that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics and previous enmity. 3. The prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of which P.W. 5 Hopna Hembram has been tendered by the prosecution and P.W. 4 Jisai Hembram is a formal witness. In his presence, the police had seized cloth of the victim Panbati Soren and prepared the seizure list over which he signed as a witness, which has been marked as Ext.-1/1, P.W. 3 Mahadeo Ram is also a seizure list witness of the cloth seized and his signature of the seizure list has been marked as Ext.-1/2, P.W. 2 Barsan Soren is the step father of the victim girl who has supported that his daughter, when she had gone to graze herds of cattle in the Bahiyar, after returning back narrated to him that she was forcibly raped by accused Chuni @ Chunu Hembram. He further stated that he informed about the occurrence to the village Pradhan who asked him to go to the police and thereafter in the morning, he went to the P. Section along with her daughter where the case was registered. He signed over the F.I.R. which has been marked Ext.-1. P.W. 6 Marsila Hansda has stated, that he had seen the accused grazing herds of cattle in the Bahiyar where the victim girl was also grazing her herds of cattle. She has not staled that she had saw the accused committing rape on the victim girl, as such the prosecution declared him hostile. In cross-examination she admitted that she is aunt of the accused Chuni Hembram. Before the I.O. she stated that she also went to with her catties in the Bahiyar and found victim Panbati Soren weeping who narrated her about the occurrence. 4. P.W. 1 Panbati Soren is the main witness being the victim girl and supported the case as made out in her fardbeyan, she stated that while she was grazing herds of cattle in the Bahiyar the accused Chuni Hembram forcibly made her naked and pushed her on the ground and committed rape. On her alarm the accused threatened with dire consequences and she returned back to her house and narrated the story to her parents. On the following day, she went to the police station where the case was registered on her statement. She was sent for medical examination she identified the accused in the dock. She further stated that earlier also the accused used to tease her and wanted forcibly marriage with her, but her parents were not ready for the same. P.W. 7 is the I.O. of the case who stated that he has seized the cloth of the victim girl and prepared the seizure list (Ext.-3) and sent the girl for medical examination. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet. P.W. 8 is the Doctor who examined the victim girl and medical report has been marked Ext.-4. The lady doctor has not found any external or internal injury on the person of the victim girl but she could not give any definite opinion whether she was raped or not. According to her, spermatozoa was not found on her private part. In her opinion, the victim girl was aged about 17 years. 5. The lady doctor has not found any external or internal injury on the person of the victim girl but she could not give any definite opinion whether she was raped or not. According to her, spermatozoa was not found on her private part. In her opinion, the victim girl was aged about 17 years. 5. On the basis of the evidence discussed above, the trial Court has found guilty of the accused for the offence under Sec. 376 of the I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly. 6. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. The evidence of the victim girl has not been corroborated by any evidence on the fixture of rape. The lady doctor stated that she did not find any sign of rape on the victim girl. As such prosecution has filed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the occurrence took place in a lonely place and it is not mentioned in the fardbeyan of the lady that any other person was present near the place of occurrence. Therefore, the present of the eye-witness was not possible in this case. P.W. 6 who has been named as eye-witness has been declared hostile, she is aunt of the accused, therefore it is possible that she did not support the prosecution case on the factum of rape in order to save her nephew. However, from her evidence a major part of the prosecution story is corroborated, she stated that at the relevant time the accused was also grazing herds of cattle near the place of occurrence, where the victim girl was so grazing the catties. Before the I.O. she stated that when she reached near the place of occurrence she found the victim girl weeping and narrated the story of rape. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that lady doctor examined the victim girl after four days of occurrence. Therefore, it was possible that she did not find spermatozoa on her private part after lapse of four days. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not expected from young victim girl to falsely implicate the accused and alleging rape on herself. Therefore, it was possible that she did not find spermatozoa on her private part after lapse of four days. The learned A.P.P. further submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not expected from young victim girl to falsely implicate the accused and alleging rape on herself. In several decisions, the apex Court held that corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases is not required and the evidence of the prosecutrix alone is sufficient prove the charge against the accused. 7. From the discussions made above and after going through the evidences and the submissions made on behalf of the both the parties, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the learned A.P.P. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix. Since the occurrence took place at a lonely place at a Bahiyar, the presence of any other witness at that time and place was not possible. There is also substance in the contention of the learned A.P.P. that because the girl was examined after four days of the occurrence, it was possible, that the doctor did not find spermatozoa on her private part. In the facts and circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and there is no valid reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the trial Court. 8. In the last, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that he has been in jail custody since 24.6.1992 and thus he has remained in custody for more than seven years. As such jail authority may be directed to release him forthwith. The learned A.P.P. after perusal of the record stated that appellant has been in custody for more than seven years. 9. From the discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. However, since the appellant has remained in custody since 24.6.1992 the jail authority is directed to release the appellant forthwith, if not released as yet, or not wanted in any other case.