Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. Being aggrieved by order dated 7-12-1990 of his conviction and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec. 376 of IPC passed by Sessions Judge. Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 114 of 1990 the sole appellant Shamsher Ali has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of prosecution in short is that on 11-8-1989 at about 5.00 p.m. when Jamila Khatoon (PW 7) a deaf and dumb girl aged about 20 years was returning from the house of one Mansoor Ali where she had gone to attend a marriage the appellant caught her and dragged her in a nearby paddy field threw her on the ground and stripped off her clothes and committed rape on her Jamila Khatoon in protest raised voice of gon-gon (a type of moaning sound) which was heard by Jubeda Khatoon (PW 4) who had gone to ease herself in a nearby field. Jubeda Khatoon then went to Informant Sattar Ali (PW 2) the brother of Jamila Khatoon and told him about the occurrence. Sattar Ali along with Nazrul Haque and Mozamil Haque (both not examined) came to the paddy field and found that the appellant was committing rape on his sister. On seeing the Informant and his companions the appellant fled away towards the village. The Informant found his sister Jamila Khatoon, lying naked on the ground who by gestures told the Informant that the appellant after throwing her on the ground had forcibly committed rape on her. On the next day i.e. 12-8-1989 at about 8.15 a.m. the Informant along with his sister Jamila Khatoon. Mansoor Alam (PW 8) and Md. Suleman (PW 6) went to Korha Police Station where he lodged the FIR (Ext. 2). The Police sent Jamila Khatoon for medical examination and visited the place of occurrence recorded the statements of witnesses and after completing investigation submitted charge - sheet under Sec. 376 of IPC against the appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the appellant was put on trial and charge - sheet under Sec. 376 of IPC has been framed. 3. The case of appellant before the Court below was that he had filed a complaint case in the Court of C.J.M. Katihar against Informant and for this reason he has been falsely implicated in this case. One witness on behalf of appellant has been examined. 4. 3. The case of appellant before the Court below was that he had filed a complaint case in the Court of C.J.M. Katihar against Informant and for this reason he has been falsely implicated in this case. One witness on behalf of appellant has been examined. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Ataur Rahman (PW 3). Md: Suleman (PW 6) and Mansoor Alam (PW 8) have been tendered. Laxmi Devi (PW 1) is the doctor who had examined the victim girl. Sachhidanand Choudhary (PW 9) is the I.O. Sattar Ali (PW 2) is the Informant. Jamila Khatoon (PW 7) is the victim girl. Jubeda Khatoon (PW 4), and Muramal Haque (PW 5) are said to be witnesses who had gone to the place of occurrence hearing the voice of victim girl. Jubeda Khatoon (PW 4) has first stated that on the date of occurrence she had gone to ease herself when she heard voice of victim girl and she saw the appellant committing rape on her but in cross - examination, she had said that she had not stated this fact in her earlier statements before the Police. In view of this admission her evidence does not appear to be convincing. 5. Sattar Ali (PW 2) in his evidence has stated that on the date of occurrence he was informed by Jubeda Khatoon that somebody was committing rape on his sister who in protest had raised the voice of gon-gon and when he went in the paddy field he found that the appellant was committing rape on her sister and he wanted to catch hold of appellant but he fled away. He has further stated that his sister who was lying there naked by the gestures told him that the appellant had committed rape on her and he then on 12-8-1989 alongwith his victim sister went to the Police Station where he lodged the FIR. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has lodged this false case against the appellant. The deposition of Jamila Khatoon (PW 7) the victim girl shows that by pointing out to her breasts and private part she by gestures indicated to the Court that the appellant had committed rape on her. He has denied the suggestion of defence that he has lodged this false case against the appellant. The deposition of Jamila Khatoon (PW 7) the victim girl shows that by pointing out to her breasts and private part she by gestures indicated to the Court that the appellant had committed rape on her. The commission of rape on victim girl is further supported by the evidence of Laxmi Devi (PW 1) the doctor who had examined the victim girl. She has said that on 12-8-1989 she examined the victim girl and found that although there was no mark of injury In and around the external genitalia but on internal examination she found abrasions 1/4" x 1/4" on libia minora and further found that hymen was recently torn 1/4" x 1/4" in size and the age of injury was within 48 hours. In her opinion injuries on the private parts were due to sexual torture. Muramal Haque (PW 5) in his evidence has stated that on hulla raised by Jubeda Khatoon that the dumb was being raped he went to the place of occurrence which is a paddy filed and found the dumb girl lying naked and appellant started fleeing away. His cross - examination has been declined. His evidence supports the case of prosecution. So we find that the evidence of victim girl Jamila Khatoon who gave her evidence by gestures as she is admittedly a deaf and dumb girl supported by medical evidence and the evidence of Informant and Muramal Haque (PW 5) goes to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant committed rape on her. Om Prakash Prasad (OW 1) examined on behalf of appellant in his statement has stated that on 9-8-1989 he examined one samsher Alam of village Nakkipur Tindhari. PS. Korha. District Katihar and found seven abrasions and swelling on different parts of his body. He has proved the injury report, which is marked as Ext. A By this evidence and a suggestion given to Informant that on 22-8-1989 the appellant had filed a case against the Informant in the Court of C.J .M. for an occurrence of 9-8-1989 perhaps the appellant wanted to bring on record that he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of the aforesaid case filed by him. A By this evidence and a suggestion given to Informant that on 22-8-1989 the appellant had filed a case against the Informant in the Court of C.J .M. for an occurrence of 9-8-1989 perhaps the appellant wanted to bring on record that he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of the aforesaid case filed by him. The defence has not made it clear that what was the nature of case filed by appellant on 22-8-1989 in the Court of C.J.M. against the Informant. It is nowhere stated that it was the case of assault. Moreover. DW 1 has stated that he found injuries on the person of samsher Alam. Parentage of this samsher Alam has not been given by him. The name of appellant is samsher All. The Court below has rightly observed that from the evidence of DW 1 it is not proved that it was appellant who was examined but for the sake of arguments if it is assumed that appellant was examined by OW 1 even then it does not in any way affect the case of prosecution. Moreover suggestion to Informant is that appellant had filed a case on 22-8-1989 for an occurrence of 9-8-1989. It is not understandable that why a case for an occurrence of 9-8-1989 was filed after considerable delay on 22-8-1989. The present occurrence is said to have taken place much earlier to 22-8-1989. The examination of DW 1. therefore does not in any way affect the case of prosecution. So we find and hold that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant has been rightly found guilty under Sec. 376. IPC by the Court below. 6. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. In our opinion a sentence of RI for 10 years will serve the purpose and will meet the ends of justice. 7. In the result the sentence of appellant for life imprisonment is reduced to RI for 10 years. With this modification this appeal is dismissed.