Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th June, 1996 passed in Sessions Case No. 62/95 by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo RI for 8 years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 5.10.1994 at about 5 p.m. Informant Pushpa Devi (PW 2) got her fardbeyan recorded by ASI Asgar Ali (not examined) stating therein that on 3.10.1994 at about 7 a.m., she after leaving her minor daughter Kari Kumari (PW 5) aged about seven years in the house went to a field for cutting Patwa. In those days, her husband had gone to Punjab for earning. When she returned to her house at 12 O clock in the noon, she found her daughter Kari Kumari weeping and also found blood oozing out from her private parts and when she enquired about this, she was told by her daughter Kari Kumari that a short time ago when she had gone to a field for picking wood for fuel, the appellant caught hold of her and committed rape after gagging her mouth. The Informant also found Singheshwar Mandal, father of appellant and his wife present in her house who, both, were wiping out the blood from the private parts of her daughter and were providing her medicine and they after consoling the Informant told her that it will not be proper to lodge a case with the Police and her daughter would be recovered soon and they would scold the appellant. They did not allow the Informant to go any where but the Informant any how managed to go out from her house and went to her father at Parsa and from there she brought her father to her house. The father of appellant told the father of Informant also not to go to Police Station. But the Informant along with her father and her daughter Kari Kumari went to Police Station on 5.10.94 where her fardbeyan was recorded. In the fardbeyan she has stated that when the villagers came to know that her daughter was weeping in a field and was raped, they went there and brought her daughter to her house. On the basis of fardbeyan of Informant a case under Section 376, IPC was registered against the appellant. In the fardbeyan she has stated that when the villagers came to know that her daughter was weeping in a field and was raped, they went there and brought her daughter to her house. On the basis of fardbeyan of Informant a case under Section 376, IPC was registered against the appellant. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 376/201, IPC against his father Singheshwar Mandal. Charges under Section 376, IPC against the appellant and under Sections 342/201, IPC against his father Singheshwar Mandal were framed and both were put on trial. 3. The case of the appellant before the Court below was that no occurrence as alleged had taken place and he has been falsely implicated on account of dispute with the Informant. The Court below after trial found the father of appellant Singheshwar Mandal not guilty of any charge and accordingly acquitted him but the appellant was found guilty under Section 376, IPC and was accordingly convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses. Anirudh Mandal (PW 1) is the father of Informant. Pushpa Devi (PW 2) is the Informant. Basudeo Mandal (PW 3) is a witness, who after hearing the cries of victim girl, had gone to the place of occurrence. Tarni Rishideo (PW 4) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Kari Kumari (PW 5) is the victim girl. Dr. B. Rana (PW 6) is the doctor who had examined the victim girl. Lalit Kumar Singh (PW 7) is the IO of the case. 5. The Informant (PW 2), in her evidence has stated that she is stepmother of Kari and on the date of occurrence in the morning, she after leaving Kari alone in the house had gone to a field for cutting patina and in the afternoon when she returned to her house, she found Kari Kumari weeping and when she enquired from her, she told her that the appellant had committed rape or. her. She also found the father of appellant in her house who was wiping out the blood coming from the private parts, of her daughter and who also told her not to go to Police Station and the matter will be solved in the village itself. her. She also found the father of appellant in her house who was wiping out the blood coming from the private parts, of her daughter and who also told her not to go to Police Station and the matter will be solved in the village itself. She has further stated that on that day she did not get time and on the next day, she went to her naiher and brought her father and thereafter she went to Police Station to lodge the case. Anirudh Mandal (PW 1) father of Informant has stated that her daughter had come to his house and told him that rape had been committed on the daughter Kari Kumari and he then along with her came to her house where he found the victim lying on a chauki and blood was coming out from her private parts and PW 3 was also present there who told that rape was committed on her by the appellant. He has further stated that the father of appellant was not allowing him to go to Police Station but he did not listen to him and he along with the Informant and the victim girl went to Police Station where a case was lodged by the Informant and on the fardbeyan of the Informant he also put his signature (Ext. 1). According to him victim at that time was aged about seven years. 6. Basudev Mandal (PW 3) has stated that at the time of occurrence he along with Tarni Rishidev (PW 4) was in a filed where he heard the cries of a child and when he went near the patwa filed, he found the victim girl Kari Kumari lying naked there and appellant was running away from there. He also found blood oozing out from the private parts of Kari Kumari and on being asked, the girl told that appellant had committed rape on her. He has said that the victim was then aged about 5-6 years. According to him, he brought the victim girl to her house and thereafter, the mother of victim returned after cutting patwa. He also found blood oozing out from the private parts of Kari Kumari and on being asked, the girl told that appellant had committed rape on her. He has said that the victim was then aged about 5-6 years. According to him, he brought the victim girl to her house and thereafter, the mother of victim returned after cutting patwa. The father of appellant told the mother of victim not to take the victim to Madhepura but he advised the Informant to being her father and thereafter, Informant brought her father and the victim girl was then taken to Police Station where fardbeyan of Informant was recorded on which he also put his signature (Ext. 1/1). 7. Dr. B. Rana (PW 6) is the doctor who had examined the victim girl. She in her evidence has stated that on 6.10.1994 at 9 a.m., she examined the victim girl and on vaginal examination she found that there was a perineal tear up to anus and here was tear in vagina and bleeding was also present. According to the doctor, the victim girl was aged about 8-9 years and there were signs of rape. She has proved her report (Ext. 2) prepared after medical examination of the victim. 8. In this case the victim girl Kari Kumari was also examined as PW 5. Her deposition shows that she was examined after voire dire and on being satisfied that she was competent to give evidence the Court below recorded her evidence. She first supported the case of the prosecution in toto but in cross-examination she did not reply any question put to her and when questions were put to her, she kept mum and was in tears. The Court below has observed that she was fear-stricken in the new surroundings of the Court seeing the lawyers, Judge, constables and the accused in the dock and her weeping and not replying any question put in cross-examination was on account of tender age and fear and from her demeanour it did not appear that she was a set-up witness. The Court below has taken into account her evidence also. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of victim girl cannot be taken into account because she did not reply any question put to her in cross-examination. The Court below has taken into account her evidence also. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of victim girl cannot be taken into account because she did not reply any question put to her in cross-examination. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that in a case of rape if the prosecutrix supports the case of the prosecution, no corroboration of her evidence is required, but in the present case because the victim girl on account of her tender age has not been able to reply the questions put in her cross-examination her evidence in examination-in-chief cannot be thrown away only on this ground and it has to be judged by considering other evidence on record. I am unable to accept this submission of learned State Counsel. The cross-examination is the only mode to test the veracity of the statements given by a witness in examination-in-chief relating to an occurrence which took place with him or in his presence. If there is no cross-examination except in the circumstances provided in Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, the evidence cannot be said to be complete and such evidence will not fall within the true meaning of evidence defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. The reasoning of Court below in considering the evidence of victim girl without her cross-examination that she was fear-striken in the new surrounding of the Court seeing lawyers, Judge, constables, accused in dock, etc. cannot be accepted because the same situation was prevailing when she gave statements in her examination-in-chief. So I find that her statements given in her examination-in-chief cannot be considered because these statements were not subjected to the test of cross-examination on her remaining silent to the questions put on behalf of appellant. 10. But, then in this case, if the evidence of victim girl (PW 5) is not considered in view of the fact as stated above that it is not complete, Still I find that there is evidence of other witnesses namely PWs 1, 2 and 3 who have fully supported the case of the prosecution. Their evidence further finds support from the medical evidence. Their evidence further finds support from the medical evidence. About PW 3 learned counsel for the appellant has argued that he has stated that he had brought the victim girl from the place of occurrence to her house but in the fardbeyan the Informant has simply stated that victim girl was brought by villagers who had gone to the place of occurrence and she has not named this witness amongst the villagers who had brought her daughter to her house although PW 3 was with the Informant at the time of recording her fardbeyan which is parent from his signature (Ext. 1/1) on the fardbeyan. Besides this, it has further been submitted that no where the Informant has stated in her evidence that PW 3 had told her about the occurrence. It is true that in the fardbeyan the Informant has stated that villagers had brought her daughter to her house and the name of PW 3 is not mentioned there but then admittedly PW 3 is Sarhu of the father of the victim girl. In this view of the matter, if the Informant has not included his name in the category of villagers it does not create any submission on behalf of appellant is that the occurrence is said to have taken place on the morning of 3.10.1994 but information with Police was lodged on 5.10.1994 and this delay which has not been satisfactorily explained makes the case of prosecution doubtful. The Informant in her evidence has stated that on 3.10.1994 in the afternoon when she returned to her house she came to know about the occurrence and on the next day she went to her naihar from where she brought her father and thereafter on the following day, she went to Police Station for lodging the case. She has further stated that in those days her husband had gone to Punjab for earning. So Informant has explained the delay in lodging the case with Police and considering her statements on this point, I find that delay has been satisfactorily explained. 11. Considering the evidence on record, I find that the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 coupled with medical evidence proves the case of prosecution against the appellant who has rightly been found guilty under Section 376, IPC by the Court below. 11. Considering the evidence on record, I find that the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 coupled with medical evidence proves the case of prosecution against the appellant who has rightly been found guilty under Section 376, IPC by the Court below. It is a case of rape committed on a child girl aged about 7 years. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for eight years. The nature of offence and the tender age of victim girl justifies the quantum of sentence which does not appear excessive and in my opinion does not warrant reduction. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby confirmed.