Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21st of August, 1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1995 convicting the sole appellant under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I. P. C.) and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for seven years. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that in her fardbayan dated 13-8-1995 recorded at 7.30 p.m. at Samapur Police Outpost the victim girl Kanti Kumari (P. W. 1) alleged that her mother is dead. Her father remains mostly ill. On this day at about 2.00 p.m. her father has sent her along with her younger sister Soni to Samapur Chowk for selling onion and potato etc. In the evening she sent back the remaining onion and potato left out after sale with her younger sister and a Coolie to her house. In the way she met accused Langra who gave her a cake to eat and took her inside the Gumati. It was further alleged that he forcibly committed rape on her. She came to her house and narrated the occurrence to her father. She went before the police along with her father and other villagers where her fardbayan (Ext. 3) was recorded over which she gave her signature (Ext. 1/1). On the basis of the fardbeyan the F. I. R. was registered. The I.O. sent the victim girl for medical examination and after obtaining the report (Ext. 2) submitted the charge-sheet and after commitment the trial proceeded in the court below. 3. The case of the defence is that he has been falsely implicated in this case because of village politics. 4. On behalf of the prosecution in all seven witnesses have been examined, out of which P. W. 1 (Kanti Kumari) victim girl who is informant, P. W. 5 (Arjun Shah) is her father and P. W. 6 (Dr. Minni Rani) who examined the victim girl. P. W. 7 (Chandeshwari Prasad Yadav) is the I.O. P.W. 2 (Bindeshwari Thakur) has been declared hostile, who stated that he had no knowledge about the occurrence. Similarly P. W. 3 (Prakash Sah) has not supported the prosecution case. He stated that when he returned back from Purnia in the village, he learnt that accused has committed rape on a minor girl. Similarly P. W. 3 (Prakash Sah) has not supported the prosecution case. He stated that when he returned back from Purnia in the village, he learnt that accused has committed rape on a minor girl. P. W. 4 (Udai Prasad Gupta) stated that victim girl Kanti Kumari is his grand-daughter. He is a witness on thefardbayan and proved the signature (Ext. 1/1). In cross-examination he stated that he knew nothing about the occurrence. 5. P. W. 6, the lady doctor stated that on 14-8-1995 at 9.55 p.m. She examined Kanti Kumari on being referred by the police and on the basis of her clinical examination and also on the basis of the report of the Radiologist and Dental Surgeon she found her age in between 9 to 10 years. She stated that she did not find mark of any physical violence on her body and external gentallia. However, she stated that she found hymen torn and also found redness around the introitus. She stated that on pathological examination no spermatozoa was found in her vaginal swab. She further opined that presence of injuries found over vagina of Kanti Kumari may be due to attempt of sexual intercourse or by any other means. To a pointed question by the court she stated that the hymen of the girl cannot be torn without penetration of finger or penis. In substance the evidence of the lady Doctor lent support to the ocular testimony of the victim girl Kanti Kumari that she was raped. 6. The evidence of the victim girl (P. W. 1) is to the effect that on the date of alleged occurrence she was returning home in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. alone. Her sister earlier went home along with the Coolie carring potato and onion etc. She stated that in the way she met the accused whom she identified in the dock. He gave her a cake to eat and took her inside a Gumati. She stated that accused forcibly removed her clothes including the under garments and forcibly committed rape on her. He asked her not to narrate this occurrence to any one in the village. After returning to her house, she narrated the entire fact to her father, who brought her to the police station, where her statement was recorded and she was sent to hospital for medical examination. He asked her not to narrate this occurrence to any one in the village. After returning to her house, she narrated the entire fact to her father, who brought her to the police station, where her statement was recorded and she was sent to hospital for medical examination. In cross-examination the victim girl stated that her father and uncle have compromised the case outside the Court with the accused. As such, in cross-examination she stated that accused had not done anything bad with her. The trial Court had discussed the evidence of the victim girl in paragraphs 9 and 10 of its judgment and came to the conclusion that she has supported the occurrence of rape committed by the accused on her in examination-in-chief but it seems that due to compromise a pressure was given on her, therefore, in cross-examination she stated that nothing bad was done with her by the accused. The trial court came to the conclusion that this part of her evidence appears to be tutored statement, P. W. 5, her father also stated that he has compromised the case outside the court with the accused and he has given his L. T. I. on the compromise petition which was filed in the court also. 7. From the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 5 it appears that at the initial stage they have supported the prosecution case and stated that accused committed rape on the victim girl but at the later stage due to compromise entered into between the parties they tried to give a go-by to earlier statement with an intention to save the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the victim girl or her father have any animosity with the accused, as such, there was no reason for the prosecution and the victim girl to implicate the accused in this case. 8. P. W. 7 (the I. O.) stated that on 13-8-1995 he recorded the fardbayan (Ext. 3), on the basis of the statement of Kanti Kumari in which she has made allegation against the accused, who committed rape on her. He sent the girl for medical examination. He visited the place of occurrence on the same day and found a Cumati belonging to the accused. The front portion of the Cumati was found to be closed. Inside the Cumati he found biscuit, loaf etc. He sent the girl for medical examination. He visited the place of occurrence on the same day and found a Cumati belonging to the accused. The front portion of the Cumati was found to be closed. Inside the Cumati he found biscuit, loaf etc. He stated that P. W. 2 (Bindeshwari Thakur) and P. W. 5 (Arjun Sah) stated before him that on hulla he went near the house of the informant and learnt that accused has committed rape on Kanti Kumari. 9. Thus, after considering the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record I come to the conclusion that prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no valid reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the trial Court, by which the accused-appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 of the I. P. C. 10. The learned appellants lawyer submitted that considering the facts, circumstances and also considering the fact that both the parties have compromised the case outside the Court, a linient view may be taken in the award of sentence to the accused-appellant. He has remained in custody for about four and half years and assuch his period of sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone in custody. 11. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, for the ends of justice the period of sentence of the accused-appellant is hereby reduced to the period already undergone in custody. Issue release orders. 12. With this modification in the judgment and order of two Courts below the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.