Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix Rubiya Devi on 11.9.1994 while was returning from Maheshwari at about 6.00 P.M. with her companions and when arrived near Khilatanr-bahiyar accused Ashok Singh and Prakash Singh of village Maheshwari suddenly came there and caught hold of her. They began to drag her towards forest which was opposed by P.W. 4, Ashwa Devi and she resisted but she was kicked of. She along with others started raising alarm but since it was lonely place, no one appeared to rescue her. It has been stated that the prosecutrix was taken to the forest where the appellant along with co-accused committed rape on her. It has been stated that there was bleeding from her private part. She attempted to escape but she was held up and after the appellant and other co-accused again committed rape one by one on her. Her garments were blood stained and also stained with semen. However, when she was left out by the culprits she any how tried to return to her village home but in the way she came across her father and other witnesses to whom she narrated the occurrence. The complaint was made to the Mukhiya of the village Panchayat, Bishunpur. She was advised to go to the police station. She went to the police station where her statement was recorded in presence of her father Sitaram Naiya at the Sono (Charkapathar) P.S. (Ext. 2) by the police. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. Hence this appeal. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 8 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 is Rubiya Kumari, the prosecutrix herself. P.W. 3 is Basmatiya Devi, mother of the prosecutrix. P.W. 4 is Ashwa Devi who had accompanied the prosecutrix. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 8 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 is Rubiya Kumari, the prosecutrix herself. P.W. 3 is Basmatiya Devi, mother of the prosecutrix. P.W. 4 is Ashwa Devi who had accompanied the prosecutrix. P.W. 5 is Benga Naiya, a hearsay witness. P.W.6 is Sitaram Naiya, father of the victim girl. P.W. 7 is Dr. Reeta Upadhyay who had examined the victim girl and P.W. 8 is Prasidh Narayan Singh, a formal witness. The investigating officer of this case has not been examined. 4. P.W. 1 has stated that he was present at the examination of the prosecutrix on 13.9.94 at Sadar Hospital, Jamui at about 12.20 P.M. when she was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Reeta Upadhyay and Dr. Anjani Kr. Sinha. 5. P.W. 2 is the prosecutrix herself. She has stated that when she was returning from village Maheshwari after working on daily wages with her companions Kalsi Devi, Mangi Devi, Basmatiya Devi, Kesia Devi and two more persons and arrived near Khiltanr she was held up by the accused Ashok Singh and appellant Prakash Singh who lifted her and began to move towards the forest to which portest was made but none appeared from the near by village except Kalsi. All the witnesses escaped from that place. She has stated that both the accused committed rape on her. After the occurrence while she was returning to her house she came across Kalsi and her parents to whom she narrated the occurrence. She has also stated that she went to the village Mukhiya where she was advised to go to the police station. She narrated the occurrence to the S.I. of Police which was recorded and accordingly F.I.R. was lodged. From there she was taken to Jamui hospital where she was medically examined by the doctor. 6. P.W. 3, Basmatiya Devi, mother of the prosecutrix has stated that she was at her house in the evening. The witnesses Ashwa, Fulia, Tulsia Devi came to her and informed that the accused persons Ashok Singh and Prakash Singh had lifted her daughter Rubia from Khilatanr. She came out with her husband, Khokhan, Dhokal, Jitu and Bale etc. and spotted Rubia. Rubia told that accused Ashok Singh and Prakash Singh committed rape on her. The witnesses Ashwa, Fulia, Tulsia Devi came to her and informed that the accused persons Ashok Singh and Prakash Singh had lifted her daughter Rubia from Khilatanr. She came out with her husband, Khokhan, Dhokal, Jitu and Bale etc. and spotted Rubia. Rubia told that accused Ashok Singh and Prakash Singh committed rape on her. On the subsequent day they went to the village Mukhiya and on his advise she took Rubia to Sono Police station with other witnesses. P.W. 4, Ashwa Devi has stated that when she was returning at about 6.00 P.M. after working from village Maheshwari accompanied by the prosecutrix Rubia, Kasia, Mangi Devi and as soon as they reached Khilatanr, they were held up by accused Ashok Singh and Prakash Singh who lifted Rubia and took her near a forest. When she and other witnesses protested they were assaulted by the accused persons. Therefore, they could not help her and returned back to the house of the prosecutrix where she informed her mother about the incident. P.W. 5, hearsay witness has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that he accompanied the prosecutrix, her parents and other villagers to the police station where her blood stained garments were seized and seizure list was prepared on which he put his thumb impression. P.W. 6, Sita Ram Naiya is the father of the victim girl. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. He has stated that his daughter had gone to Maheshwari to work as labourer accompanied by her companions Kalsi, Ashwa, Kalia, Kesia Devi etc. While they were returning after receiving wages and when they arrived near Khilatanr accused Ashok and Prakash held up Rubia. They assaulted the other labourers and made them to escape and took Rubia towards forest forcibly. When the witnesses informed him about the occurrence he with other witnesses went in search of his daughter. He met his daughter Rubia and she stated, about the whole incident to him. He has also stated that he along with other villagers went to the village Mukhiya who advised them to go to the police station and accordingly they went to the police station where the Fardbeyan of the prosecutrix was recorded by the S.I. of Police and F.I.R. was lodged. 7. P.W. 7, Dr. (Smt.) Reeta Upadhyay has stated that a medical board consisting of Dr. Arun Kr. Singh, Dr. 7. P.W. 7, Dr. (Smt.) Reeta Upadhyay has stated that a medical board consisting of Dr. Arun Kr. Singh, Dr. Anjani Kr. Singh and herself was constituted and the board examined the victim Rubia Devi on 13.9.94 at Sadar Hospital, Jamui. The board found the following : Height 4 x 10", Weight - 31 kg., Tooth - 14/14 Axilliary and pubic hair - absent. Breast-partially developed. Clothes were same as worn during occurrence. Dried blood spots and dried whitish spots on multiple places on her under-garment which were preserved and was handed over to the constable. On examination of vagina : Recent rupture of hymen was found. Lacerated wound 1. 1/2" x 1/4" deep to sub-mucose over forehette and extending over posterior vaginal part was found and the wound bleeds on stitching. On examination of the vaginal swab by Dr. A.K. Sinha, pathologist, it was reported that spermatzoa was found there. Radiological examination of elbow joint and writ joint were advised but no x-ray report was produced before the medical board. Hence, the opinion regarding the age of the victim girl was reserved. In the opinion of the medical board, the sign of rape was positive on Rubia Devi. 8. P.W. 8 is a formal witness. He has proved the F.I.R. and the handwriting of the S.I. which has been marked Ext. 2. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been convicted only on the testimony of the victim girl and the investigating officer of this case has not been examined which has prejudiced the case of the defence. Non examination of the investigating officer where there is specific nature of allegation corroborated by other witnesses on the factum of occurrence which has been supported by medical expert, the investigating officer has hardly any vital role. Therefore, non-examination of I.O. has not been fatal to the case of defence. It has been also submitted that there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. So far contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses are concerned, the witnesses who had accompanied the victim girl while she was returning back, saw the prosecutrix when she was lifted away by the appellant. The father also came soon after the occurrence when she was coming back to her house. So far contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses are concerned, the witnesses who had accompanied the victim girl while she was returning back, saw the prosecutrix when she was lifted away by the appellant. The father also came soon after the occurrence when she was coming back to her house. Therefore, they are natural witnesses and their testimony cannot be discarded only on minor contradictions which were bound to happen in such type of cases. The submission of the learned counsel is that the appellant has been convicted only on solitary evidence of the prosecutrix. But, it is well settled that the accused can be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix unless there are compelling reasons inviting corroboration. In this case the prosecutrix was accompanied by her companions. They have categorically stated that the appellant came and forcibly took her towards forest and committed rape on her. They have also stated that when they protested they were assaulted by the accused. This fact has also been corroborated by the father of the victim girl (P.W. 4) who met her in the way while she was returning back soon after the occurrence took place. More so in the opinion of the medical board, the sign of rape was found positive on the victim girl. It is most unlikely that why the prosecutrix would invite such disgrace in society only to falsely implicate a person until and unless she is subjected to assault and cruelty. In this case there was no enmity between the informant and the appellant. Therefore, there was not any reason for the victim girl to falsely implicate the appellant. 10. From the deposition of the witnesses coupled with the evidence of the doctor it is amply clear that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and the court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. The conviction passed by the court below is upheld. 11. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel has submitted that in this case I.O. was not examined and place of occurrence has not been proved. Moreover, this appellant has lost his one hand. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence. The conviction passed by the court below is upheld. 11. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel has submitted that in this case I.O. was not examined and place of occurrence has not been proved. Moreover, this appellant has lost his one hand. Therefore, some lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence. Having regard to the submission raised on behalf of the appellant and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the sentence of 10 years is reduced to 7 years. With the modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.