JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J.-The sole appellant Ratan Singh has preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgmeht and order dated 30.7.97 passed by.Shri B.B.M. Murti, learned 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, holding him guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven (7) years. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Sukhli Devi lodged an F.I.R. with Manatu P.S. on 13.10.93 at 2.00 P.M. stating therein that on 12.10.93 at 10.00 A.M. she along with her younger Nanad Manju Kumari had gone to Lagudhai forest within Nawa Mauza for grazing cattle and she-goat. She was a bit ahead towards east of her Nanad with her cattle and her Nanad was behind her. At about 10.00 A.M. in the day, all of a sudden, the appellant Ratan Singh, a co-villager, taking tangi in his hand came to her and caught her hand; she protested but he threw her on the ground, lifted her Saari and committed rape. She was crying and raised an alarm and on her alarm, her Nanad Manju Kumari and Raj Kumar, a co-villager came to her immediately, on seeing them, Ratan Singh left her and fled away. She thereafter came weeping to her house and narrated the occurrence to her mother-in-law, husband and others. The Co-villagers wanted a panchayati on the issue and kept the matter pending but when no justice was done, then she went to the police station and lodged an F.I.R. She felt pain in waist and private parts and due to being thrown on the ground by the appellant, she sustained injuries on her head and shoulders. She had not taken bath till then and handed over the clothes to the police she was wearing at the time of the occurrence. 3. A case under Sections 342/323/ 376 I.P.C. was registered and I.O. after investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused. 4. Case of the defence is that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. Charges under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed and the appellant was put on the trial and the learned court below after considering the evidence-both oral and documentary came to the findings and held the appellant guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Charges under Section 376 I.P.C. was framed and the appellant was put on the trial and the learned court below after considering the evidence-both oral and documentary came to the findings and held the appellant guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. Assailing the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that except prosecutrix (P.W. 1) not a single witness and even so-called eye-witness Manju Kumari (P.W. 2) and Raj Kumar (P.W. 4) have not supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel further pointed out that several witnesses have turned hostile. Next point of his argument is that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a good deal of delay and after full manoeuvreing when occurrence is said to have taken place on 12.10.93 at 10.00 A.M. but F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.10.93 at 2.00 P.M. and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the F.I.H. when the P.S. is situated at a distance of about four kilometers from the house of the prosecutrix. Another point of his argument was that a lady doctor (P.W. 7) examined the victim lady but has not found any sign of rape to have been committed on her and further that witnesses are interested ones in this case and this is a case of acquittal. Another point of his argument is that the appellant has already remained in jail for about five (5) years and four (4) months and even if it is found that he is guilty of committing rape, lenient view should be taken about the sentence meted out to him by the learned trial court. 6. Prosecution has altogether examined eight witnesses. P.W. 1 is prosecutrix. She has stated in her deposition that rape was committed on her and when she raised alarm, then her husband's sister, Manju Kumari (P.W. 2) turned up and she was also threatened. She has further deposed in Para-6 that she was examined at Daltonganj hospital, she sustained injuries on her waist and neck. She further says that her clothes such as saari and saya were seized by I.O. 7. P.W. 2 is Manju Kumari. She has come to depose that she was grazing she goats along with her bhabhi Sukhali Devi (P.W. 1) and at the time of occurrence, she was a little behind her bhabhi. She further says that her clothes such as saari and saya were seized by I.O. 7. P.W. 2 is Manju Kumari. She has come to depose that she was grazing she goats along with her bhabhi Sukhali Devi (P.W. 1) and at the time of occurrence, she was a little behind her bhabhi. She has further deposed that the appellant Ratan Singh caught her bhabhi and committed rape on her. She further says that on her bhabhi's hulla, she reached there and herself saw the occurrence. She has further stated that the appellant fled away when Raj Kumar Mahto (P.W. 4) arrived there. 8. P.W. 3 is Patia Devi. She is hearsay witness. She has simply stated that she heard that her daughter-in-law was raped by the appellant. She has further deposed that in her presence, I.O. seized saari and saya of Sukhali Devi (P.W. 1). 9. P.W. 4 is Raj Kumar Mahto. He has come to depose that on alarm of Sukhali Devi (P.W. 1), he went there and saw P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 there but he did not see any one running away. This witness has been declared hostile. He has denied to have stated that when he arrived at the P.O., this appellant with tangi in his hand was running away. 10. P.W. 5 Ram Briksha Ram has also been declared hostile and he has not supported the case. 11. P.W. 6 Raja Yadav has also been declared hostile and he has not supported the case. 12. P.W. 7 Mrs: Sobhna Toppo is a Doctor. She has examined the victim lady on 14.10.93. She found the following a. Physical Exam : i. Height : 5 feet ii. Wt. : 45 years (sic kgs.) iii. Breast : Well developed. iv. Axcilliamaud Pubic Hair : Present v. Teeth : 16/16 b. External exam : No external injury found on the body and on her private part. No spermatozoa stain was found on her body. c. Vaginal exam : Vagina admits two fingers easily. No internal injury found on vagina and no tenderness present. Bleeding P.W. present t. she was menstruating. Vaginal smear taken for pathological examination. No spermatozoa seen. Epithelial cells via patholab no. 20/14.10.93. d. Age: According to physical exam and presence and presence of teeth, the age of victim was in between 18 to 25 years. No internal injury found on vagina and no tenderness present. Bleeding P.W. present t. she was menstruating. Vaginal smear taken for pathological examination. No spermatozoa seen. Epithelial cells via patholab no. 20/14.10.93. d. Age: According to physical exam and presence and presence of teeth, the age of victim was in between 18 to 25 years. According to the opinion of the doctor, no medical evidence of rape was found. In cross-examination, she has stated that as she (P.W. 1) was passing through menstruating period and that period might have washed off the sign of rape. 13. P.W. 8 is I.O. of the case. According to him, he drafted the F.I.R. (Ext.-2). He further deposed that on 14.10.92 he sent the prosecutrix for medical test. He further deposed that he had seized saari and saya with stains of semen and blood at four places (Ext.-5). 14. From the material on record, it appears that only P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have supported the alleged rape on P.W. 1 while other witnesses have turned hostile. The evidence of P.W. 7, who is doctor, is very important and in view of the fact that in course of examination of prosecutrix (P.W. 1), she found her to be passing through menstruating stage and according to her deposition in cross-examination, in the last Para, she has deposed that sign of rape might have been washed off by mestruation. Therefore, finding of the doctor that there was no sign of rape, cannot be considered that no rape has been committed because of her own deposition (P.W. 7), victim lady (P.W. 1) was passing through menstruation period and that period can wash off the sign of rape. On the other hand, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have also supported the case. P.W. 3, although, is a hear-say witness, has stated this much that she was told that P.W. 1 has been raped by the appellant. P.W. 4, though has turned hostile but admitted that he heard hulla of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, although he has not deposed to have seen this appellant running away and has denied so. This much is clear that he heard alarm of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 4, though has turned hostile but admitted that he heard hulla of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, although he has not deposed to have seen this appellant running away and has denied so. This much is clear that he heard alarm of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 4 has not correctly stated that if any alarm is raised, it must have been raised for some purpose when there was any kind of danger and if there was any kind of danger or so and particularly when she raised alarm in such a lonely place, it may be that some animal might endanger her life or somebody is trying to commit rape on her. But this much is clear that P.W. 4 heard alarm raised by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and in the background that soon thereafter, a case alleging commission of rape by the appellant is lodged by that very lady who raised the alarm, then this is nothing but a confirmation of the fact that something happened to her by this appellant. Further, though no forensic report regarding what kind of blood stains and other stains were found on the saari and saya but his much is clear that saari and saya has been seized by the I.O. with stains at those places pointed out in the seizure list. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that P.W. 1 says that she did not know the appellant by name but her name was disclosed by Manju Kumari (P.W. 2) but P.W. 2 in her deposition has not so stated that she gave out the name of the appellant to her bhabhi and so on. But this is not a very important point because P.W. 2 is also an eye-witness and she has herself seen the occurrence being committed by the appellant and she has also stated that she has also deposed in the court and has identified the appellant in the court also. Further, P.W. 1 has also identified the appellant and there is no difference in their deposition regarding identification of the appellant and, therefore, there is no merit in this point. P.W. 7 also has not given clear finding because she has herself deposed that menstruation period may wash off the sign of the rape and the victim lady (P.W. 1) was passing through menstruating stage. P.W. 7 also has not given clear finding because she has herself deposed that menstruation period may wash off the sign of the rape and the victim lady (P.W. 1) was passing through menstruating stage. Alleged occurrence is dated 12.10.93 and she was medically examined on 14.10.93 after two days of occurrence and she was passing through menstruation, so that period might have washed off the sign of rape and this finding of P.W. 7 is not going to help the appellant. So far as the delay is concerned, P.W. 1 has stated that a panchayati was convened and after failure of panchayati, this case. has been lodged. It so happens particularly in villages when a rape is committed, the panchayati generally takes place and if offender confess to have committed the offence, then a fine of money or so is awarded by panches and when panchayati fails, then case is lodged by the victim lady/person. Thus, from the discussion above, case stands well proved. 16. So far as the point that appellant has already remained in jail for about five (5) years and four (4) months and the learned trial court has awarded seven (7) years rigorous imprisonment, since he has already remained in jail for five (5) years and four (4) months. This period already undergone by him is sufficient punishment; no further punishment of jail term is required. 17. With this modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.