JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.—Appellant Sunil Kumar Gupta has been convicted under Sections 376 and 306, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and seven years, respectively. He has also been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count. 2. It is not in dispute that Deepa, aged about 14 years, committed suicide on 10.1.1997 by hanging herself in her house in village Bida. Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) is her mother, Shanti (P.W.2) is her grand mother, Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) is her father and Prakash Chandra Gupta (P.W.4) is her brother, Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) has a Kirana shop in this village. Accused Sunil is having a shop of general stores in this village. Accused Sunil is distantly related to Deepa and he has been described as her 'Chachera Chacha' 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.1.1997 at 12 Noon deceased Deepa had gone to the shop of accused Sunil to buy a handkerchief. The accused told her that good quality of handkerchiefs are kept in the room behind the shop. The accused took her in that room, made her to lie down on a cot and committed rape on her. The underwear which she was wearing was stained with blood. She came back to her house weeping and when her mother Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) asked her what has happened she told her that the accused has committed rape on her. Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) consoled her and asked her to wait for the arrival of her father Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) who was out of station from 8.1.1997. Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) went inside the house to clean some utensils and when she came back she found that Deepa was not there. She searched her and when she went to the 'Atari', she saw her hanging. She was dead. The mother shouted and told her mother-in-law Shanti (P.W.2) about this incident. The father of the deceased returned to his house at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day and then his wife narrated the incident to him also which was disclosed to her by her daughter. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence is that he has been falsely implicated and Deepa might have committed suicide because she had failed in 8th Class examination and she was scolded by her parents on that account. 5. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty. His defence is that he has been falsely implicated and Deepa might have committed suicide because she had failed in 8th Class examination and she was scolded by her parents on that account. 5. The trial Court after an exhaustive survey of the evidence on record in light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions came to the conclusion that the charges under Sections 376 and 306, Indian Penal Code are proved against the accused. 6. In this appeal it has been argued that: (a) There is no definite evidence that the appellant committed rape on Deepa and (b) It cannot be said that the accused abetted commission of the suicide by Deepa. It is pointed out that there is no independent evidence or the medical evidence to corroborate the testimony of the near relations of the deceased and, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offences. 7. Points (a) and (b): During the course of hearing of this appeal it is not disputed that Deepa was aged about 14 years and she has committed suicide on 10.1.1997 in her house in village Bida. It is amply proved from the school certificate (Ex.P-3) issued by the Head Master of the School at Bida that the date of birth of Deepa by was 2.1.1983. The certificate has been formally proved by Lalmani Tiwari (P.W.5) who was the Head Master of this school. The parents of the deceased have also deposed that the age of Deepa was about 13 years. Thus she was definitely less than 16 years of age on the date of incident. Dr.S.K.Pathak (P.W.11) conducted autopsy on the body of Deepa on 11.1.1997 and in his opinion she committed suicide. The post-mortem report is Ex.P-14. Thus the trial Court has rightly held that Deepa, aged about 14 years, committed suicide. 8. The question is whether accused Sunil committed rape on Deepa. As the prosecutrix has committed suicide her evidence could not be available to the Court. Her statement could not be recorded even by the Police. Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) is the main prosecution witness to establish the charge of rape against the accused. She has deposed that at about 12 Non her daughter Deepa told her that she was going to the shop of the accused to purchase a handkerchief. Her statement could not be recorded even by the Police. Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) is the main prosecution witness to establish the charge of rape against the accused. She has deposed that at about 12 Non her daughter Deepa told her that she was going to the shop of the accused to purchase a handkerchief. After about half an hour she came back weeping and disclosed to her that when she asked for handkerchief from the accused her took her in the room behind the shop and committed rape on her. She told her that the accused took out her underwear and then he committed sexual act with her. Deepa showed her the underwear and it was stained with blood. As the father of the girl was not in village Bida on that day, she asked her to wait for sometime. She went inside to clean certain utensils and after 45 minutes she came back and saw Deepa hanging on the "Atari". She has further stated that her daughter Deepa had also disclosed that the accused had asked her that she should not reveal this incident to anyone otherwise her reputation would be compromised and there would be difficulty in her marriage. She has further stated that her husband came back at about 4.00 p.m. and by that time the police had come and had taken the dead body of Deepa to Rewa for post-mortem examination. Thereafter she told her husband what had been narrated to her by Deepa. In cross-examination she has stated that her mental equilibrium was highly disturbed on account of this incident and, therefore, she could not tell her husband immediately what Deepa had disclosed to her. According to her, Shanti (P.W.2), who is her mother-in-law, had also seen the blood stained underwear which Deepa was wearing. She has denied the suggestion that she had scolded her daughter because she had failed in 8th class and that was the reason she committed suicide. It is found that Deepa had failed a year ago and she was re-admitted in 8th class and, therefore, her bad result could not be the motive for her to commit suicide. 9. Shanti (P.W.2) is grand-mother of deceased Deepa. She has deposed that she was sleeping in her room and then Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) shouted that Deepa has hanged herself. She saw her hanging and found her underwear blood stained. 9. Shanti (P.W.2) is grand-mother of deceased Deepa. She has deposed that she was sleeping in her room and then Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) shouted that Deepa has hanged herself. She saw her hanging and found her underwear blood stained. She has further stated that Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) told her at that very time what Deepa had revealed to her regarding the commission of rape on her by the accused. In cross-examination she has stated that cause for commission of suicide by Deepa was disclosed to the police also when it came to prepare that Panchnama of the dead body. 10. Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) has deposed that he returned to his village on 10.1.1997 at 4.00 p.m. by cycle. When he was at the bus stand he came to know that his daughter has committed suicide. He went running to his house and he saw the police and the dead body of his daughter Deepa. The police took away the dead body and then his wife told him that Deepa had disclosed to her that when she had gone to the shop of the accused to buy handkerchief the accused committed rape on her and she saw her underwear stained with blood. He went to the police station several times and asked the police officer to record his report but it was not done. Then after sometime he went to the Superintendent of Police and D.I.G., Rewa and then the investigation was conducted under the supervision of the S.D.O. Police and his statement was recorded. At that time statements of his wife, mother and son were also recorded. Prakash Chandra Gupta (P.W.4) is brother of the deceased and his version is also the same as that of his parents. 11. S.P.Shukla (P.W.8) has deposed that he was Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on 10.1.1997 at Shahpur Police Chowki and Ravendra Kumar Gupta had given the information regarding commission of suicide by Deepa and that was recorded by him as per Ex.P-6. In this report, Ravendra Kumar Gupta who is neighbour of Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) has stated that he heard about the commission of suicide by Deepa and he has directly come to the Police Chowki for reporting that matter. From this report it is clear that Ravendra Kumar Gupta had no information regarding the actual incident and, therefore, this report does not contain the details of the incident. From this report it is clear that Ravendra Kumar Gupta had no information regarding the actual incident and, therefore, this report does not contain the details of the incident. S.P.Shukla (P.W.8) has stated that he had recorded the statements of the parents, grand-mother and brother of the deceased during the Marg inquiry, but those statements have not been produced. He has admitted that there was a complaint against him by Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) and on that basis a departmental inquiry was held against him and he was placed under suspension. Premnarayan Shrivastava (P.W.9) is the D.S.P. According to him, he was directed by the Additional S.P. to make an enquiry on the application of Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) and after enquiry he found that prima facie the offences under Sections 376 and 306, Indian Penal Code have been committed by the accused. He wrote the letter Ex.Thereafter the investigation was held by P.D.Tiwari (P.W.13) who was Station Officer of Semariya Police Station. He recorded statements of the witnesses and submitted chargesheet. The statements of the four witnesses mentioned above were also recorded. 12. As mentioned above the prosecution case primarily rests on the testimony of Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) who is mother of the deceased. After carefully scrutinising her deposition-sheet this Court is of the opinion that she is a fully reliable witness. There is absolutely no reason for her to prefer a false charge against accused Sunil Kumar. The testimony of Urmila Gupta (P.W.1) is also corroborated by the evidence of her mother-in-law Shanti (P.W.2), her husband Santosh Kumar (P.W.3) and her son Prakash Chandra Gupta (P.W.4). The rape and suicide took place in a very short time. Deepa was an innocent girl of 14 years of age. She must have narrated the truth before her mother. Her statement found support from her blood stained underwear. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that according to Dr.S.K.Pathak (P.W.11) he had examined genitals of Deepa at the time of post-mortem examination and that was found to be healthy and he did not find any injury on her private part. According to the learned counsel this statement of the doctor belies the prosecution case that Deepa was subjected to rape. A perusal of the post-mortem report (Ex.P.14) reveals that there was no proper examination of the private part of the girl to ascertain whether she was subjected to rape. According to the learned counsel this statement of the doctor belies the prosecution case that Deepa was subjected to rape. A perusal of the post-mortem report (Ex.P.14) reveals that there was no proper examination of the private part of the girl to ascertain whether she was subjected to rape. Her genital was described to be "Healthy" as a matter of routine. Therefore, the statement of the doctor in cross-examination does not have the effect of falsifying the prosecution case. It is true that the medical evidence which is generally produced before the Court in rape cases is not there in the present case but that does not rob the sterling character of the testimony of Urmila Gupta (P.W.1). Deepa brought an end to her life immediately after commission of rape on her by the accused and, therefore, there is absence of medical evidence and also the testimony of the independent witnesses to corroborate what she narrated before her mother. 14. The statement of Deepa to her mother regarding commission of rape on her immediately after the incident is covered by sections 6 and 32 of the Evidence Act. The statement made by her was immediately after the incident. That must be held to be contemporaneous with the transaction in issue. Deepa was under the influence of what befell her and her declaration was spontaneous and natural. The principle of law embodied in section 6 of the Evidence Act is usually known as the rule of res gestae. In Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, it has been held that the essence of the doctrine of res gestae is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" becomes relevant by itself. This rule is roughly speaking an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. The rationale in making certain statement on fact admissible u/s 6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But it is necessary that such fact or statement must be part of the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter. But it is necessary that such fact or statement must be part of the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter. In the present case Deepa made the statement to her mother immediately after she returned from the shop of the accused when she was still under the stress of the crime committed with her end, therefore, her statement is relevant piece of evidence u/s 6 of the Evidence Act. That is also relevant under sections 8 and 157 of the Evidence Act. 15. The statement of Deepa to her mother immediately after the incident is also covered by Section 32 of the Evidence Act and that is substantive piece of evidence. The Supreme Court has held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, , that Section 32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death. In this respect as indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, has thought it necessary to widen the sphere of Section 32 to avoid injustice. Following this decision it has been clarified by the Supreme Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Others, that the death referred to in Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act includes suicidal death also. The same proposition has been laid down in Sudhakar and Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra, in which it has been reiterated that the statement of the victim who is dead is admissible insofar as it refers to cause of his death or as to any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. These should be sufficiently or closely connected with the actual transaction. In that case the deceased who was alleged to have been subjected to rape committed suicide after more than five and half months of the commission of rape and, therefore, the statement made by the deceased was not treated as a dying declaration. These should be sufficiently or closely connected with the actual transaction. In that case the deceased who was alleged to have been subjected to rape committed suicide after more than five and half months of the commission of rape and, therefore, the statement made by the deceased was not treated as a dying declaration. But in the present case Deepa committed suicide within an hour of the commission of rape on her and, therefore, it must be held that her suicide was instigated and abetted by the accused. The question must be examined on a practical plain and not with a theoretical approach. A girl, aged about 14 years, was subjected to rape with a warning that if she would disclose this incident to anyone there would be difficulty in her marriage and her reputation would be at stake. Therefore, not only the offence of rape is established, but the abetment to commit suicide is also clearly made out. Deepa could not tolerate indignity and ignominy of the commission of rape on her and that led her to the 'Atari' to hang herself. The disgrace and dishonour were incalculable and beyond endurance. The act and conduct of the accused were such from which "reasonable certainty to incite the consequence could be spelt out" within the meaning of the phrase which has been recently used by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, . The trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306, Indian Penal Code. 16. So far as the question of sentence is concerned it cannot be said to be disproportionate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 17. The appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed