Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Jayaswal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The sole appellant, Md. Manjoor, has been found guilty for offences under Sections 302. 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC, ten years under Section 376. IPC and two years under Section 201, IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run consecutively. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that PW 6 Md. Taiyab had gone to Benipatti Hospital on 14.5.1991 at about 7.30 a.m. for treatment of his minor son Mokhatar Ahmad and his wife and father also accompanied him. His daughter Asma Khatoon, deceased, was left alone in the house and at about 8.30 a.m. while Asma Khatoon had gone to ease herself in the west of the village near Kathi bridge and when the informant came from Benipatti at 11 a.m. he did not find his daughter Asma Khatoon in the house, he made search for her but she could not be found out. However, in course of search, the informant met Sunita Devi PW 8 who informed him that when she had gone towards west of Bachhraj river she had seen this appellant committing rape upon Asma Khatoon. She further stated before him that she had gone to ease near the river and there she had seen the appellant committing rape upon Asma Khatoon deceased in the bush of Kanchan and the appellant on seeing her started abusing and asked her to go back. She accordingly came back to her house out of fear and reported the matter to her father PW 2 and uncle Deochandra Thakur (Not examined) and on this information PW 2 and his brother Deochandra Thakur went in search of the appellant and when they reached near the river they found Md. Manjoor appellant standing in the river and despite their persuasion he did not come out of the river and. therefore, Deochandra Thakur assaulted him with fists and lathi and came back. On this information, the informant suspected the hands of appellant Md. Manjoor appellant standing in the river and despite their persuasion he did not come out of the river and. therefore, Deochandra Thakur assaulted him with fists and lathi and came back. On this information, the informant suspected the hands of appellant Md. Manjoor in disappearance of his daughter Asma Khatoon and accordingly, he went to the river along with Sunita and found trampling marks on the earth, grass and bush and he started searching his daughter and when she was not found out, he requested Mungai Sahani (Mukhia) PW 4, who was fishing in the river, to put his net in the river in order to make trace of the deceased and Mungai Sahani threw his net in the river and brought out the dead body of Asma Khatoon. On that point of time Md. Mohid PW 1 also came there and he narrated to the informant that he had also come to know about this occurrence from daughter of Rebana Thakur P.W. 2. The matter thereafter was reported to the police and the police came to the place of occurrence and recorded fardbeyan of the informant PW 6 and thereafter a formal first information report (Ext. 4) was drawn up and a case under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. Md. Manjoor. 4. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against this appellant and the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the Court of Sessions where this appellant was tried and ultimately was found guilty and was sentenced as referred to above. 5. The defence of the appellant is denial of the occurrence and false implication. 6. The prosecution in all has examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. Out of them. PW 1 Md. Mohid is a hear-say witness; PW 2 Reban Thakur is also a hear-say witness and a witness on the point that he had seen the appellant standing in the river as he had gone there on information given by his daughter PW 8; PW 3 Vidyapati Jha is a witness of inquest; PW 4 Mungai Sahani is the fisherman who fished out the dead body of the deceased from the river; PW 5 Md. Eltaph is a hearsay witness and also witness of the inquest; PW 6 Taiyab is the father of the deceased and informant of the case; PW 7 is Dr. Bhola Nath Jha who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased; PW 8 Sunita Devi is eye-witness of the occurrence; PWs 9, 10 and 11, namely, Md Naeem, Md. Habib and Mohd. Raudi Rain are witnesses of the seizure and PW 12 Shashi Bhushan Pandey is the investigating Officer of the case. 7. PW 8 Sunita Devi is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence. She in her evidence has stated that on 14.5.1991 at about 9 a.m. she had gone to river Bachhraj for easing herself and no sooner she reached near the river she saw the appellant Md. Manjoor committing rape upon the deceased Asma Khatoon in the bush of the river bed and appellant seeing her presence asked her to go away. She immediately came back at her house and there she reported the matter to her father PW 2 and uncle. Her father PW 2 and uncle on this information went to the river in question and there they found the appellant standing in the river and they scolded and asked him to come out from water but he refused to do so. Then her father and uncle gave him slaps and came back. In her cross- examination this witness has remained candid in saying that she saw this appellant committing rape upon the deceased near the river bed in the bush. In her cross-examination she has clarified that she knew the meaning of "Bura Kam" and it means "rape". She has been cross-examined in detail but she could not be discredited from her testimony. 8. P.W. 1 Md. Mohid in his evidence has stated that on the fateful day at about 9 a.m. he was doing some work in his field near the river and there he was informed by Sunita Devi PW 8 about commission of rape by the appellant upon Asma Khatoon. He tried to trace out Asma Khatoon but she could not be found out and near the bush he found sufficient trampling marks and he also saw appellant sitting in water of the river and out of fear he came back. He tried to trace out Asma Khatoon but she could not be found out and near the bush he found sufficient trampling marks and he also saw appellant sitting in water of the river and out of fear he came back. He has also stated in his Evidence that after sometime he saw PW 2, PW 8 and Deochandra Thakur going towards the river and he also went with them. He has further stated in his evidence that PW 2 and his brother Deochandra Thakur chided the appellant, and asked him to come out from the river but he refused to do so. This witness has further stated that dead, body of Asma Khatoon was fished out from the river and he had seen mark of violence on her body. Nothing unusual has been shown in the cross-examination rather it appears that he remained firm while he was being cross-examined and supported his earlier version as disclosed in the examination-in-chief. 9. PW 2 Reban Thakur is the father of Sunita Devi PW 8. In his evidence he has stated that on the fateful day his daughter PW 8 came from river Bachhraj and informed him about the commission of rape by the appellant upon Asma Khatoon and on this information, he along with his wife, daughter PW 8 and brother Deochandra Thakur went to the river in question where he saw the accused standing in water in the middle of the river. He slapped the appellant for committing rape upon Asma Khatoon and there PW 8 had shown him the place of occurrence. This witness in his evidence has stated that Asma Khatoon used to come to his house regularly. He has further stated in his evidence that dead body of Asma Khatoon was fished out from the river by PW 4. Nothing however has been taken out from his cross-examination and he remained firm in reiterating his earlier version, as disclosed in the examination-in-chief. 10. PW 3 is a formal witness of the inquest. PW 4 Mungai Sahani (Mukhia). who was fishing in the river, has stated in his evidence that he had gone to fish in Bachhraj river and there he was asked to put his net to search out the deceased and accordingly, when he put his net in the river dead body of the deceased was fished out. PW 4 Mungai Sahani (Mukhia). who was fishing in the river, has stated in his evidence that he had gone to fish in Bachhraj river and there he was asked to put his net to search out the deceased and accordingly, when he put his net in the river dead body of the deceased was fished out. In his evidence he has stated that he could not know the name of the deceased but she appeared to be a Muslim girl. He has further stated that he saw oozing blood from the mouth and nose of the deceased. 11. PW 5 Md. Eltaph is a hearsay witness and also inquest witness. In his evidence he has stated that he came to know that dead body of the deceased was taken out from the river and he knew from Sunita Devi PW 8 that this appellant has committed rape upon the deceased. In his evidence he has further stated that he had seen sufficient blood coming out from her mouth, nose and private part. In his cross-examination he has stated that he disclosed this fact even before the Investigating Officer in course of investigation. 12. PW 6 Taiyab is the informant. In his evidence he has supported prosecution version of the case, as disclosed by him, in the fardbeyan and he has stated that on 14.5.1991 at about 8.30 a.m. he had gone to Benipatti hospital for treatment of his minor son where his wife and father also accompanied him and his daughter, deceased, remained alone in the house and when he came back from Benipatti his daughter Asma Khatoon was not found in the house and on that he started searching her and in course of search he. met Sunita Devi PW 8 who narrated before him that she had seen appellant committing rape upon the deceased in the river bed bush. On this information he along with some of the villagers went to the river Bachhraj and there he requested Mungai Sahani PW 4, who was fishing in the river, to put his net to trace out Asma Khatoon and ultimately, PW 4 fished out dead body of the deceased from the river. This witness identified her as his daughter Asma Khatoon and had seen sufficient marks of violence upon her body and he had also seen blood oozing out from her mouth, nose and private part. This witness identified her as his daughter Asma Khatoon and had seen sufficient marks of violence upon her body and he had also seen blood oozing out from her mouth, nose and private part. This witness in his cross- examination, has remained candid in supporting the prosecution version of the case and he has categorically stated that for the first time, he came to know about the occurrence from Sunita Devi PW 8. In his cross-examination he has further stated that he also went to the house of the appellant and there he found his house locked from outside and he came to know that the father of the appellant had locked from outside. In his cross- Examination he has further stated that the villagers informed the appellant about the occurrence. 13. PW 7 Dr. Bholanath Jha, who held autopsy over the dead body, has stated in his evidence that on 15.5.1991 he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Madhubani and on that date at about 10.30 a.m. he held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Asma Khatoon and he had found following ante- mortem injuries on her persons : (i) bruise 1" x 1/2" over left cheek at the level of mendable. (ii) abraison 1" x 1/4" over chin. (iii) bruise 3" x 1" with swelling over front of chest right side. (iv) bruise 2" x 2" over left shoulder joint. (v) abraison 1" x 1/2" over right breast. (vi) bruise 1" x 1" with abraison over left breast. (vii) bruise 3" x 2" over right forearm with diffused swelling. (viii) bruise 2" x 1" over left elbow joint. (ix) bruise 3" x 2" with swelling over posterial surface of the chest. (x) bruise 5" x 1 and half inch with diffused swelling over front of neck. On dissection he further found as follows : (i) Fracture of hoid bone. cricoid cartilage with laceration of larynx and trachea, laceration of soft tissues blood vessels and nurves on both side of neck. (ii) laceration of over perineum, labia majora labia minoria and vagional wall. (iii) As per report of pathologist, Sadar Hospital, Madhubani Dr. Mahendra Singh, spermatozoea was not seen, W.B.C. 2-3 per HPF., R.B.C. a few. (iv) Right chamber of heart full, left chamber empty. (v) All internal visceras namely both lungs, liver, splin, both kidnies congested. (vi) Brain and meninges congested. (iii) As per report of pathologist, Sadar Hospital, Madhubani Dr. Mahendra Singh, spermatozoea was not seen, W.B.C. 2-3 per HPF., R.B.C. a few. (iv) Right chamber of heart full, left chamber empty. (v) All internal visceras namely both lungs, liver, splin, both kidnies congested. (vi) Brain and meninges congested. (vii) Stomach containing 2 Ons. Semi Solid digested food material. (viii) Small and large intestine containing gases and feecal matter. (ix) Bloder empty. (x) Uterious nongravid. 14. In the opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of the injuries noted above caused by throttling and sexual assault. He further opined that injury No. X was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In his cross- examination he has stated that sexual assault was not the cause of death but death was caused by asphyxia. 15. PWs 9, 10 and 11 are formal witnesses of the seizure. 16. PW 12, Shashi Bhushan Pandey, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He in his evidence has stated that on 14.5.1991 he was Officer In- charge of Benipatti Police Station. On that date he heard a rumour about death of a girl and on that he went to village Kateya and there he recorded fardbeyan of PW 6. In this evidence he has proved the fardbeyan Ext. 4 and he took over investigation and sent the fardbeyan to the Police Station for drawing up a formal first information report and first information report was drawn up as marked Ext. 5. In his evidence he has stated that at the place of occurrence at that time Superintendent of Police and Police Inspector came there and he prepared the inquest report. In his evidence he has further stated that immediately thereafter he inspected the place of occurrence at the river bed of river Bacchraj and there he found sufficient trampling marks over the river bed. He has also found the same on the bush and he found trampling marks on the bush at a distance of 3 Laggas and from the bush he recovered one Jumpher stained with blood and the same was seized in presence of the witnesses marked Ext. 6 He has further stated that he had found sufficient dragging mark from the trampled bush to the river bed and he had seen mark of dragging upto water. 6 He has further stated that he had found sufficient dragging mark from the trampled bush to the river bed and he had seen mark of dragging upto water. He has further stated in his evidence that place of occurrence was a lonely place. This witness has further stated in his evidence that he had recovered a underwear of the appellant and the same was also seized and marked as Ext. 6/2. He has also stated that he had seized petticoat of the deceased and prepared seizure list Ext. 6/1. In course of taking statements of the witnesses, this witness arrested the accused from his house. In his cross- examination he has not been discredited from his testimony. 17. The defence has also examined one witness as DW 1 Md. Hussain to show that the informant had filed a case in the year. 1984 against one Manjoor. DW 1 has, however, not specifically stated in his evidence that the informant had lodged a case against this appellant. The evidence of DW 1, therefore, is of no avail to the defence. 18. I have scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from close range. The whole case hinges upon the evidence of PW 8. who is eye-witness of the occurrence and her evidence is corroborated from the evidence of PW 1. PW 2, PW 5 and PW 6. The evidence of the Investigating Officer PW 12 also corroborates the prosecution version of the case inasmuch as that he found sufficient trampling marks in the bush and had found sufficient dragging marks from the bush upto water of the river. The evidence of PW 8 is also corroborated from the evidence of the doctor who had found sign of rape and sufficient marks of violence upon the deceased. The evidence of PW 8 Sunita Devi is very specific and she has given first account of the occurrence. In categorical terms she has stated in her evidence that while she had gone to ease herself near river Bachhraj there she had seen the appellant committing rape upon the deceased in the bush and seeing her presence the appellant asked her to go back and out of fear she came back to her house and she narrated her story to PW 2, father and her uncle Deochandra Thakur. Her evidence is specific on the point that she again had gone to the place of occurrence along with her father and uncle and there she saw the appellant standing in water of the river. In her evidence she has further stated that on the same day when she met with PW 6 Taiyab, father of the deceased she narrated the entire story to him and accordingly, on this information PW 6 started searching her daughter deceased and ultimately she was fished out from the river where she had seen the appellant standing in water of the river. The evidence of PW 1 has also corroborative value inasmuch as that he knew about the occurrence from Sunita Devi and when he went to the river he saw the appellant standing in water. Likewise, the evidence of PW 2 Reban Thakur is also very specific on this point. He in his evidence has stated that he came to know about the occurrence, from his daughter PW 8 and immediately thereafter he went to the river in question in company of his daughter and brother and there he scolded the appellant for the commission of rape upon Asma Khatoon. He in his evidence has specifically stated that the appellant remained in water for the reasons best known to him and when they retreated the appellant went away and thereafter the informant took help of PW 4 for fishing out the dead-body, accordingly, dead-body was fished out from the river. PW 4 is the fisherman who fished out the deceased from the river. In his evidence he has stated that dead-body was of a Muslim girl and he had seen blood oozing out from her mouth and nose. Likewise. the evidence of the informant is very specific on the point. In his evidence he has stated in categorical terms that on the fateful day at about 8 a.m. he had gone to Benipatti Hospital for treatment of his minor son where his wife and father also had accompanied him and his daughter Asma Khatoon had remained alone in the house and when he came back from Benipatti, Asma Khatoon was not found in her house. He started searching her and in the way when she met Sunita Devi she narrated about the occurrence and accordingly he went to the river in question from where the deceased was fished out with help of PW 4. The objective finding of the Investigating Officer PW 12 fully corroborates prosecution version of the case to the extent that he had found sufficient trampling mark over the bush in the river bed and had seen dragging mark from the bush upto water of the river and in the bush he had seized bloodstained Jumpher. The medical evidence, as discussed above, also fully corroborates the prosecution version of the case showing that rape was committed upon the deceased and thereafter she was strangulated. The cause of death is said to be due to asphyxia. From the medical evidence it is manifest that several marks of violence were found on the body of the deceased and the doctor has given full narration of the same in his evidence. The evidence of the doctor is very much telling in the nature and supports factum of commission of rape upon the deceased and her murder by strangulation. The evidence which has surfaced in the trial has fully proved the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that there is no evidence on record showing that it was the appellant who killed the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been convicted on three counts-firstly for committing rape upon the deceased; for committing her murder and for concealing the dead-body and the learned trial Judge directed the sentences to run consecutively. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that for the ends of justice, it would be desirable to direct the sentences to run concurrently. 20. Coming to the first limb of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it would be pertinent to say that commission of rape was witnessed by PW 8. PW 8 has given full narration of commission of rape upon the deceased by the appellant. Immediately thereafter the appellant was seen standing in water of the river. The Investigating Officer had found sufficient trampling marks in the bush where alleged rape was committed and had found sufficient dragging mark from the bush upto water of the river. PW 8 has given full narration of commission of rape upon the deceased by the appellant. Immediately thereafter the appellant was seen standing in water of the river. The Investigating Officer had found sufficient trampling marks in the bush where alleged rape was committed and had found sufficient dragging mark from the bush upto water of the river. The circumstances, as discussed above, therefore, fully suggest that the deceased was firstly subjected to rape and thereafter she was throttled and drowned in water. Circumstances further suggest that the appellant was standing in the river only to conceal the dead-body and therefore, he was not coming out from water. The evidence has also surfaced to show that the deceased was fished out from the river. The circumstances, therefore, fully prove the commission of murder of the deceased at the hands of the appellants. 21. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, it is held that the prosecution has fully proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence do not require any interference from this end. 22. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is affirmed. However, in the interest of justice, sentences passed against the appellant on all three counts are directed to run concurrently.