Judgment C.M.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 30th June, 2000 of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah (West Champaran) passed in Sessions Trial No. 303 of 1998, whereby both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 366-A, 372, IPC. Appellant Aziz Dewan has also been convicted under Section 376, IPC. The sentence passed under Section 366-A, IPC is R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.I. for 6 months. The sentence under Section 372, IPC is R.I. for.10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.I. for 3 months. The sentence under Seclion 37G. IPC is R.I. for life and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.I.for one year. 2. The fardbeyan (Ext-I) was recorded by S.I. K.D. Sharma of Bettiah Police Station on 8th March, 1998 at 7.30 a.m. at the house of victim-informant Ladli Begum who stated that she was a girl aged about 14-15 years and that about 3 months prior, her elder sister Khairu Nisa who was married at Chanpatia had come there and with her the two appellants, who were her tenants had also come and they had stayed for 3 days and, thereafter, when they were returning back, they enticed her (the victim) away with them and in the same night, when her sister was asleep, the two appellants at about 3.00 a.m. took her on a hired Jeep to Gorakhpur where they kept her for 4 days and appellant Aziz started committing rape on her. The appellants further took her to Chaukapur and several other places for 20-25 days and continued the act of rape upon her and then they sold her at Muzaffarpur to a woman and the appellants also lived there for 4 days in the house of that woman and during that period, she (the victim) was forced to illicit intercourse for money which was being shared between the appellants and that woman and that 4 days thereafter the appellants slipped away from there. She remained weeping in that house and one day thereafter she managed to escape from that house. She remained weeping in that house and one day thereafter she managed to escape from that house. She went to the house of one CHIK (person of CHIK caste) named Lalu and requested him to inform her parents and that at her request, he informed her parents over phone whereupon the parents of the victim came and on Saturday at 1.30 p.m., she returned to her house with her parents and yesterday i.e. one day prior to the lodging of the fardbeyan, appellant Aziz, searching his wife i.e. appellant Hasina Khatoon @ Devijee came to her parents house as because her parents had also brought Hasina with her. On the arrival of appellant Aziz, at her house, the news spread to the villagers that the kidnappers had come due to which the villagers got incensed and they captured him (Aziz) and beating him brought him out on the villager road and thereafter she (the informant) had no knowledge as to what happened to him. On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext-1), the FIR (Ext-2) was registered and the investigation was completed and thereafter, on trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as indicated above 3. As many at. seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution, PW 5 Ladli Begun is the victim informant. PW 2 Chirkut Mian is the father of the victim. PW 3 Nazeeb Ahmad Quareshi and PW 4 Sainullah are the neighbours of the informant, PW 1 Md. Muslim is also informants neighbour, PW 7 Surendra Kumar Tiwary is the i.O. of the case. PW 6 Harendra Nath Pandey is the Police Officer who simply submitted the charge-sheet on completion of investigation. 4. The victim informant (PW 5) deposed that her married sister who was ailing had come from Chanpatia and that she had gone with her sister to her sisters sasural at Chanpatia and started living there. She further deposed at para-2 that the appellants were living there as tenants of her sister and that appellant Aziz asked her (victim) to go with him for visiting major at Bahraich. She also deposed that appellant Aziz had convinced her that she had no reason for hesitating in going with him as because her (victims) bhaujai (appellant Hasina) was also going there. She also deposed that appellant Aziz had convinced her that she had no reason for hesitating in going with him as because her (victims) bhaujai (appellant Hasina) was also going there. Then the victim deposes further that in the night at about 2.30 a.m., the two appellants took her on a Jeep to Gorakhpur where they kept her for four days and during this period appellant (Aziz) committed rape on he". She was taken to Itaur from Gorakhpur, then to Barhni and then to Kauakol and, thus, she was taken to several places for a period of one and half months and during this period appellant Aziz continued committing rape on her. Ultimately, she says that she was brought to Muzaffarpur from Sitamarhi and she was taken to the house of a prostitute. At that place, appellant Aziz continued committing rape on her and besides this, she was also forced to illicit intercourse with other persons for money which was shared between the appellant and that prostitute. The victim continues to depose further that the appellant sold her to that prostitute for a sum of Rs. 2,400/-. Thereafter the appellants lived for 5-6 days in the house of that prostitute and the appellant continued ravishing her in the night and thereafter the appellant fled away from there. Then, the victim says that in the ensuing morning at 5.00 a.m. taking a chance, she jumped from the second storey of that building. The trial Court has noted in the deposition of the victim that while adducing this evidence, the victim could not withhold her tears and she wept in the Court. The victim continued to depose that on escaping from that house of the prostitute, she requested a stranger addressing him bhaia" for saving her life. That stranger asked the victim as to which caste she belonged to and then the victim disclosed that she belonged to Chik caste. That good stranger told her that he was calling a person of that caste and he called a person named Lalu of Chik caste. Thereafter the victim went with Lalu to Lalus house and at her request, Lalu informed her parents on phone. Then the victim continues to depose that her parents came to Lalus house. That good stranger told her that he was calling a person of that caste and he called a person named Lalu of Chik caste. Thereafter the victim went with Lalu to Lalus house and at her request, Lalu informed her parents on phone. Then the victim continues to depose that her parents came to Lalus house. She (the victim) also says that while she was at the house of Lalu, Ratna Devi had come there imposing herself as Khairum Nisa (the real sister of the victim). Seeing appellant Khairum Nisa there, the victim identified her saying that she was the woman who had sold her and on her (victims) saying so, Lalu captured appellant Hasina Khatoon and kept her there. The victim says further that when her parents had come to the house of Lalu, appellant Hasina was also there and they had also brought appellant Hasina with her from Lalus house from Muzaffarpur to Bettiah on a Jeep. Then the informant says that at Bettiah, Police recorded her statement on which she had put her L.T.I. She identified both the appellants in Court. At para-15 of her evidence, the victim deposed that at Itaba, she was dressed in sari and then putting vermilion on her head, the appellant got photography done saying that if she tried to go away, that photograph will remain in their hands as a material against her (the victim). Reasons are clear that the appellant got the photography done for blackmailing the victim, if she tried to keep out of the immoral designs of the appellants. At para-19 of her evidence, the victim says that in the ensuing month of kartik her marriage was to be poperformed and unfortunately the incident took place. At para-25 of cross-examination, the victim says that while she was being taken to Chanpatia from Gorakhpur, she was not taking any meal, but the appellant, did beat her and forcibely got her eat meal. She says at para-26 that she was kept there at the Railway platform at Gorakhpur for four days and during that period, appellant Aziz used to bring meal from hotel and appellant Hasina used to remain with her. The victim has given a detailed and natural description as to what had happened and how she used to pass her days with the appellants. The victim has given a detailed and natural description as to what had happened and how she used to pass her days with the appellants. She deposed at para-29 that at Gorakhpur she used to take her bath in a river and for that the appellant used to take her on a rickshaw. She also says that the rickshaw was routed through a different route on which other passers-by could not be found. She says at para-30 that while returning from the river, after taking bath, she used to see some persons on the road, but she could not say anything to anybody, because the appellants had badly intimidated her. She says that she had left her house with only frock and salwar on her person and that while taking bath in the river, she used to wash her salwar and frock after wearing the peti-coat given by appellant Hasina. She also deposed that the appellants never let her go anywhere else and that when she tried or asked for going to other places, the appellants did beat her. She says that on the railway platform at Gorakhpur appellant Aziz had ravished her and the appellants also got rape committed on her by other persons. She says that during the commission of rape, when she tried to cry, the appellants gagged her mouth. She further says that whenever appellant Aziz committed rape on her, the appellant Hasina was also present there and she did not put any objection to it and the victim volunteered to say that why should Hasina object to it, when she was herself engaged in the immoral act of selling girls. At para-35 she deposed that she was taken to several places and that whenever she tried to escape away, the appellants intimidated her. At para-39 of her evidence, she says that at Itawa while the appellants had got her forcibly photographed as a bride in sari, appellants had also called some other criminals there and they had badly intimidated her at that time. At para-20 she deposed that while she was sold at Muzaffarpur, the money was not transacted in her presence, because at that time, she was kept in another room. At para-20 she deposed that while she was sold at Muzaffarpur, the money was not transacted in her presence, because at that time, she was kept in another room. She says at para-41, that she had lived for 4-5 days in the house of that prostitute at Muzaffarpur 3-4 persons daily subjected her to illicit intercourse and that during that period she could not complaint to anybody because the appellants and the prostitute both had badly threatened her. At para 42 she says that in the house of that prostitute she was kept in a closed room. She further deposed that by opening the latch of the door of that room she had jumped from the 2nd storey of that building. At para-48 she deposed that due to commission of rape, mark of blood and semen occurred on her clothes but due to shame, she had not shown those marks to the police. At para-47 she has denied that she was lawfully married to appellant Aziz and that she had lived with Aziz as his wife. Thus, the victim narrates in a clear and convincing manner, the inci-East Cr C-(1)18 (HC) dent which happened. From the evidence of the informant, it appears that appellant Aziz Dewan not only committed rape on her, but the two appellants also subjected her to illicit sexual intercourse and also sold her to a prostitute for illegal gain of money. It was all due to chance and the efforts of the victim that she could get herself out of clutches of the appellants. On perusal of evidence of the victim and other witnesses which will be dealt subsequently, there is no evidence that the victim was married to appellant Aziz and in this context, the suggestion given to the victim on behalf of appellant that the victim was married to Aziz shows temerity in the appellant Aziz that the appellants did not only commit the offence but they have also tried to keep it justifying even while cross-examining the victim in Court. This adds to the seriousness of the offence. 5. PW 2 Chirkut Mian is the father of the victim. He corroborates the informant through his evidence that the victim had gone to his another daughters sasural with that daughter and the appellants and that from there, appellants had kidnapped the victim and they had sold her at Muzaffarpur. This adds to the seriousness of the offence. 5. PW 2 Chirkut Mian is the father of the victim. He corroborates the informant through his evidence that the victim had gone to his another daughters sasural with that daughter and the appellants and that from there, appellants had kidnapped the victim and they had sold her at Muzaffarpur. He deposed that he had received a phone call of one Lalu from Muzaffarpur and on receiving the call, he had gone to Muzaffarpur where he had found the victim and also appellant Azizs wife, i.e. appellant Hasina Khatoon there and had brought both of them to his house. He further deposed that appellant Aziz Dewan, searching his wife, i.e. appellant Hasina Khatoon had come to his house where villagers caught him and the case was lodged thereafter. He further deposed that his daughter (victim) had disclosed before him that appellant Aziz Dewan got immoral acts committed on her and he also got it committed by others. He identified both the appellant in Court. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony on any point. 6. PW 3 and PW 4 who are neighbours of the victim fully corroborated the informant through their evidence that the appellants had taken the victim away with them and that they had kidnapped her away. These witnesses have said, in detail the incident which happened to the victim and which they learnt from her. These two witnesses given the detailed account of the occurrence as told by the victim to them. And thus, the evidence of these two witnesses will go to corroborate the occurrence as propounded by the victim informant. 7. PW 1 is a co-villagers and he says that the villagers were beating the appellant Aziz Dewan and he had learnt from some persons in the mob there that the appellant had subjected the victim to illicit intercourse and they had also sold the victim to a prostitute. 8. PW 7 deposed that he had recorded the fardbeyan (Ext-1) and the FIR (Ext-2). He says that the victim had disclosed before him that rape was committed on her, but he further says that the parents of the victim were not ready, therefore, the victim was not sent for medical examination. 9. 8. PW 7 deposed that he had recorded the fardbeyan (Ext-1) and the FIR (Ext-2). He says that the victim had disclosed before him that rape was committed on her, but he further says that the parents of the victim were not ready, therefore, the victim was not sent for medical examination. 9. On consideration of the evidence as brought by the prosecution and discussed above, it stands proved beyond doubt that the appellants induced the victim Ladli Begum, a minor girl with an intent to seducing her to sexual intercourse and that for the perpetration of it, the victim was sold to a prostitute where she was subjected to various illicit intercourse for the sake of money. It also stands proved that appellant Aziz Dewan raped the victim Umes without number. 10. During argument, learned counsel for the appellant did not raise any point worth/importance to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. The only submission raised by the appellants counsel was that the victim was not sent for medical examination. The learned counsel argued that there is no medical examination report to corroborate the story of commission of rape on the victim. No doubt, there is no medical examination report but there are reasons to convince for not sending the girl for medical examination. It has come in evidence that the victim was to be marred in the ensuing kartik month. The victim has also stated that there were marks of blood and semen on her clothe, but out of shame she did not show it to the police. Since the girl was to be married, it appears natural that the parents tried to avoid the harassment and shame due to further medical examination, hence, they did not agree for medical examination. In view of clear and unimpeachable evidence of the victim as also corroborated by her father and other witnesses, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. 11. In the result, it is found that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case beyond doubt. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of conviction, as passed by the trial Court. However, on the quantum of sentence, we feel that the sentence passed by the trial Court is excessive. Therefore, I sentence appellant Aziz Dewan to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of conviction, as passed by the trial Court. However, on the quantum of sentence, we feel that the sentence passed by the trial Court is excessive. Therefore, I sentence appellant Aziz Dewan to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 366-A, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for 2 months. He is further sentenced under Section 372, IPC to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for three months. He is also sentenced under Section 376, IPC to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for 5 months. Appellant Hasina Khatoon @ Devijee is sentenced under Section 366-A, IPC, to undergo R.I. for 6 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 2 months. She is further sentenced under Section 372, IPC, to undergo R.I. for six years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine S.I. for three months. However, all the sentences awarded under different counts, will run concurrently. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, with the modification in the sentence, as indicated above. Aftab Alam, J. 13 I agree.