Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The sole appellant Nagina Manjhi stands convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and also under Section 376 with the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years; the two sentences are directed to run concurrently by the trial Court. 2. It may be noted at the out-set that the victims of the two offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were not the same but two different persons. The appellant first killed the mother by cutting her throat by phasuli and then he ravished the daughter through the night. While dealing with the issue of sentence, the trial Court made the observation that it was not the rarest of the rare case. That is not incorrect; nevertheless, the case presents elements of cold-blooded planning and brutuality that are quite out of the ordinary. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the statement of Manju Devi (the victim of rape) which was recorded as fardbeyan (Ext. 6). The informant, Manju Devi gave her statement on 1.6.1996 at 13 hours at the road by the side of village Kubri under Chabilapur PS. Her statement was recorded by SI," Prabhakar Singh, Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. A formal FIR (Ext. 7) was later drawn up, giving rise to Silao (Chabilapur) PS Case No. 187 of 1996. 4. In her statement Manju Devi said that she was the wife of Yogendra Choudhary of village Rupaspur, PS. Harnaut in the district of Nalanda; that her parentss home (maika) was in village Poksi under Pakri Barawan PS in the district of Nawadah. She further said that on the previous day (31.5.1996) Nagina Manjhi brought her and her mother from their home at village Poksi to Rajgir for getting her treated by an ojha. They had started from their village at about 11 a.m. and reached Rajgir at about 4 in the after-noon. She added that she was keeping unwell and her mother believed that treatment by some ojha would make her well and Nagina Manjhi also gave the assurance to her mother that he will get her alright by getting her treated by some good ojha at Rajgir. (On their arrival) at Rajgir when evening set in, Nagina Manjhi proceeded for some village towards the north of Rajgir, taking her and her mother along with him. (On their arrival) at Rajgir when evening set in, Nagina Manjhi proceeded for some village towards the north of Rajgir, taking her and her mother along with him. At about 9 in the night (when they were) at a completely isolated and lonely corner of a field in a Bahiyar (outlying fields of villages) at a distance of 4-5 kms. from Rajgir, Nagina Manjhi said that he was tired and suggested that they should sit and rest there a while. On his suggestion the informant and her mother sat down in the field and Nagina Manjhi too sat down close to her mother. Suddenly, he took out a phasuli from his jhola (cloth bag); he pushed down the informants mother to the ground on her back and sitting on her chest cut her neck with the phasuli. Seeing her mother thus being killed, the informant got terror-stricken and started wailing and crying. Nagina Manjhi asked her to be quite and not to try to flee away otherwise he would cut her too down. Thus threatened, the informant was reduced to complete submission. Nagina Manjhi then brandishing the blood-stained phasuli before her brought her to an orchard. There he committed rape on her under persistent threat and intimidation. He kept her there through the night and at about 4 in the morning he took her and came near the village (Kubri). There 4-5 cow-herds were standing with lathis in their hands. On seeing them the informant gathered some courage and started weeping and crying. On this, the cow-herds came to her and enquired about the matter. She started narrating to them the horrifying occurrences of the previous night whereupon Nagina Manjhi tried to flee away with his jhola in which he was carrying a blood-stained shirt, a gamchhi and the phasuli. The cow- herds,whom the informant did not know from before chased and caught him. He tried to grapple with them but they hit him with their lathis. On receiving the blows Nagina Manjhi sat down crying that his leg was broken. In the mean while some people from the village came towards them and seeing them approaching the 4-5 cow-herd left the informant and Nagina Manjhi fled away. Nagina Manjhi was unable to escape because his leg was injured. Then the villagers took the informant and Nagina under their control and kept the informant in safety. In the mean while some people from the village came towards them and seeing them approaching the 4-5 cow-herd left the informant and Nagina Manjhi fled away. Nagina Manjhi was unable to escape because his leg was injured. Then the villagers took the informant and Nagina under their control and kept the informant in safety. Information was sent to the police on which the Officer-in-Charge came there, before whom she made the statement. She concluded her statement by making the allegation that Nagina Manjhi had brought her and her mother from their village on the pretext of getting her treated by ojha and with the intent to commit rape on her, he first killed her mother by cutting her throat and then committed rape on her. The recorded statement was read out to her and finding it correct, she put her signature on it (Ext. 2). 5. It will not be out of place to take note of the deposition of the IO (PW 9) at this place itself because the statement of the IO, made before the trial Court, only supplements the informants statement and makes the prosecution case complete. The IO (PW 9) in his deposition before the trial Court said that on 1.6.1996 he was posted as the Officer-in-Charge, Chabilapur PS. On that date Ramjee Paswan, chowkidar came and informed his that Nagina Manjhi who was a absconder in several cases was lying in an injured condition at Kubri village. On receipt of the information he made a sanha entry and came to village Kubri with a posse. There he found Nagina Manjhi in injured condition. He had a jhola with him. There was also a girl, there named Manju Devi. He took down her statement as fardbeyan which he identified in Court and which was then marked as Ext. 6. He sent the fardbeyan to the Incharge, Silao PS for instituting a formal FIR (Ext. 8). He then started the investigation of the case; he took the subsequent statement of the informant and looked into the contents of the jhola being carried by Nagina Manjhi; he made a production-cum-seizure list of the contents of his jhola. Ira the jhola, he found (i) a blood-stained white polyster kurta, (ii) a blood stained gamchhi dark colour in which some rice and sindur were tied up and (iii) a blood stained phasuli with wooden handle. Ira the jhola, he found (i) a blood-stained white polyster kurta, (ii) a blood stained gamchhi dark colour in which some rice and sindur were tied up and (iii) a blood stained phasuli with wooden handle. He seized those articles in presence of witnesses and prepared the seizure list which he duly proved before the Court and it was then marked as Ext. 9. 6. He interrogated the accused (Nagina Manjhi) who made a confessional statement before him. He recorded the confessional statement of Nagina, which too he proved in Court and it was marked as Ext. 10. 7. In his statement before the IO Nagina Manjhi, inter alia, said that he knew the spot where the dead body of Sunaina Devi (the mother of the informant) was lying and he said that he would guide him to that spot. 8. The IO further said that as guided by Nagina Manjhi they proceeded from village Kubri and came to the field, called Ahra Dhua Par Khanda of village Maiyar where the dead body of Sunaina Devi was found. This was the first place of occurrence where the murder of the informants mother was committed. At a distance of about half kilometer towards north from that spot there was cluster of plam trees of Bangali Manjhi of village Maiyar, Tola Kanchanpur. This was the second place of occurrence where the rape of the informant was committed. He prepared the inquest report of Sunaina Devi which was proved by him in Court and was then marked as Ext. 11. It is, thus, clear that the statement of the appellant made before the IO in so far as it led to the discovery of the dead body of Sunaina Devi and the identification of the two spots where the offences were committed, on being directed by him, is plainly admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 9. The statement of the IO made before the trial Court completes the prosecution case against the appellant. It is thus to be seen that there are two sets of evidence against the appellant, one is the ocular evidence of the informant (PW 4) in whose presence the appellant cut the throat of her mother and who is eye-witness to the occurrence. She is also the victim and the witness of the second offence of rape committed by the appellant. She is also the victim and the witness of the second offence of rape committed by the appellant. Apart from the ocular evidence of PW 4, there is the strong circumstantial evidence of recovery of the blood-stained phasuli, the weapon of crime from his jhola apart from the blood-stained kurta and gamchhi kept in the jhola. It is in this light that we propose to examine the prosecution evidence produced before the trial Court. 10. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses before the trial Court. PWs 1 to 3 are formal. PW 1 simply stated that on hearing hulla he went to the Khanda. He saw there the dead body of a woman whose neck had been cut and the body was drenched in blood. He did not know whose body it was. 11. PWs 2 and 3 proved their respective signatures (Exts. 1 and 1/1) on the inquest report of Sunaina Devi prepared by the 10. 12. Next came PW 4, the informant herself. Her statement before the Court was fully consistent with the prosecution case and her earlier statement recorded as the fardbeyan. A full length narration of her deposition in Court will be only repetitive and suffice it to say that she said exactly what she had said earlier in the fardbayan. She was subjected to a detailed cross-examination but there is hardly anything that may be said to detract from her statement in the examination-in-chief. At the conclusion of the deposition the trial Court noted, and we appreciate the alertness shown by the trial Court, that the witness, by her conduct, appeared to be cent percent a simple and plain village woman. 13. PW 5 is primarily a witness of the seizure list. He identified his signature on the seizure list which was marked as Ext. 3. He further stated before the Court that on the date of occurrence he was at his house. The cow-herds were grazing their cattle. They caught Nagina Manjhi and assaulted him. A girl was also with him (Nagina Manjhi). On coming to learn this from the cow-herds a number of villagers went there. He too went along with others and saw there a girl with blood-stains on her (person). The girl was crying. She said that her mother was killed by Nagina Manjhi and he had committed rape on her. A girl was also with him (Nagina Manjhi). On coming to learn this from the cow-herds a number of villagers went there. He too went along with others and saw there a girl with blood-stains on her (person). The girl was crying. She said that her mother was killed by Nagina Manjhi and he had committed rape on her. This witness further proved the recovery of blood-stained phasuli with wooden handle a white blood stained kurta and a dark coloured gamchha also blood-stained in which some rice and sindur were tied up. This witness, thus, not only corroborated the statement of the informant but he also proved the recovery of the weapon of crime and blood-stained clothes from Nagina Manjhi. 14. PW 6 is another villagers of Kubri who also corroborated the statement made by the informant before the villagers to the effect that in the previous night the appellant had killed her mother and had committed rape on her. 15. The prosecution case gets further corroboration from the medical evidence. The doctor who conducted post mortem on the body of Sunaina Devi was examined as PW 8. The post mortem was made on 2.6.1996 at 11.55 a.m. The doctor proved the post mortem report which was marked as Ext. 5. From the deposition of PW 8 and the post mortem report, it appears that the doctors findings were as follows : "(i) Body was highly decomposed. Breast was distended. Abdomen was also distended with foul smell. Scalp hairs were detachable. Peeling of skin at places. (ii) Incised would on front of neck above the thyroid cartilage transversely placed extending from left to right ear with blood clot and dissection (cuttings) of vital organs like vessels, nerves, oesophagus and trachea. (iii) Multiple abrasion on back size 1" x 1", 2" x 1" and 1-1/2" x 1/4". (iv) Abrasion on left thigh size 2" x 1". (v) Abrasion on both knee size 1" x 1/2" and 1-1/2" x 1/2". On dissection of neck, cutting of vessels and nerves of neck found present trachea and oesophagus were also dissected. Blood clots found present in the region of front of neck." 16. The doctor told the Court that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 2 (as quoted above) which was caused by a sharp cutting weapon such as phasuli. Blood clots found present in the region of front of neck." 16. The doctor told the Court that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No. 2 (as quoted above) which was caused by a sharp cutting weapon such as phasuli. He further said that time elapsed since death was within 2-3 days. 17. As already noted above, the 10 was examined in this case as PW 9. 18. Before closing the prosecution evidence, it may be stated that PW 7 was the doctor who had examined the informant. She did not find any external signs of rape and stated that no exact opinion could be given in regard to rape. We are of the opinion that this was for the simple reason that the informant was examined by her on 3.6.1996, that is to say, three days after the occurrence. It is an admitted position that the informant is a married woman and hence, it is not surprising that no sign of rape could be found three days after the occurrence. It is also not to be over looked that the informant was terrorised and in those circumstances she was not able even to offer any physical resistance. 19. On a consideration of the either materials, we are satisfied that the evidences against the appellant are over whelming. 20. Faced with such strong evidences the counsel for the appellant tried to defend him on the basis of whatever material that were available to him. He first submitted that the prosecution had not examined any family members of the informant in support of the story that Nagina Manjhi had brought them to Rajgir from their village Poksi. Learned counsel submitted that no co-passengers travelling to Rajgir were examined by the prosecution nor were any of the villagers of Kubri examined though admittedly a large crowd had assembled when the appellant was apprehended with the girl and also when the dead body of Sunaina Devi was found at the khanda. 21. In our view the omission to examine the other family members of the informant, e.g. her husband, brother etc. or any of her co-villagers from Poksi or the none-examination of a large number of villagers who had assembled when the dead body of Sunaina Devi was discovered does not affect the prosecution case in any manner. 21. In our view the omission to examine the other family members of the informant, e.g. her husband, brother etc. or any of her co-villagers from Poksi or the none-examination of a large number of villagers who had assembled when the dead body of Sunaina Devi was discovered does not affect the prosecution case in any manner. The prosecution was required to prove the charge against the appellant and it has done so effectively and convincingly by producing reliable evidences. 22. Learned counsel then submitted that though in the fardbeyan the informant had said that from the spot where her mother was killed the appellant took her to an orchard and there rape was committed on her, in her own deposition before the Court she said that rape was committed to her in a fallow field (Parti Khet). According to the counsel, this was a vital contradiction that would have highly adverse effect on the prosecution case. We are unable to agree. Such trivial differences, to our mind, mean nothing. Moreover, the IO has clearly pointed out the second place of occurrence which was a cluster of palm trees at a distance of half kilo meter towards north from the spot where the informants mother was killed and this fully Conforms to the informants statement. 23. Learned counsel then submitted that the medical evidence showed that the body of Sunaina Devi was in a highly decomposed condition and in his cross- examination PW 8 had accepted that death might have taken place more then 2 to 3 days prior to the post mortem examination. Learned counsel submitted that this completely falsified the prosecution story. 24. We are once again unable to agree. In the first place the ocular and circumstantial evidences against the appellant are unshakeable by some approximate estimate of time given in the medical evidence. Moreover, it cannot be over-looked that the occurrence took place (on the 31st day of May) at the ho test time of the year in this part of the country when temperature in the sun may go upto 47-48 degree celsius. Moreover, it cannot be over-looked that the occurrence took place (on the 31st day of May) at the ho test time of the year in this part of the country when temperature in the sun may go upto 47-48 degree celsius. From the material on record it is also evident that the body had lain directly exposed to the scorching sun and over baking earth for the entire day on June 1, 1996 tili the 10 had prepared the inquest report at 4 in the evening and had got it removed from there to the hospital. The post mortem was held on the next day. It is no surprise that a body that was examined two days after the person was killed and that had lain completely exposed to the June sun for the whole day should be found in a de-composed condition. 25. On hearing counsel for the appellant and the APP appearing for the State and on careful appraisal of all the materials on the record, we are fully convinced that the charges were duly established against the appellant on the basis of reliable evidence. -The conviction recorded and the sentence passed against the appellant by the trial Court merits no interference in appeal. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court are accordingly confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. C.M.Prasad, J. 26 I. agree.