Judgment Chandra Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 16th November 2002 passed by Sri Paras Nath Sinha, Presiding Officer, Munger under Sessions Case No. 404 of 1992/Tr. No. 225 of 2002/ G.R. No. 454 of 1989 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 376 IPC with a sentence of R.I. for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for six months. The appellant has also been convicted under Sec. 450 IPC but any separate sentence has not been awarded under this count. 2. The prosecution commenced with the fard-beyan (Ext-3) of informant Kusum Devi recorded on 29th October 1989 at 11:00 P.M. in Referal Hospital, Sheikhpura where she had been admitted for treatment. She stated that about 10-12 days back, while she was sleeping on the roof of her house at about 1 Oclock in the night, Krishna Nandan Sah, appellant whose house is adjacent, came on her roof and forcibly committed rape on her. She further alleged that when she tried to cry, the appellant gagged her mouth with clothe. She further stated that due to fear, disgrace and humilitation she did not disclose the incident to her husband or other family members. It has to be mentioned here that the appellant is the yougner cousin father-in-law of the victim informant. The informant further alleged that when she felt the disgrace and humiliation become intolerable it was on that day (29.10.1998) that she decided to end her life and she consumed pesticide tablet which is used for preserving grains. She also stated that she was brought to the Hospital in unconscious stage and on regaining consciousness in the hospital, she gave her statement. In her statement she further stated that her husband had also taken poison and he died and his dead body was lying near the door of the Hospital. She stated that feeling disgrace and humiliation as aresult of the rape committed by the appellant, she had taken poision and that seeing her taking poison her husband Deoniti Prasad Sah also took poison in disgust and lost his life. She stated that she put her LTI on the fard-beyan which was recorded on her statement. On the basis of fard-beyan, a formal FIR (Ext-1) was recorded and the investigation commenced. She stated that she put her LTI on the fard-beyan which was recorded on her statement. On the basis of fard-beyan, a formal FIR (Ext-1) was recorded and the investigation commenced. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this case and the appellant was put on trial and on completion of trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as above. 3. As many as five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 Brahmdeo Yadav is the witness who had taken the informant and her husband (since deceased) to the Hospital in unconscious condition, P.W. 2 Suresh Prasad Sah is the Dewar of the informant, P.W. 3 Kusum Devi is the victim informant herself, P.W. 4 Dr. Brij Nandan Prasad is the Doctor who had conducted the P.M. Examination on he dead body of Deoniti Sah, the husband of the informant, P.W. 5 is the i.O. who had conducted the later portion of investigation and submitted charge-sheet in this case. 4. The informant (P.W. 3) deposed that on 29th October, 1989 her husband ended his life by taking poison and he had done it as a result of disgust on account of the incident of rape committed on her 10-12 days ago. About the occurrence of rape, she deposed that on the date of occurrence in the mid night, while she was sleeping on the roof of her house, the appellant had gagged her mouth with clothe and then he had forcibly committed rape on her. She also stated that when she disclosed the occurrence of rape to her husband, he took poison due to feeling of disgrace and humiliation. She further deposed that at that time she had also taken poison. She continued to depose that she and her husband both were taken to the Hospital but she survived there whereas her husband could not survive and he died. She also deposed that her statement was recorded in the Hospital and she had given her LTI on the same. She has stated that the appellant was her cousin father-in-law. At Para-6 of her evidence she denied the suggestion that she had married another man and she was living with him but the defence has not brought any evidence to prove this suggestion. She has stated that the appellant was her cousin father-in-law. At Para-6 of her evidence she denied the suggestion that she had married another man and she was living with him but the defence has not brought any evidence to prove this suggestion. At Para-8 of her cross- examination she has stated that earlier she tried to suppress the disgrace and humiliation due to the occurrence but she disclosed it to her husband after 10-12 days and on the day when she disclosed the occurrence to her husband, he couid not be able to face the disgrace and humiliation on account of the occurrence and he took poison. She continued to depose at Para-9 that she also took poison and she had disclosed the occurrence of rape to her husband. At Para-10 of her evidence, she deposed that during the occurence, she had tried to keep the appellant away but the appellant had gagged her mouth and had forcibly committed rape on her. She states that she was sleeping on the roof of her house with a child aged about 2 years. She further stated that in order to save her, she had even clawed on the face of the appellant. At Para-11 she further deposed that in an attempt to save herself she had received some injuries on her back but she did not show the injuries to the family members because it would have led to her to disgrace and dishonour. She also stated that she had given her statement in the Hospital under full consciousness. At Para-18 of her evidence she denied that she had stated before the Police that she had not disclosed the occurrenced to her husband and any member of the family. In this context the fard-beyan of the informant was referred to by the appellants counsel. In her fard-beyan she stated that she had not disclosed the occurrence to her husband or any family member. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when she did not disclose the occurrence to her husband or any family member the story of her husband taking poison due to disgrace on account of the occurrence is falsified. But this discrepancy is not a serious flaw. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that when she did not disclose the occurrence to her husband or any family member the story of her husband taking poison due to disgrace on account of the occurrence is falsified. But this discrepancy is not a serious flaw. It is admitted by the informant that due to fear of disgrace and humiliation, she did not disclose the matter to her husband and other family members for 10- 12 days and that when she felt the disgrace unbearable she decided to end her life by taking poison and that at that time, she disclosed the matter to her husband who, too, took poison due to disgrace and humiliation felt by him. Thus, the husband came to know about the occurrence of rape of his wife just at the last moment when the wife (the informant) took poison and he (informants husband) also took poison. During cross-examination of the informant the defence has given some suggestion that she had some otherwise relationship with some persons which she refused. The defence has not broght any evidence or materia! to substantiate the suggestion given to the informant. Thus, considering the evidence of the informant, I find that she is truthfui and reliable witness and there is nothing to discredit her testimony. 5. P.W. 1 Brahmdeo Yadav deposed that on 29th October 1989 Suresh Sah (P.W. 2) told him that his brother Deoniti Sah (the deceased) had taken poison. Learning this he went there and took the informant and her husband Deoniti Sah to the Hospital and that the informant Kusum Devi regained consciousnes in the Hospital at 11:00 P.M. but her husband Deoniti Sah could not survive. He further deposed that on regaining consciousness, the statement of the informant was recorded by Police in the Hospital. He also deposed that the Police had prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Deoniti Sah and he had put his signature on it. The signature was marked Ext-1. He has stated in his cross-examination that the appellant is the uncle of Suresh Sah (P.W. 2), Suresh Sah is brother of informants deceased husband. 6. P.W. 2 Suresh Prasad Sah is the Dewar of the informant. The signature was marked Ext-1. He has stated in his cross-examination that the appellant is the uncle of Suresh Sah (P.W. 2), Suresh Sah is brother of informants deceased husband. 6. P.W. 2 Suresh Prasad Sah is the Dewar of the informant. He deposed that on the date of occurrence, he saw a crowd at the shop of his deceased brother and there he learnt from his father that his brother (the deceased) and Bhabhi (the informant) had consumed poison. He further deposed that he took both of them to Referal Hospital, Sheikhpura where his Bhabhi was saved but his brother could not survive. He also stated that he learnt that 8-10 days ago his uncle Krishna Nandan Sah (the appellant) had committed rape on his Bhabhi (the informant). He also deposed that due to shame his Bhabhi had not disclosed the occurrence of rape. Here it has to be mentioned that the informant herself stated that due to fear of disgrace and humiliation, she died not disclose the incident to the family members and ultimately when she was unable to tolerate the humiliation and disgrace, she took poison and at that time, she also disclosed it to her husband who, too, took poison out of disgust. This witness has further deposed that the informants statement was recorded in the Hospital and he had signed on the statement as a witness and the informant had put her LTI. This witness has proved his signature as Ext-1/1 on the statement (fard- beyan). This witness has denied the defence suggestion that the informant had taken poision due to her bad character. The defence has not brought any evidence on record to show that the character of the informant was not good. At Para-10 of his statement, this witness stated that there is a letter written by the deceased in which the deceased had disclosed the reason for taking poison. Referring to this statement learned counsel for the appellant stated that the defence has not brought this letter on record which could have thrown light on the cause of deceased taking poison. 7. The learned A.P.P. replied that it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased had written any letter showing cause of occurrence. Referring to this statement learned counsel for the appellant stated that the defence has not brought this letter on record which could have thrown light on the cause of deceased taking poison. 7. The learned A.P.P. replied that it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased had written any letter showing cause of occurrence. He has further submitted that, no doubt, in course of cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that there is such letter but that is a personal view of the witness. Here I find that even if there be such letter, non-prosecution of the same does not demolish the case of the prosecution. The main occurrence as propounded by the prosecution is the occurrence of rape on the informant. The prosecution has been able to prove the occurrence of rape through the evidence. It has also been proved through the evidence of the informant that out of disgrace and disgust she had taken poison and due to taking poison by the informant, her husband also did take poison in disgust. The defence has not been able to bring any material on record to show that the informant or her deceased husband could have taken poison due to any other reason also. Thus, any material lecuna is not create due to prosecution not bringing on record any letter of the deceased as stated by P.W. 2. 8. P.W. 4 Dr. Brij Nandan Prasad is the doctor who had conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Deoniti Prasad Sah, the deceased husband of the informant. He deposed that rigor mortis was present. Froth was coming from the mouth and nostrils. Lungs and liver were conjested. Right chambers of heart were full of dark blood and left chambers were empty. Stomach contained about 4 Oz. of fluid (i) Small intestine contained stool and gas and (ii) Any external or internal injury could not be detected. At Para-5 of his evidence, the doctor further deposed that froth coming from mouth and nostrils is the symptom of poisoning. The doctor also deposed that the viscera was sent for chemical examination but any chemical examination report has not been brought on record. The P.M. Report was proved by the Doctor as Exit- 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that any viscera report has not been received to establish conclusively that the deceased had died of poisoning. The doctor also deposed that the viscera was sent for chemical examination but any chemical examination report has not been brought on record. The P.M. Report was proved by the Doctor as Exit- 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that any viscera report has not been received to establish conclusively that the deceased had died of poisoning. No doubt that any viscera report has not been proved but the Doctors evidence is sufficient to show that froth was coming out of the mouth and nostrils which was symptom of poisioning and thus there is no ground to disbelieve the prosecution story that the deceased had died on account of taking poison. 9. P.W. 5 Phanidhar Sharma is the I.O. who had conducted the later portion of investigation. He deposed that he had taken charge of investigation from the previous I.O., namely, Prahlad Prasad Singh and after conclusion of investigation, he had submitted charge-sheet. This witness has proved the F.I.R. marked Ext-5. He also deposed that the previous I.O. Prahlad Prasad Singh is dead and he has proved the writings from Paras-2 to 41 of the case diary which has been marked as Ext-6. He deposed that he did not send the informant for medical examination. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not got the medical examination of the informant done in order to substantiate the allegation of rape. But this has to be noticed here that the informant is a married lady having a child and she has herself stated that due to fear of disgrace and humiliation, she did not disclose the occurrenced of rape for 10-12 days but thereafter on being unable to face the humilia tion she decided to end her life and, hence, she took poison. Thus, under these circumstances, the medical examination of the informant after 10-12 days of the occurrence when her statement was recorded in the Hospital would not have been of any help to the case of the prosecution nor it was necessary to be done at that stage. Therefore, the non-examination of the informant by any doctor, after lodging of the F.I.R., cannot be considered as any lacuna to discredit the prosecution case. 11. Therefore, the non-examination of the informant by any doctor, after lodging of the F.I.R., cannot be considered as any lacuna to discredit the prosecution case. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, there is evidence of the informant only on the point of rape upon her and that there is no other evidence to corroborate her. But considering the circumstances of the case, it is found that the offence of rape was committed on the informant at mid-night hours while she was sleeping alone on the roof of the house with her child aged about 2 years. From the evidence of the informant it appears that any family member was not present there hence, any corroboration by any other witness is not possible nor it can be expected in the present case. Moreover, the evidence of the informant is fully reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, the evidence of the informant is quite competent to prove the occurrence of rape. The subsequent events of the informant taking poison when she became unable to bear the disgrace and humiliations meted to her due to the commission of rape on her and the informants husband also taking poison in disgust are the circumstances which go to corroborate the prosecution story of commission of rape. 12. Thus, hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, I find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond shadows of reasonable doubt. Therefore. I find no reason to make any interference with the order of conviction as passed by the learned Trial Court. As to the quantum of sentence, the sentence of R.I. for 7 years and a monatary fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for six months as passed by the Trial Court appears to be sufficient and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. The charge under Sec. 450 IPC is also proved but as already ordered by the Trial Court, there shall not be any separate sentence under this count. 13. Thus findings no ground to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the same is upheld. 14. In the result, the appeal fails.