JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-9-1997 passed by Sri Philip Topno, District and Sessions Judge, Singh bhum West, Camp at Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No.323 of 1996 by which judgment, learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty under Sections 452/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 452 and Seven years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, both sentences to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case written in the fardbeyan given by the victim girl Savitri Soren, P.W.1 at Seraikella police Station in her Ho language and translated by one Samu Gope in Hindi and recorded by the Investing Officer. 3. The victim girl stated in her fardbeyan that on Saturday night at about 2 P.M. she had gone out for urination. After urination when she was entering her house the accused Bir Singh Hasda caught hold her and in spite of her protest he dragged her out of the house and near a pond where he committed rape twice upon her by force. At about 8 AM in the morning, he left her near her house and gave her threat not to disclose about the occurrence to anybody. otherwise he will kill her. 4. The victim girl came to her house and stated about the occurrence to her mother then on Sunday a Panchayti was held. where the panches asked them to go to the police station and lodge a case against the accused. Accordingly, they went to the police Station on Monday morning and had given their statement before the police. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, police registered a case under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence and on compliance of the provisions of Section 207. Cr.P.C. the case was committed in the Court of Sessions, since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 5. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution has altogether examined five witnesses. P.W.1 Savitri Devi, the victim girl. P.W.2 Randai Kui. mother of the victim girl. P.W.3 is Pandu Nayak. P.W.4 is Janardan Tanty. P.W.5 is Dr. Niru Jha. 6. 5. In order to bring home the charges the prosecution has altogether examined five witnesses. P.W.1 Savitri Devi, the victim girl. P.W.2 Randai Kui. mother of the victim girl. P.W.3 is Pandu Nayak. P.W.4 is Janardan Tanty. P.W.5 is Dr. Niru Jha. 6. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and considering the evidences m record found the accused guilty under aforesaid Section and convicted there under as stated above. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement bf the victim girl as stated in Court as she was examined as P.W.I. gave a different version from that given in the fardbeyan and as such the prosecutrix herself has made the entire prosecution case, which is doubtful. It is further stated that the Investing Officer has not been examined in the case. It is further argued that the victim girl said that she raised alarm of protest and the same is not acceptable. 8. On the other hand.' the learned counsel for the State has stated that the prosecution statement as given by P.W.1 is reliable and there is no contradiction about that. The slight contradiction with the fardbeyan, as pointed out is due to the fact that the statement was given by the victim in 'Ho' language and that was not very reliable and as such the conviction is well found and there is no need to interfere with the same by this Court. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for State, I find that the prosecution case is mainly based on the informant, Savitri Devi, P.W.1, evidence of her mother, P.W.2 and of the doctor, P.W.5. P.W.1, Savitri Devi stated in the Court that in the night of Saturday, she was sleeping in her house along with her mother and two small brothers. She went out to urinate and after urination when she was entering her house and took her near a pond where some hay (pual) was lying. When his mother started enquiring about who is there, then the accused took her by force to some other place and committed rape upon her. The victim girl wanted to save herself but she failed to do so. She stated that the accused committed twice rape upon her. When his mother started enquiring about who is there, then the accused took her by force to some other place and committed rape upon her. The victim girl wanted to save herself but she failed to do so. She stated that the accused committed twice rape upon her. Subsequently, he left her near her house at about 4 A.M. in the morning and while leaving her, he gave her threat that if she discloses the occurrence to anybody, she will be killed. In the Court she also stated that she told about the occurrence to her mother, then a panchayati was called and the panches asked her to go to the police station with her mother and lodge a case against the accused, Bir Singh Hasda. She was sent for medical examination by the police to Chaibasa Sadar Hospital. Her statement was also recorded at Seraikella Court by the Magistrate and she identified the accused in the Court. 10. In cross-examination, she stated in para-6 that when she had came out for urination, her mother was sleeping in intoxicated condition and her young brother Pandu Birua was awake. She stated in para 9 of the cross-examination that she was raped at khalihan near a pond. 11. P.W. 2 Randai Kui stated in Court that in Saturday night, the occurrence was informed to her by a villager Pandu Nayak. Subsequently, when her daughter (victim) came, she also stated that she was taken by force by the accused and raped. Then she called a panchayati where the panches asked them to go to the police station and thus they went to police station and gave statement to the police. In her cross-examination, she also stated that Savitri Devi, the victim girl returned after day-break (murga bolne ke baad) and on asking she told about the occurrence. A suggestion was given to her by Bir Singh Hasda and had arranged her marriage but the girl was not ready to marry anybody, which was arranged by the accused-Bir Singh Hasda, but this fact was not admitted by P.W. 2. 12. The third important witness is the doctor who examined the victim girl and found that there was a scratch mark on her private part and she also found dead spermatozoa in the swab report and she gave her opinion that the victim girl was raped. 12. The third important witness is the doctor who examined the victim girl and found that there was a scratch mark on her private part and she also found dead spermatozoa in the swab report and she gave her opinion that the victim girl was raped. In her cross-examination she clearly stated and claimed that the rape had been committed and in the opinion of the doctor, the victim girl was in between 16 to 17 years. 13. Thus, after going through the evidences of the prosecutrix and that of the mother and the doctor. I find that there is no doubt that the victim girl was raped by the accused-Bir Singh Hasda. Discrepancy is pointed out by the appellant's counsel that in her statement before police in the Fardbeyan, she has stated that rape was committed near the pond, onwards in Court she had stated that rape was committed in the khalihan. 14. I find no discrepancy that she was raped. More so, the Fardbeyan was not recorded as per the statement of the victim girl rather it was translated in Hindi by one police witness Samu Gope and that is not very relevant. It is clearly found by the doctor in the cross-examination that the victim girl has stated that the rape was committed by the accused. In the defence taken by the accused which is also not very relevant that only because he arranged the marriage, he .will be falsely implicated by her. 15. In view of the clear findings after discussing the witnesses and I find that the prosecution has proved the charges and conviction under Sections 376 and 422 of the Indian Penal Code is well founded. I find no merit in the appeal. 16. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. 17. It has been submitted 'by the counsel for the appellant that it appears on perusal of the record that the accused has served the sentences. 18. The trial Court shall look into the matter and pass appropriate order for the production of the accused if necessary. Appeal dismissed.