JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar,J-The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19th January, 2002 passed by Shri Jai Govind Singh, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1995, by which judgment he found the accused-appellant, Jamuna Nayak guilty under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 years R.I. under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. . However, he directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was started on the basis of a first information report lodged by the informant, Bhukhali Devi on 6.10.94 stating therein that she was married to late Brahmdeo Ravidas, who died due to illness leaving behind two daughters one was aged about 16 years and other was aged about 8 years. After the death of her husband she came to live with her mother, who was working in C.C.L. at Jarangdih Colliery, district Bokaro. In 1991 her mother as per Rule 9:4:3 of N.C.W.A gave her services to her daughter and she was appointed as a Colliery Mazdoor at Jarangdih Colliery in place of her mother. Thereafter, she started living with her two daughters at Jarangdih Colliery Chief House No. 110. At Jarangdih at some distance the accused, Jamuna Nayak was also residing and he was working as a driver at Jarangdih Colliery. Since, both of them started living at the same place and working in the same Colliery hence, they become friends. Subsequently, the accused, Jamuna Nayak had developed illicit relation with her and he started taking her salary and even sick leave allowance. She alleged in her F.I.R. that on 16.9.1994 at about 9 a.m. in the morning when her elder daughter, Sushila Kumari aged about 16 years, was alone at home then the accused entered into the house by force and at the point of pistol committed rape upon her. Suddenly, at that very movement the informant returned from her duty and found that the door is closed from inside and her daughter is shouting for help. When, the informant started making ‘Hullah’ from outside then the accused open the door and ran away and her daughter came to her weeping and said that the accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upon her. When, the informant started making ‘Hullah’ from outside then the accused open the door and ran away and her daughter came to her weeping and said that the accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upon her. The informant went to the Bokaro Thermal Police Station, but the O/C. refused to register the F.I.R., then she went to her mother’s house at Swang Colliery and filed the petition before Superintendent of Police, Bokaro and Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. Thereafter, this case was registered under Sections 376/452 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused person and the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case, since, the case was exclusively triable by a court of Sessions committed the same to the Court of Sessions where the trial was held and the accused was found guilty by the learned Aditional Sessions Judge as stated above and convicted and sentenced thereunder. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape upon the daughter of the informant as it will appear from the statement of the informant that she had grudge against this appellant since he was taking her salary and sick leave allowance after his marriage with the informant at Purilia and hence she lodged this false F.I.R. to falsely implicate him. The learned trial court found the allegation of the informant is baseless and accordingly acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 493, 497, 313 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but wrongly relied for convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned trial court found the allegation of the informant is baseless and accordingly acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 493, 497, 313 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but wrongly relied for convicting the appellant under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the trial court after fully discussing the evidence of the informant and other witnesses came to a very correct finding that as far as the allegation of forceful rape on her and thereafter, taking the salary and sick leave allowance by force from the informant, she made no complain to the court or police, but only when she found the accused committed rape upon her minor girl, she made a protest and left the house and filed this F.I.R. The appellant has committed heinous crime by committing rape upon the minor girl, who was like his daughter and he has rightly been convicted. 6. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidences alleged by the prosecution during trial, I find that in course of trial the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses. P.W.1 is Ram Bilash Sao he was declared hostile, P.W.2, Asharfi Devi, she was a co-worker of the accused, P.W.3 is Dr. Vona Sing, who examined the victim girl, P.W.4, is Bhulakhi Devi, who is the informant, P.W.5 is Sushila Kumari, who is the victim girl and P.W.6 is Khamiran Mahto, who is a formal witness. 7. The defence has also examined 5 witnesses. D.W.1 is Devendra Singh, D.W.2 is Batul Bouri, D.W.3 is Md. Quayum Ansari, D.W.4 is Laxmi Rajwar, D.W.5 is Suleman Ansari.. 8. After going through the evidences given by the prosecution in Court, I find that P.W. 1, Ram Bilash Sao, who was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W.2, Asharfi Devi she stated that she was working in Jarangdih Colliery and subsequently she gave her services to her daughter, Bhukli Devi. At the time of occurrence Bhukli Devi used to live at Jarangdih, since, Bhukli Devi had married with Jamuna Nayak She further stated that on the date of occurrence the accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upper her grand daughter aged about 15 years. She identified the accused in Court. At the time of occurrence Bhukli Devi used to live at Jarangdih, since, Bhukli Devi had married with Jamuna Nayak She further stated that on the date of occurrence the accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upper her grand daughter aged about 15 years. She identified the accused in Court. In her cross-examination she admitted that after marriage of her daughter Bhukli Devi she used to live with Jamuna Nayak as husband and wife. She further stated that the accused, Jamuna Nayak, also worked at Jarangdih Colliery. P.W.3, Dr. Vona Singh, who examined the victim girl on 8.10.1994, she found no sign of recent rape, but admitted that her hymen was ruptured. She proved her medical report as Ext.-1. In her opinion, the victim girl was aged about 16 years. P.W.4, Bhukli Devi (informant) has stated that after the death of her husband about nine years back she came with her two daughters to her mother’s house, who was working at Swang Colliery of C.C.L. Subsequently, in 1991 her mother gave her services to her and she was appointed as a Colliery Mazdoor at Jarangdih Colliery 49 kilometer away from Swang Colliery and she started living with her two daughters in Qr. No. 110, which belonged to one Batul Bouri who allowed her to live in that quarter while she was working at Jarangdih Collierty she become friendly with the accused, Jamuna Nayak, who was also working as a Van Driver he used to live at some distance at Jarangdih Colliery . She further stated that one day in 1994 when she was alone in her quarter accused entered her quarter in order to take water, but subsequently he committed rape upon her by closing her mouth, but subsequently he took her to Purlia and married her in Court. Thereafter, they started living as husband and wife. She further stated that he started taking her salary and even sick leave allowance by force. She further stated at para 10 that in 1994 on 16th September, when her daughter aged about 14-15 years, Sushila Kumari, who was a student of Class-VIIth was alone in that quarter and she had gone for her duty at 7 a.m., but when she returned at about 9 a.m. after taking leave from the job then she found her quarter is closed from inside and her daughter is shouting for help. When, she knocked the door and made Hullah whereupon Jamuna Nayak came out by opening the door and she found that Sushila Kumari is lying on the floor and she is bleeding from her private parts. She was unconscious then she put cloth upon her and also put water upon her face. Whereupon, she become conscious and stated that accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upon her. She used to call him as Mama. When, she protested the accused, Jamuna Nayak then assaulted her and she went to her mother’s house and from where she went to the police station at Gomia, who. refused to register the case then she went to Bokaro Thermal Police Station the O/C refused to register the case. Then, she gave a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro then the case was registered. In her cross-examination, she stated that Bhuneshwar Mahato is the Union Leader of her Colliery and he had written the complain since she was illiterate he does not belong to her caste. She further stated that she had got treatment of her daughter by Doctor and the doctor had found her bleeding from her private parts. P.W.5, Sushila Kumari , the victim girl, who was found aged about 16 years by the Court, stated in Court that on 16.9.94 when she was residing with her mother at Jarangdih in Qr. No. 110 along with her younger sister. At about 9 a.m. when she was in her quarter with her younger sister and her mother had gone to duty then this accused, Jamuna Nayak entered into the quarter and closed the door from inside she used to call him Mama since he was working with her mother in the same colliery. Suddenly, he started undressing her and thereafter removing her clothes by force and committed rape upon her. When, she started shouting for help then he put her on a Chauki and after removing her payzama and then committed rape upon her. She started bleeding from her private parts and become unconscious. After 5-7 minutes her mother brought her to consciousness and gave water to drink, then she stated about the occurrence and stated that the accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upon her on the point of pistol, he stated that if she will make ‘Hullah’ then he will kill her. She started bleeding from her private parts and become unconscious. After 5-7 minutes her mother brought her to consciousness and gave water to drink, then she stated about the occurrence and stated that the accused, Jamuna Nayak committed rape upon her on the point of pistol, he stated that if she will make ‘Hullah’ then he will kill her. Subsequently, he assaulted her mother when she made protest then she left the quarter and went to her grand mother’s house to Swang from where she went to Gomia police station and Bokaro police station where no case was registered then she went to S.P. and D.C., Bokaro and filed the case. She was examined by doctor and was cross-examined at length. In her cross-examination, she stated that when she stayed at Jarangdih on 16.9.1994 and left thereafter. She also stated that on hearing Hullah the neighbouring people had come at the place of occurrence. P.W.6, Khamiran Mahto is a formal witness and he proved the formal F.I.R. as Ext.-2 and the endorsement of the Investigating Officer on the F.I.R. as Ext.-3. 9. Thus, from the evidences of the prosecution, it is clear that the informant has admitted that she made no complain against the accused when he entered her house by force and committed rape upon her and subsequently she got married with the accused at Purilia and started living with him as husband and wife. She made no complain when the accused used to assault her and take her salary by force. She made no complain even when the accused took her sick leave allowance of Rs. 5,000/-, but on the date of occurrence when she found the accused, Jamuna Nayak committing rape upon her minor daughter, she became furious and left her house which is very natural and lodged this complaint to the D.C., Bokaro since, Gomia and Bokaro Thermal, Police Stations, O/Cs refused to register the F.I.R. as the occurrence took place at Jarangdih Colliery, hence the delay in lodging the complain has been fully explained by the informant and she had narrated the entire circumstances under which there was delay in lodging the F.I.R.. The learned trial court has also after full discussion accepted the delay which is well-explained. 10. Before finally discussing the evidence of the prosecution as aforesaid, it is important to look into the evidences produced by the defence. The learned trial court has also after full discussion accepted the delay which is well-explained. 10. Before finally discussing the evidence of the prosecution as aforesaid, it is important to look into the evidences produced by the defence. As stated above the prosecution has examined five witnesses. D.W.1, Devendra Singh, he only stated that he is a worker of C.C.L., Jarangdih Colliery since last 10 or 12 years and Qr. No. 110 at Jarangdih was not allotted to him and there is no question of giving that quarter to Batul Bouri. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he stayed in Qr. No. 99, which is double storied building having 16 quarters and at para 15 he stated that he cannot say that Batul Bouri was residing with her daughter and that in C.C.L. Quarter even without allotment of the quarter, the workers reside. D.W.3, Md. Quayum Ansari stated that no register with regard to allotment of quarter is maintained in Jarangdih Colliery quarters are given by office order and in his cross-examination he stated that today he has brought a letter by Personnel Department with regard to quarter allotment order of Kartik Hazam. D.W.4, Laxmi Rajwar, stated that he got a quarter at Jarangdih in 1996, being Qr. No. 96. He further stated that his quarter is made in 1995. In 1995 quarter no. CH 110 was allotted to Sukar Mahato, but in his cross-examination at para 11 he stated that he has not seen the allotment of Sukar Mahato with regard to quarter -7no. 110. He also stated in para 12 that he does know that in quarter no. 110 in the year 1994 she used to live with her daughter. D.W.5, Suleman Ansari he stated that he is working in Jarangdih Colliery since last 10 years and he has been allotted Qr. No. 117 and quarter no. 110 was allotted to one Kailash Mahato. At para 8, in his cross-examination, he said that he does not know that in 1994 in quarter no. 110, informant used to live with her daughter. 11. Thus, after going through the defence evidences, I find that all the five defence witnesses have attempted to say that the informant was not residing in Qr. No. 110, but failed to prove the same. As none of them were residing in that colony at the time of occurrence. 12. 110, informant used to live with her daughter. 11. Thus, after going through the defence evidences, I find that all the five defence witnesses have attempted to say that the informant was not residing in Qr. No. 110, but failed to prove the same. As none of them were residing in that colony at the time of occurrence. 12. As discussed above, D.W. 1, Devendra Singh was not residing in quarter no. 100 and he cannot say as to whether the informant was living in the quarter unauthorizedly or not? Similarly D.W.3, Md. Quayum Ansari stated that no register of allotment is maintained the colliery office. D.W.4,Laxmi Rajwar stated that for the first time he was allotted quarter in 1995. One year after the informant left the area. He further stated that quarter no. 110 was allotted to Sukur Mahato while D.W.5 stated that the quarter allotted to Kailash Yadav. 13. Thus, I find the defence witnesses are contradictory to each other and are not reliable. The only point the defence wanted to prove that the quarter where the occurrence of rape took place was not allotted to the informant,. has failed to prove the same. The prosecution has proved by their evidences that at the time of occurrence Bhukli Devi-informant was living in that quarter no. 110 along with her daughters and on the date of occurrence i.e. 16.9.1994 the accused committed rape upon her minor daughter, 14. As discussed above, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed rape upon the minor girl, Sushila Kumari, who was like his daughter, since he was living with her mother as husband and wife and act of the petitioner is unlike a human conduct and is very close to the animal conduct, where rape is committed even upon minor children. The Court rightly found the accused guilty under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The argument of the defence counsel that informant has falsely been implicated by the accused out of grudge and enmity, has not been proved by any evidence, rather in the contrary the informant suffered torture and rape at the hands of the accused, but made no complain, but when she found that the accused has committed rape upon her minor daughter then she cannot accept the same and made complain. 16.. 16.. I find no merit in this appeal, and the same is dismissed. The accused was granted bail by this Court, his bail bond is cancelled. The learned court below is directed to issue warrant of arrest against the accused-appellant and put behind the bar for serving out the sentences as passed by the trial court.