JUDGMENT By court: This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2001 passed by Shri Prabhu Tiwary, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2000, by which judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the sole appellant, Bipin Soi guilty for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 2. The Prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the informant, Devendra Purty (P.W.2), brother of the victim lady Smt. Birang Kui (P.W.1), stating therein that on 26.06.1999 on about 8 A.M. in the morning his sister came to her father’s house, Barukuti, Chhota Kuira and after meeting everybody, when she was going to her sasural, Tutiguttu then she was followed upon by the appellant Bipin Soi at about 4.30 P.M. near Jamagara Dam finding his sister alone, he committed rape upon her. On protest and hulla made by his sister, one Bahadula Hembrom (P.W.3), who was coming towards the forest came there, whereupon the accused ran away. Then, she came to her naihar (father’s house) and narrated the entire occurrence to her family members. In the next morning, a panchayati was called and in the panchayati the accused Bipin Soi refused to accept the punishment, hence, this case was lodged before the police station on 01.07.1999. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, the police registered a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge sheet under Sections referred to above. 4. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and subsequently, the case was tried by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa and the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that although the prosecutrix P.W.1, Smt. Birang Kui has supported the prosecution case and P.Ws. 2, 3 and 7 have also supported the prosecution case, but, there is vital contradiction with regard to panchayati held in the village since the informant stated in her F.I.R. about the one panchayati, whereas, the other witnesses have stated that two panchayati were held. 2, 3 and 7 have also supported the prosecution case, but, there is vital contradiction with regard to panchayati held in the village since the informant stated in her F.I.R. about the one panchayati, whereas, the other witnesses have stated that two panchayati were held. It is further submitted that there is contradiction with regard to time of occurrence, since in the F.I.R., it is stated that the occurrence took place at 2.30 P.M. while P.W.3, Bahadula Hembrom stated that occurrence took place at 4.00 P.M. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the sasural of the victim lady was 200 steps from the place of occurrence, but in stead of going to her sasural she came to her father’s house and narrated the story to her family members, which also creates doubt in the prosecution case and as such the appellant should be acquitted. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposes the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case and minor difference in time of occurrence given by the informant and the P.W.3, Bahadula Hembrom does not create any serious doubt in the prosecution case. Moreover, he has stated that after occurrence of rape, it was natural that she will return to her father’s house in stead of going to her sasural. 7. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record in the trial, I find that the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, who have proved the charges leveled against the appellant. 8. P.W.1, Birang Kui is the victim lady herself has fully supported the prosecution case and she has stated in court that on the date of occurrence she had gone to her father’s house at Barukuti in the morning and in the second half, when she was coming back to her sasural Tutiguttu, then near Jamargara gaon, the accused Bipin Soi committed rape upon her by force. She made hulla, whereupon P.W.3, Bahadula Hembrom came, then the accused Bipin Soi ran away. He had already committed rape upon her. She received injuries on her back, since he committed rape by throwing her on the ground. She narrated the entire story to Bahadula Hembrom, who saw the accused running away. She made hulla, whereupon P.W.3, Bahadula Hembrom came, then the accused Bipin Soi ran away. He had already committed rape upon her. She received injuries on her back, since he committed rape by throwing her on the ground. She narrated the entire story to Bahadula Hembrom, who saw the accused running away. She also stated that next day she went to her sasural and narrated the story to her husband. In the next morning, she again went to her father’s house and narrated the story to her brother and father. Thereafter, panchayati was called by the Munda of the village. The accused was present in the panchayati, but no decision was taken in the panchayat then this case was lodged in the police station. She was examined by the doctor and his statement was also taken. She was identified in the court. In her cross-examination, she stated that before the occurrence, she was knowing this accused, since, he is the resident of nearby village Tiril Buru. She stated that she did not know his name and in the forest Bahadula Hembrom told his name to her. P.W.1 has fully been corroborated by P.W.3, Bahadula Hembrom, who stated that on the date of occurrence, while he was returning home from the forest at about 4.00 P.M., then he saw the accused Bipin Soi running away from the place of occurrence where the victim lady Smt. Birang Kui was present and she stated that the accused committed rape upon her and he disclosed the name of the accused to her. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not seen the accused committing rape upon her and came after the occurrence was over. He stated that he was knowing the accused from before. 9. P.W.2, Devendra Purti is the brother of the victim girl and has also supported the prosecution case and stated that on 26.06.1999, his sister came to meet them from her sasural and when she was returning to her sasural on the second half on 4.00 P.M., when she reached near Jamargara Dam then the accused committed rape upon her. She came back to her naihar (father’s house) from the place of occurrence and narrated the story to her mother. She came back to her naihar (father’s house) from the place of occurrence and narrated the story to her mother. He further stated that he reported the matter to Lal Singh Soren, the Munda of the village, who called the panchayat and when the accused Bipin Soi did not come in the panchayat, then the Munda asked him to report the matter to the police station. Then, on the next day, he reported the matter to the police on 01.07.1999. In his cross-examination at Para 5, he stated that the occurrence took place at about 4.30 P.M. in the evening when she was returning to her sasural. He stated that the place of occurrence is 3-4 Kms. From his house and her sasural is at about 200 steps from the place of occurrence. In his cross examination, he has also stated that panchayati was held twice. In the first panchayat, the accused was present when he was punished with fine, but in the next panchayat, he refused to come, then the case was lodged. 10. The evidences of these witnesses have also supported by the Investigating Officer and P.W.7, the doctor stated that the victim girl was aged about 17-18 years and found the sign of sexual intercourse and he has found the presence of dead cell of spermatozoa in the pathological report. 11. Thus, after going through the evidences, it is clear that rape was committed by the accused upon the victim girl. As far as the discrepancy i.e. only with regard to panchayati is concerned, P.W.2, Devendra Purti stated in his cross examination that two panchayati has taken place, but other witness stated that only one panchayati was held and when in the second panchayat, the accused refused to accept the punishment, the case was lodged. It is not vital contradiction. The second point raised by the appellant’s counsel is of no importance. He raised the point about the time of the occurrence and stated that somebody said the incident occurred at 4.00 P.M. and somebody stated that the incident took place at 4.30 P.M. The village witnesses have stated time on their guess. It is no discrepancy as to whether she came to her father’s house in-stead of going to her sasural. In that view of the matter, I find no contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is no discrepancy as to whether she came to her father’s house in-stead of going to her sasural. In that view of the matter, I find no contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. As far as the third point raised by the leaned counsel for the appellant that her sasural was 200 yard and she should have gone there. In my opinion, after the occurrence like rape, victim girl feels safe first going back to her father’s house in-stead of going to her sasural and exactly the victim girl has done. She, in-stead of going to her sasural, came to her father’s house first and reported the occurrence first to her mother and then she went to her sasural. This is a normal thinking of an Indian girl. 12. Thus, after going through the entire prosecution witnesses and the points raised by the appellant’s counsel, I find that the appellant has committed rape upon the victim girl, P.W.1 and he has rightly been found guilty by the trial court. 13. I find no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is in jail custody and he has completed his punishment as he was not granted bail and he remained in jail custody for nine years and eleven months. The appellant is directed to be released from the custody as he has already completed about ten years of sentence.