Judgment Kanchan Chakraborty, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10/11.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gangarampur at Buniadpur, Dakshin Dinajpur in Sessions Case No. 413 of 2008 (Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2009) thereby convicting the appellant Sanjit Roy alias Kostu for committing offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven year and to pay fine. The factual aspects of the prosecution case, on the basis of which the trial commenced in the learned Trial Court is stated below, in short:- On 06.09.2007, the prosecutrix, Putul Singh (Roy), wife of Biswajit Roy was sleeping in her matrimonial house. In the night, at about 2.00 A.M., accused Sanjit Roy entered into her room, lifted the mosquito net, came on her bed and caught hold Putul forcibly and, as a result, Putul woke up. Seeing Sanjit inside her room and on her bed at that odd hour, Putul began shouting but Sanjit muffled her mouth and threatened to kill her by throttling if she continues to do so. Thereafter, Sanjit put off her blouse and committed rape on her. He also threatened her that he would kill her in case of disclosure. On the next date, Putul narrated the incident to her parents-in-laws, who told her not to disclose the facts to anyone and in case of disclosure, they would kill Putul by setting her on fire. She was confined into the house. She somehow managed to send a letter to her elder brother requesting him to come in her matrimonial house. Her husband was sent away from home by Ukil Roy and Padma Roy, the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Putul and the incident took place in his absence. The father-in-law and mother-in-law of Putul, being abettors, were involved in the case. Putul lodged First Information Report stating the above mentioned facts with the Gangarampur Police Station on 08.09.2007 at 18.20 hours against Sanjit Roy, Ukil Roy and Padma Roy. Ukil Roy and Padma Roy were the father-in-law and mother-in-law while Sanjit Roy was the husband of sister-in-law of Putul. On the basis of the said First Information Report, Gangarampur Police Station Case No. 180 of 2007 dated 08.09.2007 was started against Sanjit, Ukil and Padma under Sections 376/201 of the Indian Penal Code. Ukil Roy and Padma Roy were the father-in-law and mother-in-law while Sanjit Roy was the husband of sister-in-law of Putul. On the basis of the said First Information Report, Gangarampur Police Station Case No. 180 of 2007 dated 08.09.2007 was started against Sanjit, Ukil and Padma under Sections 376/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated into and ended in a charge sheet against all three accused persons. Sanjit was arrayed to face the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code while Ukil and Padma were arrayed to face charge under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and, as a result, trial commenced. The prosecution examined as many as witnesses in course of trial. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The Medical Report, one letter of the victim girl, seizure list, First Information Report, written complaint, Sketch map of the place of occurrence, etc. were admitted into evidence without any objection and marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. One sari and one petticoat were also produced in Court and marked material exhibits 1 and 2 on behalf of the prosecution. The report of State Forensic Science Laboratory and notice received by the accused persons were also admitted into evidence and marked exhibits. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, the learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution established the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Sanjit Roy but failed to establish the charge under Sections 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ukil Roy and Padma Roy. Ukil Roy and Padma Roy were acquitted while Sanjit Roy was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine. Ukil Roy and Padma Roy were acquitted while Sanjit Roy was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine. The judgment is challenged in this appeal by Sanjit Roy, mainly, on the following grounds: (a) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the evidence recorded by it in its proper and true perspective; (b) that the learned Court failed to take into consideration that investigation into the case was done in a perfunctory manner causing extreme prejudice to the appellant; (c) that the learned Court failed to take note of the gross contradictory and inconsistent statements of the witnesses; (d) that the learned Court failed to appreciate the conduct of the victim immediately after the alleged incident, which was unnatural; (e) that the learned Court failed to consider that the case was initiated out of grudge and enmity between the de facto complainant and her inlaws; (f) that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim was neither acceptable nor believable as she did not narrate the incident to anyone but her in laws who were having inimical relations with her at that time; (g) that the learned Court did not note of the fact that the victim did not raise any alarm when she found the appellant on her bed although she was sleeping on the floor keeping the door of her room open; (h) that the learned Court erred in accepting the exhibit-3 sacrosanct, which, in fact, did not disclose case of rape; (i) that the learned Court also failed to appreciate that there was a scuffling between the appellant and the victim but no sign of injury was detected on the body of the victim; (j) that the learned Court erred in believing the sole testimony of the victim for recording conviction; and (k) that the judgment being otherwise bad in law, is liable to be set aside. The fact of this case is peculiar one. The victim had been living in her matrimonial house but she was not liked by her in laws including her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She lodged one criminal case against all in laws’ including her husband and she had to leave her matrimonial house for some time. Her marriage with Biswajit was a result of love affairs between them. The victim had been living in her matrimonial house but she was not liked by her in laws including her mother-in-law and father-in-law. She lodged one criminal case against all in laws’ including her husband and she had to leave her matrimonial house for some time. Her marriage with Biswajit was a result of love affairs between them. But Biswasjit was sent elsewhere by the parent-in-laws for the sake of job. She was prevented by her parent-in-laws to reside in her matrimonial house immediately after the marriage. She lodged F.I.R. to that effect and thereafter she was allowed to reside in her matrimonial house. The appellant Sanjit was the husband of the sister of Biswajit. He and his wife, i.e., sister of Biswajit had been living elsewhere. Sanjit used to visit his matrimonial house and on that particular night, he had been to her matrimonial house where the victim Putul was staying. There were two rooms in the matrimonial house, one was occupied by parents-in-law and another was under occupation of Putul. It was summer time. Putul, the victim, kept the door open and slept on a mattress putting mosquito net. The parents-in-law were sleeping on the varandah of the house, opposite the room of Putul. Sanjit, the appellant, entered inside the mosquito net and started unbuttoning the blouse of Putul. Putul woke up and tried to shout but stopped by Sanjit who threatened her that he would kill her by throttling. Thereafter, he had taken off her blouse and raped her. Before leaving, he again threatened her with dire consequences in case of disclosure. The victim was examined as P.W.1. She stated that she was alone in her room at that particular night. It was summer time and she kept the door of the room open when she went to the sleep. At about 02.00 A.M., Sanjit entered inside her room. Thereafter lifted the mosquito net and started unbuttoning the blouse of Putul. The P.W.1 stated that she woke up and told Sanjit not to act in that way but Sanjit did not listen to her. Putul then started resisting him and that Sanjit threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter, he committed raped on her and Putul could not make any resistance. Before leaving, she was also threatened by Sanjit with dire consequences. The P.W.1 stated that she woke up and told Sanjit not to act in that way but Sanjit did not listen to her. Putul then started resisting him and that Sanjit threatened her with dire consequences. Thereafter, he committed raped on her and Putul could not make any resistance. Before leaving, she was also threatened by Sanjit with dire consequences. In the morning, she reported the matter to father-in-law and mother-in-law but they told her not to disclose the matter to anybody and in case of disclosure, they would set her on fire. The parents-in-law of Putul confined her inside the room so that she would not talk to any outsider. On the next morning, she could come outside from her matrimonial house for attending nature’s call and at the time, she handed over a letter to Sona Roy (P.W.2) and requested her to hand it over to her brother. At about 10/11 A.M., her elder brothers Durga Singh (P.W.8) and Birbal Singh (P.W.6) came to her matrimonial house. Some villagers were also present at that time. Putul narrated the incident openly before them. Her brothers, thereafter, took her to her paternal house situated a bit away about 2000 Quebec fts. from her matrimonial house. She took her bath and meal in her paternal house and thereafter had gone to Trinamul Congress Party Office and reported the incident in the party office and one Ratan Ghosh (P.W.10) prepared the F.I.R. at the dictation of Putul. Thereafter, Putul had been to Gangarampur Police Station and lodged the same. In course of investigation, Putul was medically examined by P.W.4, Dr. Swapan Das who prepared the report which was marked Ext.2/1. The P.W.4, Dr. Das stated that on 8.9.2007, she examined Putul Singh in connection with Gangarampur Police Station Case No.180 of 2007 dated 8.9.2007. It was stated by Putul that she was sexually assaulted by Sanjit Roy on 7.9.20-07 at about 2.00 A.M. in her father-in-law’s house. Dr. Das could not detect any mark of injury on the entire body including private part of the victim. He denied in his cross-examination that the patient Putul did not report him that she was sexually assaulted by Sanjit Roy. Sona Roy was examined as P.W.2 in the case. Dr. Das could not detect any mark of injury on the entire body including private part of the victim. He denied in his cross-examination that the patient Putul did not report him that she was sexually assaulted by Sanjit Roy. Sona Roy was examined as P.W.2 in the case. She stated that one day in the morning, she met Putul Singh on road and at that time, Putul handed over a letter and requested her to give the same to her mother. Sona Roy had been to that place to attend nature’s call. She incidentally met the mother of Putul on the road and delivered a letter. Sona Roy, P.W.2 stated also that on the relevant date and time, Putul was residing in her matrimonial house. Sona Roy, as it appears from her cross-examination, was a local girl and she had acquaintance with Putul as well as Biswajit from their childhood. There is nothing in her evidence to suggest that she had any inimical term with the appellant or appellant’s family or had any reason to make any false statement in the Court. Putul was subjected to grilling cross-examination. She, as it appears to me, has not deviated from her statement that she was raped by Sanjit on the fateful night and time inside her matrimonial house and that when she was about to raise alarm, she was threatened with dire consequence and had to surrender as she could not resist the appellant because of his strength. In her cross-examination, she stated that there was no electric light in her matrimonial house and the appellant, Sanjit used to visit her matrimonial house once or twice in each week during her stay there. She stated also in her cross-examination that she tried to raise alarm but she was prevented by Sanjit. She woke up getting touch of the accused on her person. She did not raise alarm but told him not to do so otherwise she would raise alarm. Sanjit threatened her with dire consequences and again she resisted him and told him not to do so but she was threatened again and thereafter she was raped. She stated also that the conversation between her and the appellant was made in low voice and she fell asleep after Sanjit left her room. Sanjit threatened her with dire consequences and again she resisted him and told him not to do so but she was threatened again and thereafter she was raped. She stated also that the conversation between her and the appellant was made in low voice and she fell asleep after Sanjit left her room. She denied in her cross-examination that she lodged the F.I.R. falsely out of grudge against her parents-in-laws who prevented her to stay in that house. She also stated categorically in her cross-examination that she narrated the incident to Ratan Ghosh who prepared the F.I.R. at her dictation. She identified the Ext.3, i.e., the letter written by her to her elder brother. She denied in her cross-examination that Sanjit was not in her matrimonial house on that particular date. She also denied that Sanjit did not commit rape on her on that night and the ase was lodged due to political rivalry. Joimongal Singh is a man of the place where the matrimonial house of Putul is situated. He stated that two days after the incident, he had been to the house of Biswajit and came to know that Sanjit committed rape on Putul. Putul reported the fact to him in presence of other villagers and brothers of Putul. He stated also that the police seized wearing apparels of Putul as well as the letter and identified his signatures on the seizure list. The P.W.3 in his cross-examination supported the prosecution case by stating that the marriage of Putul and Biswajit was a result of love affairs and parents-in-laws of Putul did not accept the marriage. After marriage, Putul resided for a short period in her matrimonial home and returned to her paternal house. Later, she started living in her matrimonial house. I have carefully gone through the cross-examination of P.W.3 but failed to find out anything which goes against the prosecution. The P.W.5 is also a local man. He stated that he came to know from Putul that the husband of Nanad of Putul committed rape on Putul under threatening. He witnessed the seizure of wearing apparels of Putul and identified his signatures on the seizure list. In his cross-examination, he reiterated and confirmed his earlier statement that he came to know about the incident from Putul. The P.W.6, is elder brother of Putul. He witnessed the seizure of wearing apparels of Putul and identified his signatures on the seizure list. In his cross-examination, he reiterated and confirmed his earlier statement that he came to know about the incident from Putul. The P.W.6, is elder brother of Putul. He stated that on Thursday night, Smt. Sona Roy, P.W.2 delivered a letter written by Putul to his mother and thereafter he along with elder brother and younger brother had been to the matrimonial house of Putul where Putul reported that Sanjit committed rape on her. She also reported that her parents-in-laws threatened her that in case of disclosure, they would kill her by setting her on fire. They brought Putul back to their house and thereafter after taking meal, P.W.6 and Durga took Putul to Trinamul Congress Party Office where she narrated the incident to Ratan Ghosh (P.W.10) who reduced the same in writing and thereafter it was lodged with Gangarampur Police Station. In his cross-examination, he stated that Sona Roy delivered the letter to his mother on Saturday at 6.30 A.M. He admitted in his cross-examination that in that letter, Ext.3, it has not been specifically mentioned that Sanjit committed rape on Putul. He, however, identified the hand writings of Putul. I have also scanned the cross-examination of P.W.6 and failed to find out anything, which goes against the prosecution. The P.W.8, the brother of the victim reproduced the statement of P.W.6, Birbal Singh. There is nothing in his evidence, which goes against the prosecution case or favours the defence. The P.W.9 is the Sub Inspector of police who took up the investigation into the case at the later stage and in course of short span of investigation, he could arrest the appellant, examine the scribe of the F.I.R. He identified the formal F.I.R. and the endorsement on the written complaint lodged by the victim. He also submitted charge sheet against the appellant and the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim. Ratan Ghosh, the scribe of the F.I.R., Ext.1/2 supported the prosecution case and stated that he reduced the F.I.R. in writing at the dictation of Putul Singh who signed the same after being satisfied that what she had stated were correctly written. The P.W.11 is the Police Officer who took up the investigation initially. He prepared the sketch map of the P.O., which was marked Ext.9. The P.W.11 is the Police Officer who took up the investigation initially. He prepared the sketch map of the P.O., which was marked Ext.9. He recorded the statement of available witnesses, seized wearing apparels in presence of witnesses. He identified the formal F.I.R, which was marked Ext.7. There is nothing in his cross-examination also which creates any doubt as to the credibility of the statement of witnesses. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the victim is a married lady. The incident alleged had taken place in the early morning of 7.9.2007. It was 02.00 A.M. She had fallen asleep after the incident. She, astonishingly enough, did not talk to the appellant loudly when she woke up and found the appellant unbuttoning her blouse. She did not raise alarm. These facts altogether leads to the conclusion that she was not at all raped as stated by her. The reaction and conduct of the victim was not only unnatural but unexpected. No married lady would act in the manner she allegedly acted. She could have raised alarm. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were sleeping in the varandah outside the room. There were many houses by the side of the place of occurrence. She could have shout for help. Rather she talked to the appellant in low voice and had fallen asleep after the incident. Mr. Bapuli, learned Counsel for the respondent/State of West Bengal contended that the prosecutrix was in helpless condition in her matrimonial house and her relation with the mother-in-law and father-in-law was inimical. Therefore, she thought it better not to inform the matter to her mother-in-law and father-in-law in the mid night. She was under threatening of dire consequences as the appellant throttling her neck and told her that in case of any noise, he would kill her by throttling. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural and unexpected. It is true that in such a situation, a married woman while sleeping in her matrimonial house could have raised alarm and resisted the rapist with all her strength. But the background of the case was quite different. She was a lady not wanted in her matrimonial house. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law had to allow her staying in her matrimonial house as she initiated a criminal case against them and other in-laws including the husband. What would have been the result of shouting? But the background of the case was quite different. She was a lady not wanted in her matrimonial house. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law had to allow her staying in her matrimonial house as she initiated a criminal case against them and other in-laws including the husband. What would have been the result of shouting? The rapist was none but the ‘Jamai’ of that house. The father-in-law and mother-in-law would not have come to rescue the victim in such a case. Again, the victim knew that there would be no help from the side of her mother-in-law and father-in-law. It was confirmed when she reported the incident to them in the next morning. The result was threatening from their side in case of disclosure and her confinement in the house. She could not contact any one. On the next day, in the morning, she some how met the P.W.2 and handed over a letter (Ext.3) and requested her to give that to her elder brother. That was the way she had to act. It is to be taken for granted that the victim was a woman having intelligence. She did not make any hue and cry because she knew that there would be no effect and no help excepting from the side of her paternal house. She did not escape even getting the chance but handed over a letter, Ext.3 and communicated something alarming to her paternal house. The Ext.3, it is true, does not disclose that this appellant committed rape on the victim. But, it is enough to cause disturbance in the mind of the inmates of the victim and that was why they rushed to the matrimonial house of the victim and in presence of them and local people, i.e. P.Ws.3 and 5, victim disclosed that she was raped by Sanjit on 6/7.9.2007. It is clear from the evidence that she was staying in her matrimonial house in helpless condition. Even her husband was sent outside by mother-in-law and father-in-law. This fact indicates that how powerful her mother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim were. They threatened her that they would kill her by stating her on fire in case of disclosure. On one hand, she was under the threatening of being killed and on the other hand, she was afraid of loosing her room in her matrimonial house. This fact indicates that how powerful her mother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim were. They threatened her that they would kill her by stating her on fire in case of disclosure. On one hand, she was under the threatening of being killed and on the other hand, she was afraid of loosing her room in her matrimonial house. She had to act intelligently and did not raise hue and cry. Falling asleep in the late night is not an unnatural thing specially when the victim knew that there was no use of going out and report the incident to the mother-in-law and father-in-law at that late night. The fact can be analysed in different way also. The victim was a married lady and she was residing in her matrimonial house against all odds. She was ashamed of entire episode and did not like to make it public initially. But when she threatened by her father-in-law and mother-in-law in the next morning, she had to inform her paternal house by sending a letter through P.W.2. She had to wait for one day. Even she could not write clearly in the letter what happened. She was of that type of lady who was not in a habit of using the bad words in a letter written to her inmates. She indicated in the letter clearly that she was in trouble in her matrimonial house and some one was disturbing her. That was sufficient for the P.W.6 and P.W.8 to go to the house of their sister Putul after receiving the letter. The fact that Putul disclosed the entire episode in presence of them and in presence of P.Ws.3 and 5, has been corroborated by each and every. The Doctor had no reason to mention in his report or to state in Court that Putul Singh was sexually assaulted by Sanjit Roy on 6/7.9.2007 in her matrimonial house. There is nothing in his evidence, which suggests that he made that statement falsely and no such statement was made by Putul to him. There is no reason for the Court to disbelieve the statement of the Doctor, P.W.4. It is not a case where the Court recorded conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of a prosecutrix. It is a case where the testimony of prosecutrix was corroborated and supported by other witnesses including neutral persons such as P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. Mr. It is not a case where the Court recorded conviction on the basis of the sole testimony of a prosecutrix. It is a case where the testimony of prosecutrix was corroborated and supported by other witnesses including neutral persons such as P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that had the prosecutrix was raped forcibly she would have sustained some marks on her body. But, the P.W.4 could not detect any mark on her body. It is nowhere stated by any witness that the prosecutrix sustained any injury or mark on her body. It was not the case of the prosecution at all. She was sleeping on a mattress and not on a bare floor or rough surface. She was habituated in sexual intercourse, as she was married lady. It was not the case of the prosecution that she had given bite or scratch on any part of the body of the appellant while he tried to rape. Therefore, there was no possibility of getting any mark on her body. This point raised by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant appears to be immaterial. Absence of mark of injury in the private part of a victim is inconsequential when the victim is an adult married lady having experience in sexual intercourse. The question raised by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant as to why the prosecutrix did not raise alarm or noise, has been answered by the learned Trial Court elaborately. The prosecutrix as it appears from the evidence, was under the threat of being killed. The appellant caught hold her neck and told her not to utter a single word otherwise he would kill her by throttling. She was having no person in the house who could help her. The father-in-law and mother-in-law who were sleeping outside were maintaining inimical relation with her. The room of the door was kept open, as it was summer. There was no electricity. Naturally, the victim was gripped by fear and could not say anything. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no reason for the prosecutrix to speak in low voice. I find no importance in this point. It does not necessarily indicate that had the prosecutrix in talking in loud voice, the appellant would have released her. Naturally, the victim was gripped by fear and could not say anything. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was no reason for the prosecutrix to speak in low voice. I find no importance in this point. It does not necessarily indicate that had the prosecutrix in talking in loud voice, the appellant would have released her. The appellant knew very well that he was the “Jamai” of the house and that his father-in-law and mother-in-law would support him instead of helping the prosecutrix. He had that courage and, as such, threatened the prosecutrix that in case of shouting or noising, he would kill her by throttling. So, in such a condition, the prosecutrix had to resist or protest in low voice. She could not cope with the appellant physically. What she could do but to remain silent out of fear. I find that the learned Court discussed the entire matter categorically and there is no scope for this Court to say that the judgment impugned is perverse one. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Imran Khan Vs. State Government (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 240 held that when the prosecutrix could not raise hue and cry as she was totally in a position of shock and when all prosecution witnesses had faced cross-examination but nothing could be elicited to discredit any part of their evidence, the Trial Court came to a correct conclusion that there was no reason to disbelive the prosecutrix as no self respecting girl would level a false charge of rape against any one by staking her own honour. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of the prosecutrix was not trustworthy and it was full of discrepancies. So, according to him, the learned Trial Court ought to have given the appellant benefit of doubt. do not find any substance in his statement. Ordinarily, Courts do not seek corroboration of sole testimony of prosecutrix until and unless her evidence is found untrustworthy and when she has a strong motive to falsely implicate the accused. In the instant case, the appellant was not living in the house of mother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim. He is a resident of different place but husband of the daughter of landlord and landlady of the house. In the instant case, the appellant was not living in the house of mother-in-law and father-in-law of the victim. He is a resident of different place but husband of the daughter of landlord and landlady of the house. It is nowhere stated by any witnesses and the prosecutrix that the appellant was made an accused in the case filed by the prosecutrix earlier against her in laws including her husband. She had no strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant. She might have reason to teach a lesson to her mother-in-law and father-in-law but not the appellant. Mother-in-law and father-in-law were acquitted by the Court. They did not commit rape nor they had any knowledge about the rape at the time it was committed. When they were informed, they thought about the life and future of their daughter who married the appellant. Therefore, they had to stop the prosecutrix to go outside the house and disclose the matter to any one. These facts are not only practical but if considered seriously, I must say that any prudent man would accept this factual aspect of the case. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained by the facts of the case itself. The prosecutrix had no way to pass any information to anybody immediately after the incident and soon thereafter till 9.7.2007 in the morning. There was no subsequent development and nothing was concocted or after thought. The presence of Sanjit, the appellant in his matrimonial house on the fateful date was confirmed by P.W.3, a man of that area who stated in his examination in chief categorically that the accused Sanjit was in that house 3/4 days prior to that date. That evidence of P.W.3 was not at all challenged in his cross-examination. In the instant case, the defence tried to take help of political rivalry as a last straw. I must say that there is nothing in evidence which shows that the prosecutrix was a hard core Trinamul Congress Party member or that the appellant was a hard core ante Trinamul Congress Party member. This ground taken by the appellant is useless and immaterial in the facts and circumstances of the case. Taking everything into consideration, this Court is of considered view that the learned Trial Court had taken everything into consideration properly and appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. This ground taken by the appellant is useless and immaterial in the facts and circumstances of the case. Taking everything into consideration, this Court is of considered view that the learned Trial Court had taken everything into consideration properly and appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. The judgment impugned is well reasoned and is not required to be upset. Accordingly, the appeal fails. The judgment and order impugned is affirmed. The learned Trial Court is directed to give effect to the order of sentence without delay. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court does not like to interfere into the order of sentence also.