HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.:–The above named sole appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under the above stated section by the learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2001 and order of sentence dated 14.02.2001 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 405 of 1996. By the same impugned judgment, rest accused, namely, Fakir Mukhiya, Bhilo Mukhiya and Lal Mukhia were acquitted of the charge framed against them for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and similarly, appellant was also acquitted of the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W.5, Deo Sundari Devi filed complaint petition (Exhibit-1) on 27.04.1995 stating therein that she resides at her parental home because her husband solemnized his second marriage and all the accused persons are relatives amongst themselves and had greedy eye upon her and they often tried to induce her for sexual intercourse for which she had chided them on several occasions. Furthermore, she alleged that on 25.04.1995 at about 12:00 to 01:00 A.M., while she was sleeping in her home, appellant Shatrughan Mukhiya entered into her house and after removing her saree and petikot committed rape on her. She woke up and pushed him away by using her leg and thereafter, she caught hold of him and raised alarm which attracted her mother and sister in law (bhabhi) as well as her neighbour, Bachha Paswan. The aforesaid persons came there and with the help of them she kept the appellant confined and then she called the chowkidar and handed over the appellant to the chowkidar. Furthermore, she alleged that in the morning of following day, she asked the chowkidar to take the appellant to the police station concerned but in the meantime, Sarpanch called the chowkidar and at the direction of Sarpanch, the chowkidar released the appellant. On 26.04.1995 at about 10 A.M. she along with her mother and witnesses was going to police station to lodge the case and when reached at Rasiari Ghat, the appellant and other accused surrounded her and started assaulting her with fists and slaps and also stopped her from going to police station. On 26.04.1995 at about 10 A.M. she along with her mother and witnesses was going to police station to lodge the case and when reached at Rasiari Ghat, the appellant and other accused surrounded her and started assaulting her with fists and slaps and also stopped her from going to police station. She along with her mother returned to her home but anyhow, she managed to go to the court and filed the complaint case. 3. After due enquiry, prima facie case was found against the appellant and other accused and accordingly, after commitment appellant and other accused were put on trial. 4. The appellant was, separately, charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code whereas he along with rest accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to appellant and others but they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, altogether, seven prosecution witnesses were examined and besides it, prosecution got exhibited complaint petition as Exhibit-1, signature of concerned advocate on complaint petition as Exhibit-2, statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-3, statement of P.W.3 recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-3/1, statement of P.W.2 recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-3/2 and statement of P.W.4 recorded under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as Exhibit-3/3. 6. The statements of appellant and other accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they reiterated their innocence. The defence also examined one witness and got exhibited certified copy of order passed under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. in Case No. 855 as Exhibit-A and certified copy of police report in Ghanshyampur P.S. in Non First Information Report No. 04 of 1996 as Exhibit-B. 7. The learned trial court having heard the parties and having analyzed the materials available on the record passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence in the manner as stated above. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the ground that learned trial court committed error in convicting the appellant on the basis of unreliable materials. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the ground that learned trial court committed error in convicting the appellant on the basis of unreliable materials. He further contended that the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements in respect of the alleged occurrence but in spite of that learned trial court relied upon the untrustworthy statements of prosecution witnesses. Continuing his submission, he submitted that learned trial court failed to appreciate this fact that according to prosecution case, the alleged occurrence took place in the night of 25.04.1995 but P.W.5 filed complaint petition on 27.04.1995 and there was no explanation of the aforesaid delay. He further submitted that the story, as propounded by the complainant as well as other prosecution witnesses, was quite absurd and no prudent person would believe on the aforesaid story. He further submitted that learned trial court failed to appreciate this fact that complainant (P.W.5) was a lady of questionable character and she had deserted her husband and defence adduced the material to show that P.W.5 had illicit relation with P.W.1 who set up the P.W.5 to lodge case against the appellant and others as they being co-villagers of P.W.5 were opposing her illicit relation with P.W.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution witnesses made contradictory statements on the point of place of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence and furthermore, no independent witness was examined in support of the prosecution case and, therefore, learned trial court committed error in relying upon the statements of prosecution witnesses. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence arguing that not only P.W.5 (victim lady) but P.W.2 and P.W.4 also supported the prosecution story and there was no need for corroboration of statement of P.W.5. He further submitted that moreover, appellant, himself, admitted his presence at the house of P.W.5 in the night of alleged occurrence and furthermore, the appellant himself admitted about the occurrence by putting suggestion to prosecution witnesses and, therefore, learned trial court rightly relied upon the aforesaid circumstance as well as materials available on the record. He further submitted that moreover, appellant, himself, admitted his presence at the house of P.W.5 in the night of alleged occurrence and furthermore, the appellant himself admitted about the occurrence by putting suggestion to prosecution witnesses and, therefore, learned trial court rightly relied upon the aforesaid circumstance as well as materials available on the record. He further submitted that now it is well settled principle of law that in case of rape the corroboration of statement of victim is not required and if the statement of victim inspires confidence, the accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. Having heard both the parties, I went through the lower court’s record. I find that P.W.1, Raje Mukhiya is not a witness on the point of rape and this witness stated about the occurrence of assault which is said to have taken place on 26.04.1995. The learned trial court discarded his statement and found him not a reliable witness. 11. P.W.2, Jitni Devi is the mother of P.W.5 and she supported the prosecution story. She stated that she woke up on the alarm raised by P.W.5 and saw the appellant committing rape with P.W.5. She also stated that dhibri was burning in the room of P.W.5 and in the light of dhibri she saw the occurrence. She further stated that she too raised alarm which attracted her daughter in law (P.W.4) who came there and after that she as well as others caught the appellant. She further stated that chowkidar was informed and he came at her home. She also stated that the accused was confined by the chowkidar at her home and on the next morning, when the appellant was being taken, the Sarpanch got released him and after that she along with P.W.5 and P.W.4 proceeded towards police station but other accused assaulted P.W.5. At para 20 of her cross examination, she stated that Bachche Lal Paswan (P.W.3) was chowkidar of her village and one Nirdhan paswan was also chowkidar of her village. She further stated that Bachche Lal Pawan is son of Nirdahn Paswan. She also admitted at para 21 of her cross examination, that prior to alleged occurrence appellant had not misbehaved with P.W.5 nor P.W.5 had made any complain to her in respect of ill behaviour of appellant. She further stated that Bachche Lal Pawan is son of Nirdahn Paswan. She also admitted at para 21 of her cross examination, that prior to alleged occurrence appellant had not misbehaved with P.W.5 nor P.W.5 had made any complain to her in respect of ill behaviour of appellant. She also stated that she had deposed in Benipur court in respect of the alleged occurrence. She further stated that on the alleged date of occurrence she had gone to call P.W.3 who came at her home and remained there for whole night. She also stated that P.W.5 caught the appellant. She also denied the suggestion of defence that when P.W.5 raised the alarm, the appellant fled away from there. She further stated that she as well as P.W.5 had also caught the appellant. She denied the suggestion of the defence that the appellant was released by them due to fear of Sarpanch. 12. P.W.3 Bachche Lal Paswan has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. The attention of this witness was drawn towards his previous statement recorded in course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. 13. P.W.4., Nirmal Devi is sister in law (Bhbhi) of the P.W.5. She also supported the prosecution case and stated that she woke up on the alarm raised by P.W.5 and came out of her room and saw the P.W.5 catching the appellant. She enquired into the matter upon which P.W.5 disclosed that appellant committed rape on her removing her clothes. She further stated that chowkidar was called and the appellant was handed over to him. She also stated that chowkidar took the appellant to Sarpanch who got released the appellant. She also stated that on the next morning, she along with her mother in law and P.W.5 proceeded towards police station to report the matter. This witness was cross examined at length by the prosecution but it appears that defence could not succeed to elicit anything on the basis of which the statement of this witness could be discarded. 14. P.W.5 Deo Sundari Devi is the complainant and she stated that in the night of alleged occurrence, she was sleeping in her house and the door of her room was opened. Her mother was sleeping on Verandah whereas her bhabhi (P.W.4) was sleeping in other room. 14. P.W.5 Deo Sundari Devi is the complainant and she stated that in the night of alleged occurrence, she was sleeping in her house and the door of her room was opened. Her mother was sleeping on Verandah whereas her bhabhi (P.W.4) was sleeping in other room. She further stated that appellant entered into her room and after removing her clothes, he started committing rape on her upon which she woke up and gave one leg blow to him and also caught him. She further stated that she raised alarm which attracted her mother (P.W.2) and her sister in law (P.W.4). She also stated that her neighbours also came there and in the night of alleged occurrence, the appellant was handed over to chowkidar but at the direction of Sarpanch, chowkidar released the appellant. She further stated that the aforesaid occurrence took place on Tuesday. On the next day at about 10 A.M. while she along with her mother and sister in law was going to Ghanshyampur police station to report the matter and reached near the bank of river, the other accused came there and started assaulting her and after that she as well as her bhabhi and mother returned to her home. She further stated that she filed complaint case in Benipur court. She further stated that prior to the alleged occurrence the appellant had given to her a proposal for marriage but she did not accept the aforesaid proposal. She admitted that her husband, Parmeshwar Mukhiya solemnized his second marriage and after solemnization of second marriage by her husband, she started residing at her parental home. She also admitted that P.W.1, Raje Mukhiya resides in his village but he never comes to her house. She also admitted at para 15 of her cross examination that on the alleged date of occurrence P.W.1 had not visited to her home nor on the next day accompanied her to go to the police station. She also stated that she had given a petition to S.P. She also admitted that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between her and appellant and in the aforesaid proceeding, P.W.1 Raje Mukhiya was also a party. She also stated that she had given a petition to S.P. She also admitted that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated between her and appellant and in the aforesaid proceeding, P.W.1 Raje Mukhiya was also a party. She specifically stated at para 22 of her cross examination that alleged occurrence took place on Tuesday and she was stopped to go to police station on Wednesday and thereafter on Thursday she filed complaint case in the court. She stated at para 25 of her cross examination that she had not closed the door of her room on the alleged night of occurrence and denied this fact that she had stated before the Magistrate that she was sleeping in her room after closing the door. She also denied the suggestion of defence that when appellant asked her to open the door, she opened the door. She also denied this fact that before she woke up the appellant had already committed rape on her. She stated that the appellant was taken by chowkidar in the night of alleged occurrence. She also denied this fact that she had illicit relationship with P.W.1 and she lodged this case as villagers including the appellant used to raise voice against her aforesaid illicit relation with P.W.1. 15. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are formal witnesses and they have proved some documents. 16. D.W.1 stated about the previous marriages of P.W.5 but he expressed his ignorance about the occurrence of rape. 17. On perusal of entire evidence, it is explicit clear that P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 supported the prosecution story in one voice and except some minor contradictions on the point of taking away the appellant after the alleged occurrence by the chowkidar, there is no any other discrepancy in the statements of aforesaid witnesses and, therefore, in my view, learned trial court rightly came to conclusion that prosecution succeeded to prove the charge framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and this Court does not find any ground to interfere into the above stated finding of learned trial court. 18. 18. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that there was delay in filing the complaint case and the prosecution could not succeed to give explanation in respect of the aforesaid delay but I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention because P.W.5 specifically stated that the alleged occurrence took place in the night of Tuesday and on Wednesday, while she along with other witnesses was going to lodge report in respect of the alleged occurrence, she was stopped by the appellant and others and then she along with her mother and bhabhi returned to her home and on the next day, anyhow, she managed to reach at the court and, thereafter, she filed complaint case before the court. Therefore, she successfully explained the delay in lodging the case and in my view, the prosecution case cannot be thrown only on the ground that there is some delay in filing the complaint case. 19. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that no independent witness was examined and all the witnesses are interested witnesses but according to prosecution case, occurrence of rape took place inside the house of P.W.5 who supported the story of rape followed by P.W.2 and P.W.4 who happen to be mother and bhabhi of P.W.5 respectively and they stated that they were present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence and P.W.2 and P.W.4 specifically stated that they reached in the room of P.W.5 having heard her alarm and helped the P.W.5 in catching the appellant. 20. No doubt, there appears to be some minor contradictions in the statements of above stated prosecution witnesses but the aforesaid minor contradictions do not go to the root of the prosecution case and, therefore, even if no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution story, then also, the statements of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 cannot be discarded. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that the statement of victim of rape does not require any corroboration, if the same inspires confidence. In the present case, there is nothing in the statement of P.W.5 to disbelieve her statement. 21. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that the statement of victim of rape does not require any corroboration, if the same inspires confidence. In the present case, there is nothing in the statement of P.W.5 to disbelieve her statement. 21. No doubt, it has come in evidence that the husband of P.W.5 deserted her prior to the alleged occurrence and she started residing at her parental home and furthermore, the learned trial court also doubted about the character of P.W.5 but even if it assumed that P.W.5 was a lady of questionable character, then also, the appellant had no license to commit rape on P.W.5 and only on the ground of questionable character of P.W.5, the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown into the dustbin. 22. So far as order of sentence is concerned, the learned trial court took a very lenient view and awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, there is no scope to interfere into the order of sentence. 23. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed and impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.02.2001 and order of sentence dated 14.02.2001 are hereby, confirmed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned trial court within a period of one month from today to serve out his sentences and if the appellant fails to do so, the learned trial court shall take all possible steps to procure the attendance of appellant so that he could serve out his sentences as imposed by the learned trial court by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 24. The office is directed to return the lower court’s record to the concerned court for needful.