JUDGMENT : Anjana Prakash, J. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376; IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years in Sessions Trial No. 91 of 1995 by the judgment and order of conviction dated 12/13.12.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence the prosecutrix, who was ten years old girl, was picked up by the appellant, who disrobed and threw her in a bamboo dump after having gagged her. While the appellant was disrobing himself, the prosecutrix pulled out the cloth from her mouth and started screaming at which PW 1 and 4 came there. Seeing them, the appellant fled away. A panchayati was held thereafter in which the appellant was fined but he did not deposit the same at which the present First Information Report was instituted. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, out of whom, PW 1, Khush Ahmad, and 2, Manoj Kumar Yadav, have been declared hostile, PW 3, Ram Kishun Mehta, is the grand-father of the victim girl, whereas, PW 4, Motilal Mehta and PW 5 Sitaram Mehta, are the uncles of the victim, whereas, PW 6 is prosecutrix herself, PW 7 is the Investigating Officer. 4. PW 3, Ram Kishun Mehta, who appeared as hearsay witnesses during trial has stated that the prosecutrix had narrated entire incident to him and that the witnesses had come on her scream at which the accused person had fled away. He also states the entire manner of the occurrence which was narrated to him by the prosecutrix which is completely in conformity with the evidence of the prosecutrix herself. Similar is the position of the evidence of PW 4, Motilal Mehta, and PW 5. Sitaram Mehta, who have given the details of the manner in which the occurrence took place. PW 6, Rekha Kumari, the prosecutrix did not waive in her evidence during trial. 5. The manner of the occurrence was well proved but the appellant pleaded that the prosecution case be disbelieved on the point of delay of fifteen days in reporting the matter. It appears that the delay was well explained, inasmuch, as the villagers had initially attempted to reconcile the parties to an agreement but when the matter could not be reconciled the present case was instituted. It appears that the delay was well explained, inasmuch, as the villagers had initially attempted to reconcile the parties to an agreement but when the matter could not be reconciled the present case was instituted. In such circumstances, this is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. 6. The evidence of the Investigating Officer also fully corroborates the prosecution case, inasmuch as the place of occurrence was inspected which further validated the prosecution case where the manner of occurrence was concerned. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I see no merit in this appeal. 8. However, on going through the records, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned APP agree that the appellant has remained in custody for more than 4-1/2 years. 9. In such circumstances, sentence of the appellant is reduced to one already undergone by him. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in' sentence. Appeal dismissed.