JUDGMENT : D.N. Upadhyay, J. This Cr. Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in connection with S.C. No. 110/2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 696/2003, arising out of Jama P.S. Case No. 71/2003 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year, R.I. for 10 years under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of making payment of fine further R.I. for one year. The sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts appearing from fardbayan of Rabi Lal Soren recorded on 19.07.2003 at 17:15 hours at Sadar Hospital is that on 13.07.2003 when the informant and his wife returned from 'Church', they found their daughter Miru, aged 8 years lying on a cot. When she was asked, she complained that she has been suffering with abdominal pain. The informant provided some harbal medicine. On the next day Miru Soren (deceased) while gone to graze animal, became unconscious and this fact was brought to the notice of the informant by one Rajan Baski. The girl was brought home and again some harbal medicines were provided. On 17.07.2003 while Miru Soren (deceased) accompanied by her mother went to ease herself, her mother noticed injuries on her private part which was badly torn and it was bleeding too. On her being questioned, Miru disclosed that she was ravished by Chandan Marandi on previous Sunday. Thereafter matter was brought to the notice of villagers and a 'Panchayati' was held in which the appellant admitted his guilt and accepted to provide expenses for treatment of Miru Soren. Miru was admitted to Hospital but could not survive. On the basis of fardbayan of Rabi Lal Soren, Dumka Jama P.S. Case No. 71/2003 under Sections 376/302 I.P.C. dated 19.07.2003 against the appellant was registered. The investigation was carried out and charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case of the appellant was committed to the court of sessions and registered as S.T. No. 110 of 2004. The investigation was carried out and charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case of the appellant was committed to the court of sessions and registered as S.T. No. 110 of 2004. Charges under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code were framed to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses and proved documents like fardbayan, postmortem report, formal F.I.R. etc. The learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence and documents available, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence as indicated above. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has extended two fold argument. In the first part of the argument, it is submitted that the victim did not disclose the occurrence to anyone till 17.07.2003. She had simply complained about abdominal pain from which she had been suffering with. Only on 17.07.2003 Sunderi Marandi (mother of the deceased) noticed that vagina of Miru was torn and blood was oozing out. On repeated enquiry Miru replied that she was subjected to rape by appellant on last Sunday i.e. on 13.07.2003. P.W.1 (informant) and P.W.2 (wife of informant) have stated that 'Panchayati' was convened and the occurrence was brought to the notice of members present in the meeting. They had also seen injuries appearing on vagina of deceased. After having discussion, the appellant was also called in the meeting and he had undertaken to provide expenses for treatment of Miru and agreed to pay fine imposed upon him by the 'Panchayat'. It is argued that this fact was not stated by P.W. 3 to P.W.6 before the Police and that contradictions taken from the mouth of those witnesses were referred to I.O. to which he has replied that no such statement was given before him. It is argued that the deceased did not disclose the occurrence to any villagers, who have been examined in this case, except her parents P.W.1 and P.W.2. All the witnesses are hearsay and nobody had seen the occurrence. Nothing incriminating was found at the place of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty. The appellant has not confessed his guilty before anyone. No confessional statement has been brought on record. All the witnesses are hearsay and nobody had seen the occurrence. Nothing incriminating was found at the place of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding the appellant guilty. The appellant has not confessed his guilty before anyone. No confessional statement has been brought on record. In the second fold of his argument, learned Counsel has submitted that the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code but no offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even admitting the evidence available on record true. The appellant was neither having intention to commit murder nor intending to cause any bodily injury to the deceased. If the evidence available on record is accepted, the intention of the appellant was to commit rape and for that he has been held guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence available on record does not attract any of the ingredients of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The admitted fact on record is that alleged occurrence had taken place on 13.07.2003. The deceased was alive for about six days, she had made a complaint of abdominal pain to her parents for which harbal medicines were provided by her father. She was never taken to hospital for proper treatment. Injuries appearing on vagina were neither noticed by the parents nor disclosed by the deceased. Only on 13.07.2003, when the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature, her mother, who had been accompanying, had noticed injuries on vagina of deceased. Thus admitted fact is that no treatment was provided to deceased from 13.07.2003 to 17.07.2003. She was admitted to hospital for her treatment on 18.07.2003 and till then septicaemia developed and the deceased died due to shock and septicaemia. It is alleged that parents of the deceased were negligent and due to their negligence septicaemia developed which caused death of Miru. Even assuming it to be correct that septicaemia developed due to forceful penetration, it would not constitute the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Last but not the least, it is submitted that conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside. Even assuming it to be correct that septicaemia developed due to forceful penetration, it would not constitute the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Last but not the least, it is submitted that conviction and sentence recorded under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be set aside. So far punishment inflicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the appellant has already served out the sentence by remaining in jail for more than 12 years. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that the girl aged about 8 years was brutally ravished by the appellant and the forceful penetration caused serious injuries on vagina which resulted in her death. The prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The evidence of material witnesses find support from postmortem report proved by Dr. Dilip Kumar Bhagat (P.W.7). Because of forceful penetration serious injuries were caused in the vagina of deceased and these injuries were noticed by the Doctor during postmortem examination to which he has explained. Rabi Lal Soren-P.W.1 (father of the deceased), Sunderi Marandi-P.W.2 (mother of the deceased), P.W. 3 to P.W. 6 are the witnesses in whose presence the appellant has admitted his guilt and he was fined and they have supported the prosecution case. I.O. (P.W.14) has also supported the prosecution case and proved documents like fardbayan, inquest report etc. 5. So far first part of the argument advanced by the learned Counsel is concerned, we are not inclined to accept it and the same stands rejected on the ground that a minor girl aged 8 years was subjected to rape by the appellant and the girl was not even knowing what had happened with her. When injuries appearing on her vagina were noticed by her parents and she was questioned, then only the occurrence committed against her was surfaced. Immediately victim girl was admitted to hospital for her treatment but it was late and septicaemia had developed due to forceful penetration in her vagina. The victim girl died on 19.07.2003 because of the injury caused to her due to rape committed by the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased and they have fully supported the prosecution case. The victim girl died on 19.07.2003 because of the injury caused to her due to rape committed by the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the parents of the deceased and they have fully supported the prosecution case. Injuries caused to victim due to rape committed on her was noticed and seen by the witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case. The deceased was subjected to rape find full corroboration from the evidence of P.W.6, postmortem report proved by Dr. Dilip Kumar Bhagat (P.W.7). The tribal people are not aware of their right and duty and they do not know what the law of land is, even in the 21st century. They use to settle their serious disputes by bringing the matter before village Panchayat which is also prevalent. If the Panchayat find the person guilty, minor punishment to pay some cost is being inflicted against the wrong doer. In the case at hand same practice was adopted when the parents of deceased brought the incident to the knowledge of villagers. Panchayati was held in which the appellant was also present. After hearing the parties fine was imposed. All these facts find support from the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 6, therefore, the deceased was subjected to rape by the appellant stood proved from the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 and, therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld. 6. Coming to the second limb of the argument that offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not made out and the ingredients are not attracted on the evidence available on record, we have carefully gone through the evidence available and we find that the appellant was not having intention to commit murder or to cause any bodily injury to the deceased. He had overpowered the victim to fulfill his lust which he did by committing rape on her. A minor girl aged 8 years was subjected to rape by a young man. Forceful penetration in vagina caused injury and those injuries were properly not treated in time as a result septicaemia developed and that was the cause of death of deceased. No witness has stated in their deposition in Court that the appellant was having intention to commit murder of Miru Soren. Forceful penetration in vagina caused injury and those injuries were properly not treated in time as a result septicaemia developed and that was the cause of death of deceased. No witness has stated in their deposition in Court that the appellant was having intention to commit murder of Miru Soren. Postmortem report does not indicate that deceased was having any other injury caused to her by any weapon. The deceased had not disclosed to her parents that she was subjected to assault by the appellant rather evidence available on record is that the victim was badly ravished and she sustained serious injuries on her vagina and that resulted in her death due to septiceamia developed. Considering all these aspect of the matter, we have left no option but to accept the submission advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that ingredients of Section 302 I.P.C. are not attracted on the basis of evidence available on record. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in connection with S.C. No. 110 of 2004 is hereby set aside. It reveals from the record that the appellant has already remained in custody for more than 12 years and he has served out sentence inflicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case and for that the Convicting/Successor Court shall issue appropriate direction, if needed.