JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 6th August, 2001, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Appeal No. 61/2001, whereby and where under, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka on 27.04.2001 in Sessions Case No. 307 of 2000 convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years, has been affirmed. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the Medical Board did not find sign of rape upon the victim-P.W-3. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has completed almost half of the sentence awarded to him and therefore if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, then period of sentence may be modified suitably. 4. Learned A.P.P has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It appears that an FIR was instituted on the allegation that the victim P.W-3-Mina Hansda had gone out of her house for answering call of nature. It is alleged that the petitioner caught hold of her and dragged her to a lonely place and forcibly committed rape upon the victim. The matter was informed to other staffs of Referral Hospital, Jarmundi but out of fear on the threatenings given by the petitioner, complaint was not made. Subsequently, however, when the matter was informed to the husband of the informant, a written report was submitted before Jarmundi Police Station, which resulted in institution of Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 91 of 2000 dated 29.6.2000. After investigation culminated in submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of learned IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka and after trial the petitioner was found guilty for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. Learned appellate court in Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 2001 had affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial court. 6. In course of trial, five witnesses were examined. P.W-1-Sukhi Hansda is the mother of the informant. Learned appellate court in Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 2001 had affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned trial court. 6. In course of trial, five witnesses were examined. P.W-1-Sukhi Hansda is the mother of the informant. P.W-2 is the father of the informant whereas P.W-3 is the victim herself. P.W-5-Dr. Pushpa Lata Tudu is one of the members of the Medical Board. P.W-4 is the Investigating Officer. 7. P.W-1-Sukhi Hansda is the informant, who had stated about the information she had received from the victim-P.W-3 about the commission of rape by the petitioner upon the victim. 8. P.W-2-Kamal Hembrom is the husband of the informant. Although he was not present at the time of occurrence but had disclosed what has been stated by his wife-P.W-1. 9. P.W-3 is the victim who had stated that on the date of occurrence she had gone out for answering the call of nature and the petitioner who was hiding had caught hold of her neck and forcibly committed rape upon her. She has also admitted that she had raised alarm but since television was running, no one could hear her cries. 10. P.W-5-Dr. Pushpa Lata Tudu, who is a member of the Medical Board, who had conducted examination upon P.W-3 and the Medical Board had not found the sign of rape upon her. 11. P.W-4 is the Investigating Officer and he had submitted charge sheet under section 376 of IPC against the petitioner. 12. It appears that the incident had occurred on 24.6.2000 and the Medical Board had examined the victim on 30.6.2000. Obviously after a delay of six days from the date of the incident, the sign of rape automatically vanishes and in such circumstances therefore the defence cannot take any advantage with respect to the evidence of the doctor P.W-5. Evidence of P.W-3 is very clear as she has clearly stated about the occurrence in a most natural manner and the fact that the cry of alarm raised by her could not reach the place it was intended in view of sound of television. P.W-1, the informant, has also categorically disclosed about what has been stated by the P.W-3. There appears to be apparent corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 3. Prosecutrix has stuck to the story narrated in the FIR consistently and has not tried to develop or dilute the prosecution story. P.W-1, the informant, has also categorically disclosed about what has been stated by the P.W-3. There appears to be apparent corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 3. Prosecutrix has stuck to the story narrated in the FIR consistently and has not tried to develop or dilute the prosecution story. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court for the offence under section 376 of IPC and was sentenced him accordingly. Learned appellate court also on proper consideration of the materials on record had dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction is sustained. 13. So far as the contention, which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the period already suffered, this Court is not inclined to consider such prayer in view of heinous nature of the offence, in which a girl aged about 16-17 years was forcibly raped by the petitioner. Such act on the part of the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy from this Court and therefore prayer of the petitioner for reduction in the period of sentence is also negated. This application fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.