JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 30.8.2001, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Appeal No. 61/2000, whereby and whereunder, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2.5.2000, passed by the learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 200 of 1998, convicting the petitioner for the offence under section 376 of IPC 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 entire prosecution story hinges upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6, who all are interested witnesses. It has further been submitted that victim P.W-3 had come out from the house after the sexual assault was made by the petitioner upon her and she had narrated the incident to one Kalicharan Dagri and in absence of examination of Kalicharan Dagri and his wife the entire prosecution case fails. It has further been submitted that there has been a considerable delay in institution of the FIR. Learned senior counsel submits that there is a discrepancy in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and her evidence in course of trial. Learned senior counsel further submits that the doctor who had been examined as P.W-2 had opined that there was no sign of rape upon the victim. It has therefore been submitted that since the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and its affirmation in appeal is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It appears that on 10.6.1998, while she was preparing vegetables, petitioner had come inside the room and made some indecent proposal, which was objected by the victim leading the petitioner to leave the room. Further allegation has been levelled that at about 11 P.M. in the night when P.W-3 woke up, she found the petitioner lying over her body and thereafter she was subjected to rape by the petitioner. She somehow managed to leave the room and came out of it and narrated the incident to co-villager Kalicharan Dagri and his wife. Further allegation has been levelled that at about 11 P.M. in the night when P.W-3 woke up, she found the petitioner lying over her body and thereafter she was subjected to rape by the petitioner. She somehow managed to leave the room and came out of it and narrated the incident to co-villager Kalicharan Dagri and his wife. It is stated that when her father P.W-1 had returned back, she had narrated about the incident and thereafter the case was instituted, which was registered as Jarmundi P.S. Case 72/98 under section 376 of IPC. Investigation culminated in submission of chargesheet and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of learned 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Dumka wherein after trial the petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 376 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years. The appeal preferred by the petitioner being Cr. Appeal No. 61 of 2000 was dismissed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka on 30th August, 2001. 6. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.-1Nageshwar Tiwari is the father of the victim-Bhagiya Kumari P.W-2-Aruna Chatterjee, who had conducted the medical test upon P.W-3.P.W-3 is the victim herself whereas P.W-6-Guriya Devi is the younger sister of P.W-3. The entire prosecution case is based upon the evidence of P.Ws-1, 3 and 6. P.W-3-Bhagiya Kumari is the victim, who has narrated about the incident and immediately after the incident was reported to the police her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 16.6.98. The evidence of P.W-3 in course of trial is consistent to the point of identification of the petitioner as also to the point of rape committed by the petitioner upon the victim. P.W-1, the father of the victim, has stated that immediately after the incident he had returned back to his house, P.W-3 had disclosed about the incident, which had occurred on 10.6.98 and thereafter this witness along with P.W-3 had gone to the police station and based on their report, FIR was instituted. P.W-6-Guriya Devi is the younger sister of P.W-3. She has stated that her sister narrated the occurrence in presence of her grand mother. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 is, therefore, consistent with respect to the incident of rape committed upon the victim by the petitioner. P.W-6-Guriya Devi is the younger sister of P.W-3. She has stated that her sister narrated the occurrence in presence of her grand mother. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 is, therefore, consistent with respect to the incident of rape committed upon the victim by the petitioner. Although, the defence had tried to raise the point with respect to the medical evidence that no sign of rape or any injury was found on the person of the victim but as would appear that the incident is said to have taken place on 10.06.1998 and the victim was examined on 13.06.1998, which would definitely cause disappearance of any sign of rape. 7. So far as the other contention made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner with respect to non examination of Kalicharan Dagri and his wife is concerned, it appears that merely non examination of both independent witnesses could not be fatal to the prosecution case as the prosecutrix has given a vivid description of the occurrence, which has been duly corroborated by P.Ws. 1 and 6. Moreover, the statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. immediately after the occurrence, which is also consistent with the statement of P.W.3 in course of trial. 8. Since sufficient evidence was put forward by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the petitioner, learned trial court had rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Learned appellate court also on the basis of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. There being no reasons to conclude otherwise, this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.