JUDGMENT : 1. Instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18th June, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Fast Track Court-III. Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2003 (S.T.R. No.7 of 2003) by which the sole accused have been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with set-off clause about the period already undergone in jail custody during trial. 2. The short fact of the case is that informant/victim Budhni Laguri was transplanting paddy seedlings in the field of her sister on 6.9.2002 and while she was going back to her house for taking meal then Banyan tree accused caught hold of her and forcibly dragged her near Murrom Khadan. She raised alarm but no one came to rescue her. The further case is that appellant forcibly committed rape upon her and thereafter fled away. After the incident, informant returned to her house weeping and narrated the incident to her mother Chandmani Laguri (PW 6) as her father was not present in the house. When her father returned in the evening he was also informed about the occurrence. On the next day the village Munda (PW 2) was informed and he convened a panchayati but no decision could be taken. Ultimately on 9.9.2002 informant along with her father approached the Police where her fardbeyan was recorded. Accordingly Noamundi P.C. Case No. 30 of 2002 dated 9.9.2002 was registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after commitment of the case the charge was framed upon him. 3. The prosecution altogether examined eight witnesses whereas no witness was examined from the side of defence. 4. The Court after consideration of the material before him held the appellant guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment as well as fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per allegation the paddy seedlings were being transplanted in the area and several persons were engaged in that process but surprisingly nobody could see the incident of dragging her to a mines area. 2,000/-. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per allegation the paddy seedlings were being transplanted in the area and several persons were engaged in that process but surprisingly nobody could see the incident of dragging her to a mines area. He also submitted that as per prosecution version she was dragged to mines area where the rape was committed but no injury was found by the medical evidence. He also submitted that there is delay in medical examination of the victim and the medical report does not contain any mark of violence and no foreign hairs were found. The cloths were also washed, therefore, the police refused to take the cloths of the victim girl. He also submitted that the age of the victim girl was wrongly assessed between 14 to 16 years as the formula for assessment of age was not applied. As per his submission, the victim was about eighteen years old and she was also a consenting party because no injury or any foreign hairs as well as mark of violence were found on her private part. Lastly, he submitted that since as per evidence of PW 1 father of the victim had deposed - that since relation of brother and sister exists between the appellant and the victim otherwise he would have given Zimmanama to him. He relied on the judgment of Mukarrab and others v. State of U.P., reported in (2017) 2 SCC 210 and Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2694 . 6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the statement of the victim girl has supported the prosecution version and immediately after the incident she informed her parents and panchayti was also convened but no result could be achieved in the panchayti, so the matter was reported to the Police and her medical examination was done where the doctor has opined about the commission of rape. He further submitted that the ratio of Mukarrab and others v. State of U.P. (supra). He further submitted that the ratio of Mukarrab and others v. State of U.P. (supra). the assessment of age was of accused in a case under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 even in that case the assessment and determination of age was between 35 to 40 years in which the variation of two years upper age which came down to 38 years and again an additional benefit of lower age of one year as per the Rule was given and the age was assessed to as 37 years. Even applying the same ratio here the doctor has assessed the age of victim between 14 to 16 years and which could come less than 16 years. He further distinguished another case of Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar, (supra) and submitted that medical evidence showing no injury on the person including her private part, it was held in that case that conduct of prosecutrix shows that she was a consenting party. He further submitted that this is not applicable in this case as the entire conduct of the victim girl is to be taken into account as she raised alarm but due to loneliness of the place, nobody came for her rescue. Thereafter, she returned home weeping and immediately informed the parents. Therefore, she cannot be held a consenting party. He also submitted that the denial of false implication as no such allegation was there as to why allegation of rape was lodged only upon this appellant. No such incident were brought on record. Learned APP relied on a decision of the case State of Rajasthan v. Biram Lal reported in (2005) 10 SCC 714 and submitted that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix although in this case corroboration of medical evidence and other witnesses were also there. Lastly, he submitted that her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 10th September, 2002 within a reasonable time. 7. Lastly, he submitted that her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 10th September, 2002 within a reasonable time. 7. Considering the above pleadings of the parties and on perusal of Lower Court Records, evidences as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court cited on behalf of the appellant as well as prosecution, it appears that as per allegation the incident occurred on 6.9.2002 during the lunch hour as the victim girl was returning home for taking meal but in the meanwhile appellant dragged her to a mines area (Murrom Khadan) which was in the near vicinity. Since the paddy seedlings were being transplanted by the other villagers and the area was lonely one, so nobody could hear alarm sounded by the victim. The prosecutrix has narrated the incident as PW 5 whereas her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded in same manner which was marked as Ext. 3. Since in this type of incident rarely there is chance of eyewitness but taking into account the conduct of prosecutrix, it appears that immediately she informed the incident not only to her parents but village Munda was also informed and as per situation prevailing in the society a meeting was also concerned. Since she could not get any relief in the panchayti so approached the Police and accordingly her medical examination as well as recording of her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completed. Other prosecution witnesses like PW 1 father of the victim, PW 2 village Munda, and PW 3 and PW 4 member of panchayti PW 6 mother of the victim have supported the prosecution story. PW 7 is doctor who conducted medical examination of the victim and after examination concluded that in his opinion sexual intercourse had taken place. PW 8 is Judicial Officer who had recorded statement of victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 10.9.2002 which has been marked as Ext. 3. From the ratio of the judgment filed on behalf of the appellant, it appears that age of the victim girl was assessed between 14-16 years. Even applying the formula given in Mukarrab and others v. State of U.P., (supra) is of no help because age would also came down to below 16 years. 3. From the ratio of the judgment filed on behalf of the appellant, it appears that age of the victim girl was assessed between 14-16 years. Even applying the formula given in Mukarrab and others v. State of U.P., (supra) is of no help because age would also came down to below 16 years. In the another decision reported in Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar (supra) the age of prosecutrix was below 18 years but the medical evidence showing no injury on person of prosecutrix and held that she may be a consenting party, is also not applicable in this case. As she was forcefully dragged to a lonely place and since the appellant was of good built, she could not resist much. Even her entire conduct show that she was not a consenting party as the matter was reported immediately although firstly to the parents and thereafter panchayti and lodging the care before the police has also been amply explained. Therefore, the statement of victim supported with medical report as well as her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corroborated with other prosecution witnesses, I find and hold that there is no occasion to interfere in the findings of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Chaibasa. 8. In the result, instant appeal is dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the Court concerned immediately with direction to take steps in accordance with law. The appellant shall serve his remaining period of conviction. Appeal dismissed.