JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2006and Order of sentence dated 19.01.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2004whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366A & 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code while no separate sentence was ordered for the offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the written report submitted by the brother of the prosecutrix in brief is that the prosecutrix, aged 14 years, was a student of Class-VIII in Middle School, Bagha on the date of occurrence. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused person with an ulterior motive was keeping surveillance upon the prosecutrix. The appellant-accused person was cautioned to mend himself by convening a panchayati in village. On 09.04.2004 at 12:00 noon while the prosecutrix was going towards the church, on the way, the appellant-accused person enticed her away and the prosecutrix could not be traced thereafter. The informant and others searched for the prosecutrix and got information that the prosecutrix is in the house of Gandru Oraon of village – Hatti, P.S. Bhandra. On 20.04.2004, the informant along with his uncle, grandfather and Anmol Lakra reached village Hatti. They were informed by Gandru Oraon that the appellant-accused person has fled from there along with the prosecutrix. On the basis of the written report, police registered Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 42 of 2004 and took up investigation of the case. 4. After completion of the investigation, police submitted police report against the appellant-accused person and upon commitment of the case to the court of sessions, charges for the offence punishable under section 363, 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the appellant-accused person. Upon the appellant-accused person pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined12 witnesses besides proving the documents. Upon the appellant-accused person pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined12 witnesses besides proving the documents. The appellant- accused person also examined 02 witnesses, in his defence. 5. P.W.10 is the prosecutrix herself. She has stated that the occurrence took place on 10th of April, 2004. It was a Friday. The prosecutrix was going towards the church. Then appellant-accused person forcibly took her and after terrorizing and threatening her committed rape upon her. Thereafter the appellant told the prosecutrix that he will leave the prosecutrix only after spoiling her life. The appellant-accused person took the prosecutrix to the house of Gandru. Whenever the prosecutrix wanted to go to her house, the appellant-accused person used to terrorize her. The prosecutrix did not know the way from there to her house. Prior to this occurrence a panchayati was convened in the village and the appellant-accused person was told not to do such things. In her cross-examination, the P.W.10 has deposed that she stated before the police that the appellant-accused person forcibly committed rape upon her. The appellant-accused person took her forcibly after threatening and terrorizing her. She cannot say the day or date of the occurrence. She was examined by the doctor. The appellant-accused person kept the prosecutrix for about a month in the house of Gandru. The appellant-accused person used to come to the prosecutrix on one pretext or the other and used to rape her. On the date of her examination in court she was studying in class-V at Sikra. 6. P.W.11–Dr. Marsha Topno examined the prosecutrix on 04.05.2004 at Sadar Hospital, Lohardaga at 11:30 A.M. and found the following:- 1. She could not remember, but she had amenorrhea. 2. Height – 4’ 11” 3. Teeth – 14/14 Secondary sexual character. Axillary hair present but sparse Breast – Well developed Nipple – Dark colour Montgomery tubercles present Pubic hair – present No sign of violence found in any part of the body. No foreign body located in any part of the body. P/A – Finding. Height of uterous about 16 to 18 weeks. Examination of Private Part. No injury found on the private part. Pubic hair not mated. Vaginal orphic admit two fingers easily. Old rupture of hymen present. CX soft uterous about 16 to 18 weeks. Vaginal swab taken and examined under microscope. P/A – Finding. Height of uterous about 16 to 18 weeks. Examination of Private Part. No injury found on the private part. Pubic hair not mated. Vaginal orphic admit two fingers easily. Old rupture of hymen present. CX soft uterous about 16 to 18 weeks. Vaginal swab taken and examined under microscope. Spermatozoa not found. The medical report was prepared by her under her signature and on being proved by her the same has been marked as Ext. 3/1. Age of the prosecutrix was between 17-18 years as opined by the medical report. In her cross-examination she has stated that the age of the prosecutrix according to the medical report was between 17-18 years. 7. P.W.1 – Navor Tigga has stated that the occurrence took place on the Good Friday in the year 2004 at 12 noon. The appellant-accused person took away the prosecutrix. The P.W.1 and others searched for her. During the course of search, a village lady disclosed to him that the appellant-accused person has taken away the prosecutrix. He came to know that the appellant-accused person has kept the prosecutrix in the in-laws place of Lalit Oraon but they could not find the prosecutrix there hence, the informant submitted the report in the police station. On being proved by him his signature on the report was marked as Ext.1. Police recovered the prosecutrix. He identified the appellant-accused person in court. P.W.1 did not talk to the prosecutrix on the day of Good Friday. He has not seen the prosecutrix going with the appellant-accused person with his own eyes. In his presence, the police did not recover the prosecutrix. 8. P.W.2–NishaTigga has stated that the occurrence took place on 09.04.2004 at 12:00 noon on Friday. On that day, the appellant-accused person enticed away the prosecutrix. Her parents were working outside and taking advantage of that the appellant-accused person used to come to the house of the P.W.2 clandestinely after the P.W.2 used to go to her school. The matter was reported to police. She identified the appellant-accused person. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was examined by the police. She has not seen the appellant-accused person taking the prosecutrix with her own eyes. The prosecutrix was not recovered in her presence by the police. 9. P.W.3 – Goloriya Tigga has stated that the occurrence took place on Friday on 9th April, 2004 at 12:00 noon. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was examined by the police. She has not seen the appellant-accused person taking the prosecutrix with her own eyes. The prosecutrix was not recovered in her presence by the police. 9. P.W.3 – Goloriya Tigga has stated that the occurrence took place on Friday on 9th April, 2004 at 12:00 noon. The prosecutrix was not in the house. On being searched, they came to know that the appellant-accused person has taken away the prosecutrix. After some days, they could know that the appellant-accused person has kept the prosecutrix in the house of Gandru Oraon. The matter was reported to police. The appellant-accused person was not present in his house. A panchayati was convened in the village where it was decided that since the age of the girl was below 14 years, hence no marriage can be solemnized. The appellant-accused person told that if noise is made than he will spoil the prosecutrix. P.W.3 also identified the appellant-accused person. In her cross-examination, the P.W.3 has stated that a paper was prepared in the panchayati but she has not brought the paper. She was present in the panchayati. On the very day, the prosecutrix was taken. They could know that the appellant-accused person has taken away the prosecutrix. The appellant-accused person did not take the prosecutrix in presence of P.W.3 nor was the prosecutrix recovered in her presence. 10. P.W.4 – Pratap Tigga is the informant of the case. He has stated that the occurrence took place on a Friday on 9th April, 2004 at about 12:00 noon. He came to know that her sister was enticed away by the appellant-accused person when she was going to church. On search, he could know that the prosecutrix has been kept in the house of Gandru Oraon of village Hatti. When the P.W.4 and others went to the house of Gandru Oraon, they could know that prior to their reaching there; the appellant-accused person has taken the prosecutrix to somewhere else. Thereafter, they searched for the prosecutrix at their own level but they could not succeed hence they reported the matter to police. On being proved by him, the written report submitted by him has been marked as Ext. 2. Police recovered the prosecutrix. He identified the appellant-accused person. Thereafter, they searched for the prosecutrix at their own level but they could not succeed hence they reported the matter to police. On being proved by him, the written report submitted by him has been marked as Ext. 2. Police recovered the prosecutrix. He identified the appellant-accused person. In his cross-examination, the P.W.4 has stated that the prosecutrix was not recovered by police in his presence. He met the appellant-accused person on his way to village Hatti. The appellant-accused person was along with one of his friend. Police examined the P.W.4 in the police station itself. 11. P.W.5 – Gandru Oraon has stated that the occurrence took place more than one year prior to his deposing in court. There was a girl. Forcible act was committed upon her but he does not know anything about that. Police came to his house but did not meet him. He was declared hostile and even though the prosecution cross-examined him by putting leading questions still he did not support the case of the prosecution. 12. P.W.6 – Edwin Tigga has stated about the panchayati being convened in respect of the prosecutrix and the appellant-accused person. P.W.6 was also present in the panchayati. In his cross-examination, P.W.6 has stated that paper of the panchayati was prepared but he cannot say the date of the panchayati. 13. P.W.7–Yogendra Oraon has stated that he does not know anything about the case. He was also declared hostile. 14. P.W.8 – Anmol Lakra has stated that the occurrence took place in the month of March about a year before his deposing in court. The appellant-accused person enticed away the prosecutrix. He accompanied the P.W.1 and others to the house of Gandru Oraon. The prosecutrix and the appellant-accused person could not be traced there. On being asked, Gandru disclosed that the prosecutrix and the appellant-accused person have left his house. He identified the appellant-accused person in court. In his cross-examination, the P.W.8 has stated that they went on 28th March but he cannot say the day. He has not seen the appellant-accused person enticing away the prosecutrix himself. 15. P.W.9 – Nirdosh Tigga has stated that the appellant-accused person was told not to go to the house of the prosecutrix. On the day of Good Friday, when the prosecutrix was going to the church then the appellant-accused person fled by taking the prosecutrix. He has not seen the appellant-accused person enticing away the prosecutrix himself. 15. P.W.9 – Nirdosh Tigga has stated that the appellant-accused person was told not to go to the house of the prosecutrix. On the day of Good Friday, when the prosecutrix was going to the church then the appellant-accused person fled by taking the prosecutrix. He identified the appellant-accused person in court. In his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say the date when the appellant-accused person was told not to go to the house of the prosecutrix. 16. P.W.12 – Md. Nijamuddin is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has inter alia stated that he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. On being proved by him, the endorsement on the F.I.R. has been marked Ext. 5 and the formal F.I.R. has been marked Ext.6. After taking over investigation, he proceeded towards the village Singhpur and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He also inspected the place of occurrence and described the place of occurrence with its boundaries. The appellant-accused person was arrested on 03.05.2004 and the prosecutrix was also recovered. He submitted the police report after completion of the investigation. In his cross-examination he has stated that he took up investigation on 21.04.2004. The appellant-accused person enticed away the prosecutrix from her house. There was illicit relationship between them prior to that. Due to such relationship, the prosecutrix became pregnant. The prosecutrix went with the appellant-accused person because of his pressure and on being threatened and terrorized. The appellant-accused person allured the prosecutrix and all these were stated by the prosecutrix to the P.W.12. He has not mentioned the place of occurrence of the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused person was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him which he denied and pleaded innocence. 18. In defence, the appellant-accused person examined two witnesses. D.W.1 – Harinandan Oraon has stated that the prosecutrix used to live with her parents as his father was working in the Police Department. The prosecutrix used to come to the village Singhpur only on the occasion of festivals. One year before his deposing in court, on a Good Friday, the prosecutrix came to the village Singhpur for 1 or 2 days. The prosecutrix used to come to the village Singhpur only on the occasion of festivals. One year before his deposing in court, on a Good Friday, the prosecutrix came to the village Singhpur for 1 or 2 days. D.W.1 was examined on 17.12.2005. In his cross-examination, D.W.1 has stated about the boundary of the house of the prosecutrix. The house of D.W.1 is about 200 yards from the house of the prosecutrix. He cannot say which person comes to village when and which person goes out of the village on which date. He did not enquire from the prosecutrix as to when she came to the village. 19. D.W.2 – Loha Oraon was also examined on 17.12.2005. He has stated that the father of the prosecutrix was working outside. The prosecutrix came to the village one year before his deposing in court during the time of Good Friday. She used to stay for 2 to 3 days in the village. In his cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say which person lives outside the village during which time. He does not know whether the informant was reading in St. Xaviers College. 20. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence, both, oral and documentary convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated above. 21. Mr. B.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in record in its proper perspective and ignored the fact that there was inadvertent delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the contention of the prosecution that the age of the victim is 14 years is falsified by the medical report and deposition of P.W.11 wherein she has categorically stated that the prosecutrix was aged about 17-18 years. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was carrying a pregnancy of 16 to 18 weeks though alleged occurrence took place about less than a month from the date of lodging the F.I.R. and that the victim can be treated as a major as her age having been assessed 17-18 years by radiological examination, it may go two years either way. It is further submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.12 in paragraph no.10 of which he has categorically stated about the prosecutrix disclosing her relationship with the appellant. Hence, the allegation of the prosecution can be treated as a consensual sexual relationship between the victim and the appellant. Hence, it is submitted that the appellant be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 22. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the specific oral evidence of the P.W.3 in paragraph no.3 of her testimony that age of the victim is 14 years has not been challenged in her cross-examination by the defence. In the absence of cross-examination in this respect of the P.W.3, it has to be accepted that the age of the prosecutrix was 14 years. It is submitted that the prosecutrix who has been examined as P.W.10 has categorically stated in court that her age was 14 years. The court also assessed her age to be 14 years. Further it is submitted that P.W.11, the doctor, has categorically stated that according to the medical report, the age of the prosecutrix was between 17-18 years, the same has remain unchallenged. So there is ample evidence in the record to show that the prosecutrix was in any case aged less than 18 years and the categorical testimony of the prosecutrix that the appellant-accused person committed rape upon her after kidnapping her from the lawful guardianship and that she was enticed to go with the appellant-accused person who was having an intent and was also knowing that the prosecutrix will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse and that he has committed rape upon the prosecutrix is sufficient to establish the three charges against the appellant-accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and the sentence imposed upon the appellant is also proper in the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the learned court below having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused person, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 23. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the evidence in the record, it is crystal clear that the testimony of the prosecutrix-P.W.10 is trustworthy and reliable. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit or discard her testimony. 23. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the evidence in the record, it is crystal clear that the testimony of the prosecutrix-P.W.10 is trustworthy and reliable. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit or discard her testimony. There is absolutely no cross-examination of the prosecutrix regarding her testimony that the appellant has committed rape upon her. The only defence of the appellant-accused person is that the prosecutrix was a major but as rightly pointed out by the learned Addl. P.P. that the testimony of P.W.3 in paragraph no.3 that the age of the victim was 14 years has not been challenged in her cross-examination. In the absence of any cross-examination in this regard, the same is to be accepted. 24. It is a settled principle of law that in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury, unless her evidence suffers from any basic infirmity or improbability as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 9, 10 and 11 in the case of B.B. Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753 . “9. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society. We must analyze the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross-examination. And we must do so with a logical, and not an opinionated, eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the western world. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the western world. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turnkey basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitudes, mores, responses of the Indian society, and its profile. The identities of the two worlds are different. The solution of problems cannot therefore be identical. It is conceivable in the western society that a female may level false accusation as regards sexual molestation against a male for several reasons such as :- (1) The female may be a 'gold digger' and may well have an economic motive- to extract money by holding out the gun of prosecution or public exposure. (2) She may be suffering from psychological neurosis and may see an escape from the neurotic prison by phantasizing or imagining a situation where she is desired, wanted, and chased by males. (3) She may want to wreak vengeance on the male for real or imaginary wrongs. She may have a grudge against a particular male, or males in general, and may have the design to square the account. (4) She may have been induced to do so in consideration of economic rewards, by a person interested in placing the accused in a compromising or embarrassing position, on account of personal or political vendetta. (5) She may do so to gain notoriety or publicity or to appease her own ego or to satisfy her feeling of self-importance in the context of her inferiority complex. (6) She may do so on account of jealousy. (7) She may do so to win sympathy of others. (8) She may do so upon being repulsed. 10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. 10. By and large these factors are not relevant to India, and the Indian conditions. Without the fear of making too wide a statement, or of overstating the case, it can be said that rarely will a girl or a woman in India make false allegations of sexual assault on account of any such factor as has been just enlisted. The statement is generally true in the context of the urban as also rural society. It is also by and large true in the context of the sophisticated not so sophisticated, and unsophisticated society. Only very rarely can one conceivably come across an exception or two and that too possibly from amongst the urban elites. Because :- (1) A girl or a woman in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. (2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the Society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends, and neighbours. (3) She would have to brave the whole world. (4) She would face the risk of losing the love and respect of her own husband and near relatives, and of her matrimonial home and happiness being shattered. (5) If she is unmarried, she would apprehend that it would be difficult to secure an alliance with a suitable match from a respectable or an acceptable family. (6) It would almost inevitably and almost invariably result in mental torture and suffering to herself. (7) The fear of being taunted by others will always haunt her. (8) She would feel extremely embarrassed in relating the incident to others being overpowered by a feeling of shame on account of the upbringing in a tradition bound society where by and large sex is taboo. (9) The natural inclination would be to avoid giving publicity to the incident lest the family name and family honour is brought into controversy. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husbands' family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (10) The parents of an unmarried girl as also the husband and members of the husbands' family of a married woman, would also more often than not, want to avoid publicity on account of the fear of social stigma on the family name and family honour. (11) The fear of the victim herself being considered to be promiscuous or in some way responsible for the incident regardless of her innocent. (12) The reluctance to face interrogation by the investigating agency, to face the Court, to face the cross-examination by counsel for the culprit, and the-risk of being disbelieved, act as a deterrent. 11. In view of these factors the victims and their relatives are not too keen to bring the culprit to books. And when in the face of these factors the crime is brought to light there is a built-in assurance that the charge is genuine rather than fabricated. On principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the Court's in the western world (obeisance to which has perhaps become a habit presumably on account of the colonial hangover). It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the Court's in the western world (obeisance to which has perhaps become a habit presumably on account of the colonial hangover). We are therefore of the opinion that if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities- factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming, subject to the following qualification : Corroboration may be insisted upon when a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is a likelihood of her having levelled such an accusation on account of the instinct of self preservation. Or when the 'probabilities-factor' is found to be out of tune. (Emphasis Supplied) 25. It is also settled principle of law that if evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with the cases of sexual molestation as has been held in paragraph – 21 of the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh reported in (1996) 2 SCC 384 , which reads as under:- “21. Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating woman’s rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. Rape is not merely a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. The courts, therefore, shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the trial court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.” (Emphasis Supplied) 26. So far as the contention of the appellant regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it is the specific case of the prosecution that after the appellant-accused person enticed away the prosecutrix, the informant and others were searching for her and when they failed in their search only then they reported the matter to police. So this is a sufficient explanation, under the facts and circumstances of this case, for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and such delay is not a sufficient ground to discredit the case of the prosecution. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding improper appreciation of evidence in record is concerned, after going through the evidence in record, I find that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix to impeach or disbelieve her testimony and her testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence which shows that she was carrying pregnancy of 16 to 18 weeks on the date of her medical examination. There is no evidence of any bad blood of the prosecutrix and the appellant-accused person. There is no evidence of any bad blood of the prosecutrix and the appellant-accused person. Nothing of this sort has even been deposed by the defence witnesses though the defence has examined two witnesses. The evidence put forth by the defence witnesses is not of any help to the appellant-accused person to be absolved of the charge faced by them in this case. Under such circumstances, this court do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned court below. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A & 376of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and the sentence is also proper. 27. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2006 and Order of sentence dated 19.01.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2004is affirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed. 28. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant is in custody. 29. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the court below forthwith. 30. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.