JUDGMENT : The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2004 and order of sentence, dated 15.03.2004, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VIII, Giridih, in Sessions Trial Case No. 338 of 1995, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months and rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Mukta Devi (P.W. 5), recorded by Satyendra Narayan Singh, Officer-in-Charge, Ahilyapur Police Station, in the district of Giridih on 22.02.1995 (Wednesday) alleging inter alia that yesterday i.e. on 21.02.1995 at around 5.00 PM, mother-in-law of the informant namely Basanti Devi (P.W. 2), went to Ahilaypur Hatiya to purchase some articles and at that time there was no male member in the house. The informant along with her younger sister-in-law, Parwati Devi (P.W. 4) aged about 10 years were in the house. It is alleged that all of a sudden accused Bhuna Rewani and Kishun Rewani came into the house of informant and sent her sister-in-law Parwati to bring betel from the shop. When Parwati went to bring the betel, Bhuna Rewani forcefully committed rape upon the informant against her will. It is alleged that co-accused Kishun Rewani was standing outside the house and has also abused the informant. After the occurrence, the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, the informant raised alarm and came out of her house and went to the house of her sister. The informant has further alleged that Pramod Ram son of Janki Ram gave her threatening with dire consequences and asked the informant not to lodge a case. That is the reason, the information has been given to the police in the morning on 22.02.1995. 3. The informant has further alleged that Pramod Ram son of Janki Ram gave her threatening with dire consequences and asked the informant not to lodge a case. That is the reason, the information has been given to the police in the morning on 22.02.1995. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, police has instituted Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 8 of 1995 dated 22.02.1995, under Sections 376/448/34 of the Indian Penal Code against two accused persons namely Bhuna Rewani @ Bhuna Ravani and Kishun Rewani. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet only against accused Bhuna Rewani @ Bhuna Ravani vide charge sheet no. 15 of 1995, dated 09.05.1995, under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Co-accused Kishun Rewani has not been sent up for trial. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 02.08.1995 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 15.09.1995. 6. The charge has been framed against the accused/appellant Bhuna Rewani @ Bhuna Ravani under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 09.07.1996, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether seven witnesses. Naresh Yadav, uncle-in-law of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 1, Basanti Devi, mother-in-law of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 2, Rajendra Prasad Hazra, co-villager has been examined as P.W. 3 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Parwati, younger sister-in-law of the informant, has been examined as P.W. 4, Mukta Devi, victim-cum-informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 5, Dr. Sujata Jha, Medical Officer who has examined the victim, has been examined as P.W. 6 and proved the injury report including signatures of the doctors on the same, which have been marked as Exhibits-1, 1/1 and 1/2. Bhudeo Choudhary, an advocate clerk being a formal witness has been examined as P.W. 7 and has proved the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-Charge on the First Information Report, which has been marked as Exhibit- 2. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant, has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 23.02.2004, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and has claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case because of land dispute. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused/appellant, has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 23.02.2004, to which the accused/appellant has pleaded his innocence and has claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this case because of land dispute. 9. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal, before this Hon'ble Court on 12.04.2004 which was admitted on 07.05.2004 for hearing and prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected on 04.08.2004 and subsequently, on 14.07.2006 vide I.A. No. 1192 of 2006 also the prayer for bail was again rejected. 10. Heard, learned amicus curiae, Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate. Learned amicus curiae has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned amicus curiae has submitted, that the learned trial court has not taken judicial notice of the fact that half of the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the police by not sent uping, the co-accused Kishun Rewani for trial and police has only sent up this appellant Bhuna Rewani @ Bhuna Ravani for trial by submitting charge sheet. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that the learned trial court has not taken judicial notice with regard to admitted land dispute between the parties, as the prosecution witness Basanti Devi (P.W. 2) has categorically admitted in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, that she was interested to purchase the part of land, which was purchased by the brother-in-law of the appellant Bhuna Rewani. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that the medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, does not show any definite opinion about commission of the rape and non-examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that the medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1, does not show any definite opinion about commission of the rape and non-examination of the investigating officer has caused serious prejudice to the appellant. Learned amicus curiae has further submitted that the prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of the informant but fardbeyan has not been exhibited in this case and as such, in absence of legal material, the appellant may be acquitted of the charge and conviction by extending benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and is based on the materials available on record and the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that informant Mukta Devi has supported her fardbeyan during her examination in the court as P.W. 5. The evidence of Mukta Devi (P.W. 5) has been corroborated by Naresh Yadav (P.W. 1) uncle-in-law of the informant as well as Parwati, sister-in-law of the informant, who has been examined as P.W. 4. The doctor (P.W. 6) has not given negative opinion regarding rape rather from perusal of Exhibit-1, it is apparent that doctor has categorically stated that age of the victim is 17 years, according to the radiologist and dental surgeon and it is difficult to say, whether rape has been committed or not. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that without any rhyme and reason, no lady will put her chastity at stake by alleging such thing against any man. Rape is such a heinous crime in which no one wants to attach with it,, without being actual victim of the same. Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is well founded and is based on the materials available on record which warrants no interference by this Hon'ble Court at this stage. 12. Heard, learned amicus curiae, Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. 12. Heard, learned amicus curiae, Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the evidence brought on records including the F.I.R., framing of charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From perusal of fardbeyan of the informant Mukta Devi (P.W. 5), it appears that in the First Information Report, informant has alleged commission of rape only against Bhuna Rewani @ Bhuna Ravani and has also alleged against one Kishun Rewani regarding standing outside the house and abusing the informant. During investigation, the police has only found complicity of Bhuna Rewani (appellant) in commission of rape upon the informant against her will, as such, Kishun Rewani has not been sent up for trial by the police. No evidence was laid by the prosecution against Kishun Rewani, so as to summon him under Section 319 CrPC. Naresh Yadav (P.W. 1) uncle-in-law of the informant has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that, while he was returning to the house, he saw Bhuna Rewani (appellant) going out of the house of his brother Burdo Gosai, chased by the informant having stone in her hand. Basanti Devi (P.W. 2) mother-in-law of the informant has also supported the prosecution case though as hearsay witness, who has been informed about the occurrence by the victim Mukta Devi herself. Parwati (P.W. 4) sister-in-law of the informant has fully supported the prosecution case by saying that she went to market for purchasing betel for appellant Bhuna Rewani @ Bhuna Ravani, who has given money to her and while she was returning to her house, she saw Bhuna Rewani going out of the house and her sister-in-law Mukta Devi (P.W. 5) was crying and disclosed that wrong has been done with her by Bhuna Rewani and then Mukta Rewani went to the house of her sister. Dr. Sujata Jha, Medical Officer (P.W. 6) has supported the prosecution case as she has not denied about the commission of rape rather she has stated that it is difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not and the age of the victim has been accessed to be 17 years according to radiologist and dental surgeon. Dr. Sujata Jha, Medical Officer (P.W. 6) has supported the prosecution case as she has not denied about the commission of rape rather she has stated that it is difficult to say whether rape has been committed or not and the age of the victim has been accessed to be 17 years according to radiologist and dental surgeon. Rajendra Prasad Hazara (P.W. 3) has been declared hostile by the prosecution and Bhudeo Choudhary (P.W. 7), being a formal witness has proved the F.I.R. bearing the handwriting and signature of the then Officer-in-Charge and same has been marked as Exhibit- 2. 13. Under the aforesaid discussions as made above, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 14. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 11.03.2004 and order of sentence, dated 15.03.2004, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VIII, Giridih, in Sessions Trial Case No. 338 of 1995, arising out of Ahilyapur P.S. Case No. 8 of 1995, corresponding to G. R. No. 301 of 1995, is hereby upheld and affirmed. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. 16. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. 17. Before parting with the judgment, this Court appreciates the assistance provided by Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned amicus curiae, in disposal of this criminal appeal. The Secretary, Jharkhand Legal Services Authority is directed to release the legal admissible remuneration to the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate of this Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Appeal dismissed.