JUDGMENT Kailash Prasad Deo, J. - The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2003 and order of sentence, dated 23.12.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 426 of 1992, whereby the sole appellant Chandra Mohan Hembram has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been awarded under both head rigorous imprisonment for seven years and both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. However, by the same impugned judgment, the learned trial court has acquitted other co-accused persons namely Dilwar Kunkal, Ramesh Hembrom, Dhaneshwar Purty, Jena Hembrom and Gandhi @ Manmohan Kalundia from all the charges levelled against them. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Laxman Som (P.W. 1) before the Officer-in-Charge, Manjhgao Police Station on 16.09.1991 alleging therein that informant is working as a panchayat sewak at Rajnagar block and his family is residing at village Parsa. The informant has alleged that on last Friday i.e. 13.09.1991 at around 8.00 P.M., his daughter Sarbina Som left house by saying her mother that, she is going to wash her hands and legs, but even after half an hour, she did not return. The mother of the victim started searching her daughter and thereafter on search, people told her that her daughter has been taken away by a co-villager boy namely Chandra Mohan Hembram, on cycle towards Kumardungi. Thereafter, the informant''s wife on 14.09.1991 informed the informant about the occurrence through his relatives upon which, the informant came there and searched his daughter but could not find her. The informant has alleged that his daughter is a minor girl, aged about 12 years, studying in Class- VIII at Balika Madhyamik Vidayalaya, Parsa. The informant has further stated that his daughter used to visit the house of Chandra Mohan Hembram. The informant has alleged that his minor daughter Sarbina Som has been kidnapped for purpose of solemnizing marriage by Chandra Mohan Hembram and kept the victim in the house of his relative Ramesh Hembrom at village Dirogo. The informant has further alleged that they went to the house of Ramesh Hembrom at village Dirogo but they refused to return his daughter and thus, the F.I.R. was lodged. 3. The informant has further alleged that they went to the house of Ramesh Hembrom at village Dirogo but they refused to return his daughter and thus, the F.I.R. was lodged. 3. On the basis of the written report, police has instituted Manjhgao P.S. Case No. 30 of 1991 dated 16.09.1991, under Sections 366 (A)/ 368/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has been added vide order dated 26.09.1991. The F.I.R. has been lodged against three persons namely Chandra Mohan Hembrom, Jena Hembron and Ramesh Hembrom. 4. After investigation, the police has submitted first charge sheet against Chandra Mohan Hembram, Jena Hembrom, Dilwar Kankal and Gandhi @ Manmohan Kalundia vide charge sheet no. 15 of 1991, dated 16.12.1991 under Sections 363/ 366 (A)/ 368/ 376/34 of the Indian Penal and subsequently second chargesheet has been submitted vide chargesheet no. 11 of 1992 dated 23.04.1992 against Dhaneshwar Purti and Ramesh Hembrom under Sections 366 (A), 368, 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is relevant to state here that victim was examined under Section 164 CrPC on 23.09.1991 during investigation and the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6 in this case. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 18.02.1992 against Chandra Mohan Hembram, Jena Hembram, Dilwar Kunkal and Gandhi @ Manmohan Kalundia and against Dhaneshwar Purti and Ramesh Hembram vide order dated 05.05.1992 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 02.12.1992. 6. The charge has been framed against accused Chandra Mohan Hembram under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas other accused persons have been charged under Section 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 23.07.1993, to which the accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 7. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses, though P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have been wrongly mentioned in the deposition as P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to Exhibit- 6. Laxman Som, informant and father of the victim, has been examined as P.W. 1. He is a hearsay witness, who has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit- 1. Laxman Som, informant and father of the victim, has been examined as P.W. 1. He is a hearsay witness, who has proved the written report which has been marked as Exhibit- 1. The jimmanama and signatures of the informant (P.W. 1) and Sarbina Som, victim on the jimmanama have been proved and marked as Exhibits- 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. Dr. B.B. Topno, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W. 2. The doctor has examined the victim and assessed the age of the victim to be 12 to 14 years and found that rape has been committed with the victim and has proved the medical report of the victim which has been marked as Exhibit- 3. Vijay Singh Pingua, maternal uncle of the victim has been examined as P.W. 3 and he is a hearsay witness. Sarbina Som, victim of the case has been examined as P.W. 4. Phoolmati Pingua, mother of the victim has been examined as P.W. 5. Yogendra Prasad Singh (P.W. 6) a formal witness, has proved Exhibits4 and 5. The formal F.I.R. has been marked as Exhibit- 4, the endorsement on the written report of informant has been marked as Exhibit- 5 and it appears from perusal of the order dated 24.11.2003, the statement of Sarbina Soy recorded under Section 164 CrPC, considering it to be a public document has been exhibited, as defence has no objection in considering the same as Exhibit. On the basis of the same vide order dated 24.11.2003, the statement of victim Sarbina Soy recorded during investigation under Section 164 CrPC on 23.09.1991 has been marked as Exhibit- 6. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons, have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 18.09.2003, where the accused persons have denied about the occurrence and the evidence found against them. Defence has also examined Narayan Path Pingua as D.W. 1. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the present appellant for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code but has acquitted other co-accused persons from all the charges. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has filed the present criminal appeal, before this Hon''ble Court assailing the same. 10. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Madhulika Das Gupta, Advocate. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that non-examination of the investigating officer as well as learned Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC i.e. Exhibit- 6, have caused serious prejudice to the appellant, as the appellant could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officer and the learned Magistrate with regard to authenticity of the present case. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that Vijay Singh Pingua (P.W. 3) is a hearsay witness. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that it is a case of elopment of a girl with the appellant for the purpose of solemnizing marriage, on insistence of the girl but a false case has been instituted against the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R., as the occurrence took place on 13.09.1991 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.09.1991. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the defence witness Narayan Path Pingua (D.W. 1) has categorically stated that in the tribal customs, such things are permissible and as such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt. 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 363 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Laxman Som (P.W. 1), father of the victim and informant of the case is admittedly a hearsay witness but the girl was recovered by the police in presence of him from the house of accused Ramesh Hembrom along with appellant Chandra Mohan Hembram. Learned Counsel for the State has further submitted that Dr. B.B. Topno (P.W. 2) has examined the victim Sarbina Som, on 17.09.1991 and has assessed the age of the victim to be 12 to 14 years and found that rape has been committed with her, as it appears from Exhibit- 3 and the same has been supported by Vijay Singh Pingua (P.W. 3), maternal uncle of the victim and Phoolmati Pingua (P.W. 5) mother of the victim. All these witnesses Laxman Som (P.W. 1), Vijay Singh Pingua (P.W. 3), Sarbina Som (P.W. 4) victim of the case and Phoolmati Pinguaa (P.W. 5) have been crossexamined by the defence at length but their evidence remain consistent to each other and nothing has been brought on record to establish that there is any minor contradictions in the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that Yogendra Prasad Singh is a formal witness has proved Exhibits- 4 and 5 i.e. the F.I.R., the endorsement on the written report of informant and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, by learned Magistrate respectively, without any objection from the defence. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that Yogendra Prasad Singh is a formal witness has proved Exhibits- 4 and 5 i.e. the F.I.R., the endorsement on the written report of informant and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, by learned Magistrate respectively, without any objection from the defence. Learned State Counsel has further submitted that there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. as in the society, if any minor girl is missing, people are not lodging the F.I.R. under the social prestige rather initially they want to search the victim and thus, delay has been caused but no prejudice has been caused to the appellant because of this delay and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code as the victim has fully supported the prosecution case in her deposition in the court as P.W. 4 and during her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6. Learned counsel for the State, has thus submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants no interference by this Hon''ble Court at this stage. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Madhulika Das Gupta, 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 six prosecution witnesses, prosecution exhibits, statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., one defence witness and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found that Laxman Som (P.W. 1), father of the victim and informant of the case was informed about the occurrence from his brother-inlaw Vijay Singh Pingua (P.W. 3), who was informed about the occurrence by her sister Phoolmati Pingua (P.W. 5) mother of the victim. These three witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve or dispel the prosecution case. These three witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence but nothing has been elucidated to disbelieve or dispel the prosecution case. Sarbina Som, victim of the case was aged about 12 years as stated by herself and as assessed by the learned Judical Magistrate who has recorded her statement under Section 164 CrPC and has fully supported the prosecution case during examination in court as P.W. 4. The entire episode has been narrated by the victim, a minor girl but nothing has been elucidated by the defence in her cross-examination, which was also very lengthy. This Court has perused the Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows: "363. Punishment for kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 13. From the evidence brought on record by the prosecution coupled with the evidence of the doctor P.W. 2, Dr. B.B. Topno, who has proved the injury report as Exhibit- 3 and assessed the age of the victim to be 12 to 14 years and has also opined that the victim was raped, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.12.2003 and order of sentence, dated 23.12.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 426 of 1992, arising out of Manjhgao P.S. Case No. 30 of 1991, corresponding to G. R. No. 567 of 1991, is hereby upheld and affirmed. 15. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. 16. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled to serve out the rest of the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court by surrendering before the court below forthwith. 17. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.