JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IX, Giridih in Sessions Trial No.34 of 1997 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty and sentenced for the offences as mentioned below in tabular form:- Section Sentence 354 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years 323 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for one year 341 of the Indian Penal Code S.I. for one month 379 of the Indian Penal Code R.I. for three years 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 02.11.1996 at 06:00 P.M. when the informant-victim had gone to attend the call of nature, the appellant-accused on seeing her lifted her and thrashed her on the ground and attempted to commit rape upon her. On noise being raised by the informant, the younger mother-in-law of the informant-victim came running to the place of occurrence and seeing her, the appellant-accused left the informant and ran away after snatching away the ear ring and silver necklace from the neck of the informant. By the same, the informant sustained injury on her ear and by being thrashed on the ground she sustained pain on her waist and because of severe pain, she was not able to walk. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, police registered Jamua P.S. Case No. 195 of 1996 and took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police submitted police report and upon commitment of the case to the court of session, charges for the offence punishable under Section 323, 341, 376/511 and 379 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. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined 4 witnesses. 5. P.W.4 is the informant-victim. She has stated that the occurrence took place about 8 years before her examination in court. At 06:00 P.M. when she was going to the village to attend the call of nature, the appellant-accused caught hold of her and thrashed her and wanted to do wrong things forcibly. Her bangles were broken. 5. P.W.4 is the informant-victim. She has stated that the occurrence took place about 8 years before her examination in court. At 06:00 P.M. when she was going to the village to attend the call of nature, the appellant-accused caught hold of her and thrashed her and wanted to do wrong things forcibly. Her bangles were broken. Her younger mother-in-law came there and the appellant-accused fled away. While fleeing away, the appellant-accused snatched gold ear ring and silver necklace of the informant causing scratches on her neck and bleeding injury on her ear. She was treated at Jamua. She identified the appellant-accused in court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she cannot say the date of occurrence but it was in the month of Kartik. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that the appellant-accused person is the co-villager. The jewelry was given to the P.W.4 by her mother. She cannot say the weight or value of the jewelry. Blood oozed out from her ear and fell on her saree and ground. 6. P.W.1 – Narayan Yadav has stated that the occurrence took place more than 5 years before his examination in court. He saw the appellant-accused sitting from before at the place of occurrence. Five minutes after coming home from the place of occurrence, the P.W.1 heard noise and went running. P.W.1 saw that the informant-P.W.4 was lying at the place of occurrence. The appellant-accused attempted to commit rape upon her. The victim was taken in a trekker to Jamua Hospital for treatment. On being asked, the victim stated that she has been raped by the appellant-accused. He has seen the appellant-accused running away with the gold ear ring and silver chain. He identified the appellant-accused in court. In his cross-examination, he has stated the boundaries of the place of occurrence. He was also present at the place of occurrence. He saw the appellant-accused attempting to commit rape upon the informant. First her younger mother-in-law reached the place of occurrence. The informant was having pain in her waist. She was not able to get up and stand. There were scratches on her ear and marks on her neck. He stated before the police that he went to the field and saw the appellant-accused sitting there. 7. P.W.2 – Deoki Yadav is an independent post-occurrence witness. The informant was having pain in her waist. She was not able to get up and stand. There were scratches on her ear and marks on her neck. He stated before the police that he went to the field and saw the appellant-accused sitting there. 7. P.W.2 – Deoki Yadav is an independent post-occurrence witness. He has stated that he was in his house at the time of occurrence. Upon going to the place of occurrence, he saw that the informant-victim was brought by being lifted on shoulders. On being asked, it was told to the P.W.2 that the appellant-accused thrashed her on the ground and was attempting to commit rape upon her and the appellant-accused also snatched away the gold ear ring and silver chain. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has deposed whatever he heard. 8. P.W.3 – Jhemia Devi is the mother-in-law of the informant. She has stated that the occurrence took place at 06:00 P.M. The informant had gone to attend the call of nature. She raised noise. P.W.3 and others went running there. The victim was wreathing in pain and was telling that she will no more be alive. The appellant-accused was near the victim. She has not seen the clothes. The bangles of the informant were broken. The informant disclosed that the appellant-accused took away her gold ear ring and necklace. The appellant-accused person could not do anything more as the P.W.3 and others assembled there. She identified the appellant-accused in court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she does not remember the day of the occurrence. It was in the month of Kartik. She was deposing about the occurrence for the first time. Prior to that her statement was not recorded. She cannot say, from where the ear ring and necklace was purchased nor can she say the weight of the same. 9. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused person was recorded wherein he denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded innocence. 10. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, in record, learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused person as already indicated above. 11. Mr. 9. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused person was recorded wherein he denied the circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded innocence. 10. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, in record, learned court below convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused person as already indicated above. 11. Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and erred by not considering the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to take note of the fact that the defence has been prejudiced by non-examination of the Investigating Officer as though attention of the witnesses were drawn in their respective cross-examination vis-à-vis their statements made before the Investigating Officer yet the same could not be confronted to the Investigating Officer. Hence, because of non-examination of the Investigating Officer without any plausible reason, the defence could not bring on record the contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses made in court vis-à-vis their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that in the absence of any detailed description of the alleged gold earring or the Hasuli which some of the witnesses have stated to be chain and also the absence of the same being not recovered from the possession of the appellant-accused person and in the absence of any evidence of the recovery of the same from the possession of the appellant, the learned court below ought not have convicted the appellant-accused person for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that considering the fact that the appellant-accused person was a young man of about 18 years of age on the date of occurrence as his age is mentioned 26 years on the date of judgment on 24.12.2005 and the fact that he has faced the rigor of the criminal prosecution for more than two decades, in case, the conviction of the appellant is upheld, he be sentenced for the period undergone by him in custody from 06.11.1996 to 03.12.1997 and from 24.12.2005 to 04.03.2006. 12. Learned Addl. 12. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand submits that the P.W.4 who is the sole eye-witness of the occurrence has categorically stated about all the ingredients for the offences having been committed by the appellant-accused person for which he has been convicted and her testimony has been corroborated by the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. Hence, it is submitted that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for all the offences for which the appellant-accused person has been convicted and the sentence also is proper. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that the P.W.4 who is the victim has only stated that the appellant-accused person lifted her and trashed her on the ground she has not specifically mentioned as to what other acts the appellant-accused person committed to reach at the conclusion that he wanted to forcibly do the wrong thing. She has only stated that her bangles were broken. So if a person is lifted and trashed on the ground, the same is sufficient to break the bangles of a lady. The P.W.3 has categorically stated that the appellant-accused person could not do anything as the P.W.3 reached the place of occurrence. P.W.2 is a post occurrence hearsay witness. His evidence has not much bearing upon the merits of the case. So far as the P.W.1 is concerned, he is also a post occurrence witness. So his testimony also of not much consequence so far as the case of the prosecution is concerned. So far as the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no evidence in record regarding any exact description of jewelry snatched by the appellant-accused person. Neither the weight nor the value of the same could be stated by any of the witnesses. The same has not been recovered during the investigation of the case. Since the I.O. has not been examined without any plausible reason, it remains inexplicable why the alleged stolen articles could not be recovered when the appellant-accused person was arrested by the police. 14. The same has not been recovered during the investigation of the case. Since the I.O. has not been examined without any plausible reason, it remains inexplicable why the alleged stolen articles could not be recovered when the appellant-accused person was arrested by the police. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant-accused person be given the benefit of doubt, so far as the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned as the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge against the appellant-accused person beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the offence punishable under Section 354/323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the evidence in record as discussed above is sufficient to establish that the appellant accused person lifted the informant and thrashed her on the ground causing hurt to her. The evidence is sufficient to establish the ingredients of each of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 354/323/341 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the appellant was a young boy of 18 years at the time of occurrence and he has already faced rigor of criminal trial for more than two decades as the alleged occurrence took place on 02.11.1996 and he has already remained in custody for considerable period of time, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period he has already undergone in custody and the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 341 is maintained. 15. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 16. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant namely Md. Salim Ansari @ Salim Ansari is on bail as he has already undergone the sentence, he is discharged of the liabilities of his bail bonds. 17. Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the learned court below along with a copy of the judgment forthwith.