JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2008 and order of sentence dated 03.07.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.07.2007 the prosecutrix namely Jemanti Purty, aged about 5 years, who is daughter of the informant Motai Purty, was subjected to rape by the accused, who was working in the house of the informant. It is alleged by the informant that the prosecutrix was twice subjected to rape by the accused. The offence was not noticed by any one, as the adult members of the house were not present and on 29.07.2007, the prossecutrix informed her mother about the occurrence. The information about the offence was given by the informant Motai Purty to the village Munda, Suresh Chandra Sundi, who got application addressed in the name of Chairperson of the District Women Organization (Zila Mahila Samitee) and forwarded the same with his endorsement. The said written application was ultimately sent to the police and on the basis of which Muffasil P.S. Case No.107 of 2007 was instituted for the offence U/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet in this case. In this case, charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code on 28.09.2007. The appellant has denied all the charges levelled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case because of the fact that the accused was working in the house of the informant and his wages were due, which he was demanding. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, upon which he was put on trial. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, upon which he was put on trial. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in this case, who are; PW-1 Suresh Chandra Sundi, who is the Munda of the village, PW-2 is Motai Purty, the informant, PW-3 is Jaimanti Purty, the victim girl, PW-4 is Hemanti Purty, the mother of the victim, PW-5 is Mahesh Sundi, PW-6 is Chamaklal Sundi, PW-7 is Royal Suren @ Toyal Suren, PW-8 is Dr. Neeru Jha and PW-9 is Arjun Rai, the Investigating Officer of the case. 5. The documents brought on record on behalf of the prosecution are:- I. Exhibit-1 is endorsement of forwarding with signature of the Village Munda (PW-1) on the written application addressed to the Chairperson of the District Women Organization, II. Exhibit-2 is the written report, III. Exhibit-3 is the medical report, IV. Exhibit-4 is the formal FIR and V. Exhibit-5 is the requisition of sending the victim for her medical examination and report. All these documents were exhibited without objection. 6. (a) P.W.-1 is Suresh Chandra Sundi and he is village Munda. In course of trial he deposed that he was informed about the occurrence on 30.07.2007 by the informant- P.W.-2. (b) P.W.-2 is Motai Purty and he is the informant in this case and father of the victim girl. In course of trial he deposed that on the date of occurrence he was not present in the house and had gone to Lupungutu village for earning as labour. His daughter Jemanti Purty and his son Madhav were present in the house. The prosecutrix informed about the occurrence to her mother and her mother told about the occurrence to this witness. Thereafter they came to the house of village Munda and stated about the occurrence and the village Munda wrote about the occurrence on a piece of paper and thereafter after taking signature of the P.W. 2 on the application written by him, he forwarded the same to the Women Organization, the said application is marked as Ext.-2. P.W. 2 after the same went to the hospital where the prosecutrix was medically examined. P.W. 2 has identified the accused in the court. And in his cross examination he has stated that the accused worked in his house for about four months. P.W. 2 has fully supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 2 after the same went to the hospital where the prosecutrix was medically examined. P.W. 2 has identified the accused in the court. And in his cross examination he has stated that the accused worked in his house for about four months. P.W. 2 has fully supported the case of the prosecution. (c) P.W-3, the victim Jemanti Purty, who is aged about 4-5 years. In course of trial the answers given by the prosecutrix clearly establish the fact that she had attained the age of understanding and she was capable to depose in the court. She was not knowing Hindi and she deposed in HO language. This witness has stated in her deposition that the accused Langra had committed rape upon her in the poultry room and he had committed rape upon her in the bushes, where he had taken her on the pretext of picking snails. She had identified the accused in the court. She was also cross-examined by the defence and during her cross examination also she had supported her case against the accused. (d) P.W.-4 is Hemanti Purty and she is the mother of the victim girl. In course of trial she has deposed that her daughter informed her that the accused had committed rape upon her in the poultry room as well as in the bushes due to which she suffered physical and mental agony. This witness has also fully supported the case of the prosecution. (e) P.W.-5, 6 and 7 are co-villagers and they have also supported the case of the prosecution. (f) P.W.-8 is Dr. Neeru Jha. She had examined the victim girl on 31.07.2007. In course of trial she deposed that there was no external injury found on the body of the victim girl. She also deposed about the prosexutrix that her hymen was intact, vulva swollen and tendered. Left lebia minora lacerated. No foreign hair found. No spermatozoa either alive or dead found during the medical examination. She opined that unsuccessful penetration of vagina had been tried. During her cross examination she said that force applied on vagina of the victim caused some injury. (g) P.W.-9 is Arjun Rai and he is the investigating officer in this case. He deposed that he received the information about the occurrence on 31.07.2007 and F.I.R. was lodged on that day. She opined that unsuccessful penetration of vagina had been tried. During her cross examination she said that force applied on vagina of the victim caused some injury. (g) P.W.-9 is Arjun Rai and he is the investigating officer in this case. He deposed that he received the information about the occurrence on 31.07.2007 and F.I.R. was lodged on that day. He stated that village Baraguira is situated at a distance of about 8 KM from the police station. He stated that he had not seen poultry room at the place of occurrence. 7. After closure of the evidence, statement of the accused/ appellant was recorded u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C. on 18.03.2008. The accused chose not to produce any oral or documentary evidence. 8. Counsel for the appellant submits that as the hymen was found intact therefore there is no question of rape having been committed by the accused and he further submits that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is full of contradictions and the same cannot be relied upon. He submits that even though it is alleged that the occurrence had taken place on 28.07.2007, but the information of the occurrence was given only on 30.07.2007 to the village Munda and the police was informed about the occurrence on 31.07.2007 and this delay is unexplained which is fatal for the prosecution. Learned counsel further submits that even though according to the F.I.R. the occurrence had taken place on 28.07.2007, but P.W.-4 Hemanti Purty had admitted in her cross examination that it was the Sunday and she has further stated that she was informed about the occurrence on Saturday, whereas the victim girl has stated in her cross examination that the occurrence had taken place on Wednesday. Learned counsel submits that these are vital contradictions in the prosecution case and the benefit of this must go to the accused person. It has further been pointed out that though it is the prosecution case and the consistent evidence of the witnesses that the occurrence had taken place in the poultry room, but the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.-9 Arjun Rai would show that he had not seen any poultry room at the place of occurrence. It has further been pointed out that though it is the prosecution case and the consistent evidence of the witnesses that the occurrence had taken place in the poultry room, but the evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.-9 Arjun Rai would show that he had not seen any poultry room at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel has also submitted that the written information, which is Exhibit-2 is very doubtful in as much as P.W.-5 Mahesh Sundi and P.W.-6 Chamaklal Sundi have stated that they had put their signatures on the document, which was given in the police station and thereafter the document was not seen. Learned counsel has submitted that these discrepancies in the prosecution evidence make the entire case very doubtful and it is a fit case, in which the accused should be acquitted of the charge. He admits that there is no procedural irregularity or illegality in the trial. 9. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that on the basis of evidence brought on record, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts as all the witnesses especially P.W. 2, P.W.3 and P.W. 8 have fully supported the prosecution case. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court needs no interference and that the contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the appellant as not material contradictions so as to demolish the case of the prosecution or create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 10. We have heard the counsels for both the sides and have gone through the LCR. The most important evidence is the evidence of the victim girl P.W. 3- Jemanti Purty. She has fully supported the case that she was subjected to rape in the poultry room and also in the bushes where she was taken by the accused on the pretext of picking of snails. She has identified the accused in the court. Her evidence was duly recorded after the court was satisfied that she had attained the age of understanding and she was capable to depose in the Court. She has identified the accused in the court. Her evidence was duly recorded after the court was satisfied that she had attained the age of understanding and she was capable to depose in the Court. The victim girl had fully supported the case of the prosecution even during her cross examination. 11. P.W.-4 Hemanti Purty, who is mother of the victim has also supported the fact that she was informed about the occurrence by her daughter and she had found the injury in the urinary tract, where the victim was experiencing the pain. She has also stated that the rape was committed when she was not in the house and she was informed when she came back. Simarly, P.W.-2 Motai Purty has also supported the case and the written report was proved by this witness. P.W.-1 Suresh Chandra Sundi, who is the Village Munda has also supported the fact that Motai Purty, Hemanti Purty and Jemanti Purty had come to him for informing about the occurrence and he has also proved his endorsement on the written report. 12. The evidence of the doctor fully corroborates the evidence of the victim and her parents. P.W.-8 Dr. Neeru Jha has proved the medical report and has stated that the medical board had found on examination that though the hymen was intact, but vulva was swollen and tendered and there was laceration in the left lebia minora and that the injuries confirmed that there was unsuccessful forceful penetration of the vagina. The argument of the counsel for the appellant that as the hymn was found intact therefore the offence of rape is not established, is devoid of any merits under the facts and circumstances of this case. In the instant case as per the medical report the injuries confirmed that there was unsuccessful forceful penetration of the vagina and the doctor has stated in her cross examination that the force applied on the vagina of the victim caused some injury. This medical evidence and the evidence of the doctor is enough to conclude that the rape has been committed upon the victim. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is discrepancies about the date of occurrence is not of much importance, in as much as, the victim and her mother are illiterate persons not knowing even ‘Hindi’ and they have deposed in the language ‘HO’. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is discrepancies about the date of occurrence is not of much importance, in as much as, the victim and her mother are illiterate persons not knowing even ‘Hindi’ and they have deposed in the language ‘HO’. Some discrepancies about the day and time of the occurrence in the evidence of such illiterate witnesses are very natural to occur and much importance cannot be given to it and the same cannot go to the root of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that though there is allegation that the occurrence had taken place in poultry room, but at the place of occurrence no poultry room was found by the I.O. is also not of much importance, in as much as, the I.O. has clearly stated that there was a cattle house. It is very natural for the witnesses to describe the cattle house as poultry house, as keeping poultry also is very common among the Tribals. 14. The evidence of the victim girl P.W.-3 Jemanti Purty is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. Neeru Jha and there is no scope of any doubt that rape was committed on the minor girl, aged about five years. Even the evidence of doctor also confirms the age of victim to be about 4-5 years. 15. After having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and after going through the materials on records, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also taking into account the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the judgment of conviction dated 01.07.2008 and order of sentence dated 03.07.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 240 of 2007 by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa requires no interference by this court. There is no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed. 17. Let the lower court records be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. 18. Before parting, we acknowledge the sincere effort put in this appeal by Mr. Yogesh Modi, counsel for the appellant appointed by Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee (JHCLSC). 17. Let the lower court records be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. 18. Before parting, we acknowledge the sincere effort put in this appeal by Mr. Yogesh Modi, counsel for the appellant appointed by Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee (JHCLSC). JHCLSC will ensure that the remuneration of Shri Modi is disbursed to him. A copy of this judgment be communicated to Secretary, JHCLSC.