JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, assisted by Mr. Amarjeet Prasad, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 23.04.2005 and order of sentence dated 25.04.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Trial No.131 of 2004, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted from the charge framed under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the period already undergone by the appellant during the inquiry and trial shall be set off. 3. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of informant, (whose name is not being disclosed here) (P.W.-5), recorded by S.I. N.P. Sharma, Officer-in-Charge, Godda (M) police station on 09.12.2003 at about 15:00 Hrs., wherein the informant has alleged that today i.e. on 09.12.2003 (Tuesday) at about 4:00 A.M. the husband of the informant, Dronacharya Mahto went in his paddy field for tying the bundles of the paddy. The informant has further alleged that Lambodar Mahto, having seen the informant alone in her house, came at her house and called her husband by name. The informant replied that her husband had gone to tie the bundles in paddy field. The door of the house of the informant was opened. The accused entered in her house and came near her cot. The informant raised protest and tried to raise alarm but the accused closed her mouth by his one hand and threatened to kill her by putting a revolver on her chest and on the point of revolver, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the informant. The accused thereafter threatened the informant that if she will inform her husband he will be killed. After some time, the husband of the informant returned. Thereafter the matter was disclosed to the husband of the informant, who along with co-villager, Guru Prasad Sah went to the house of Lambodar Mahto but both were assaulted by Lambodar Mahto. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan, police has registered Godda (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 323 of 2003, dated 09.12.2003, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Lambodar Mahto. 5. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan, police has registered Godda (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 323 of 2003, dated 09.12.2003, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Lambodar Mahto. 5. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide no.07 of 2004, dated 31.01.2004, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Lambodar Mahto. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 16.02.2004 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 21.07.2004. 7. The charge has been framed against accused under Sections 376 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on 03.08.2004, to which the accused has pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial. 8. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined altogether six witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence as exhibits. Ram Lal Mahto, co-villager, has been examined as P.W.-1 and Prahlad Sah, another co-villager, has been examined as P.W.-2, both have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Dr. Nirmala Besra, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.-3, Dronacharya Mahto, husband of the informant-victim, has been examined as P.W.-4, informant-cum-victim of the case, has been examined as P.W.-5 and Rana Pratap Singh, A.S.I. being investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.-6. Injury report of the victim, has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, signature of Dronacharya Mahato on fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, fardbeyan, has been proved and marked as exhibit-3 and formal First Information Report, has been proved and marked as exhibit-4. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 20.01.2005, to which the accused has denied the allegation levelled against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The defence has examined Kanhai Mahto and Jagdish Sao as D.W.-1 and D.W.-2 respectively but has not adduced any documentary evidence. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of materials available on record, the learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 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, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. 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, assailing the same. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, assisted by Mr. Amarjeet Prasad, 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 there is unexplained delay in lodging First Information Report. As per the fardbeyan of the informant, occurrence took place on 09.12.2003 at 04:00 A.M. whereas the fardbeyan was recorded at 03:00 P.M. on 09.12.2003. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Guru Prasad Sah has not been examined in this case and only on the basis of testimony of the victim (P.W.-5), the accused/appellant, Lambodar Mahato has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court though the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Ram Lal Mahto (P.W.-1) and Prahlad Sah (P.W.-2) have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Dr. Nirmala Besra (P.W.-3), who has conducted the medical examination of the victim on 10.12.2003 at 8:00 A.M. has not found any injury on the private part of the victim nor any definite opinion of rape has been given by the doctor. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that Dronacharya Mahto, husband of the victim has been examined as P.W.-4. From the evidence brought on record, it appears that prosecution has not brought true facts before the Court and non examination of the son of informant aged about 9 years, who was present alongwith mother-in-law of the informant at the place of occurrence have caused serious prejudice to the appellant. From the evidence brought on record, it appears that prosecution has not brought true facts before the Court and non examination of the son of informant aged about 9 years, who was present alongwith mother-in-law of the informant at the place of occurrence have caused serious prejudice to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that as per the prosecution case Guru Prasad Sah and Dronacharya Mahto, have been assaulted by accused, Lambodar Mahto but the evidence brought on record has failed to substantiate the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and thus accused Lambodar mahto has been acquitted from the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that from the evidence of the informant, it appears that the informant was a consenting party if at all any such occurrence has taken place, as her conduct shows that after commission of rape as alleged by the informant in her fardbeyan, she never sent her son to call her husband Dronacharya Mahto, who was working at a distance of 1 and ½ kilometer nor she has informed any one rather she resumed her normal duty of brooming the house. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that blood stained peticot, which has been handed over to the police and doctor by the victim has not been examined in this case nor produced in the Court, as such the appellant cannot be convicted, on the basis of sole testimony of the informant, P.W.-5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that investigating officer P.W.-6 has proved the fardbeyan and formal First Information Report as exhibits-3 and 4 respectively. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that there are vital discrepancies in the evidence of the informant in her fardbeyan as well as in her deposition as P.W.-5, as such the accused/appellant deserve to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed on the basis of materials available on record and learned trial court has rightly passed the judgment of conviction against the appellant. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed on the basis of materials available on record and learned trial court has rightly passed the judgment of conviction against the appellant. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that accused, Lambodar mahto after ascertaining the fact that husband of the victim, Dronacharya Mahato is not present in the house, entered into the house and forcibly on the point of revolver committed rape against the will of the informant and the informant has fully proved her case in her deposition as P.W.-5. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that no lady will malign a person by putting her chastity on threat. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that false implication of the accused, Lambodar Mahato is also overruled as the informant has categorically stated that there was no previous enmity between the parties nor accused has asserted that because of enmity he has been falsely implicated, as such there was no reason for false implication of accused, Lambodar Mahato by the victim. Since the rape has been committed by the accused, the victim has rightly lodged First Information Report against the accused and matter was investigated by the police. Investigating officer, Rana Pratap Singh (P.W.-6), has submitted charge sheet against the accused finding the case to be true, as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by the Hon'ble Court. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, assisted by Mr. Amarjeet Prasad, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records i.e. first information report, framing of charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, four prosecution exhibits, the statement of appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., two defence witnesses as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This court has scrutinized the evidence. Vandana Bharti, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records i.e. first information report, framing of charge, evidence of six prosecution witnesses, four prosecution exhibits, the statement of appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., two defence witnesses as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This court has scrutinized the evidence. It appears that at 4:00 A.M. on 09.12.2003, the victim was alone in her room as her husband, Dronacharya Mahto has gone to work in the paddy field, the accused appellant, Lambodar Mahto, being a co-villager, knowing this fact, came to the house of victim, called the husband of the victim to ascertain that husband of the victim is not present in the house and after being sure entered into the house of the informant and forcibly committed rape on the point of revolver. The victim has no reason for false implication of the accused as they had no previous enmity nor the defence has adduced any evidence or cross-examined any of the prosecution witness to establish that for any grudge the accused/appellant, Lambodar Mahto has been falsely implicated in the case. The victim, being a married lady having children, has been examined by the doctor, as such doctor did not find any mark of injury but the statement of the victim is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution. As such, this Court has not found any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds is hereby cancelled. 16. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action. Appeal dismissed.