JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 29.04.2004, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, F.T.C. No.4, Godda, in Sessions Case No.17 of 2003 / 49 of 2003, whereby the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The period already undergone by the convict in jail custody during trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. from the period of sentence, awarded to the accused/appellant. 3. The prosecution case is based upon fardbeyan of informant (P.W.-5), (whose name is not being disclosed here), recorded by Sub-inspector of police R.K. Tiwari, Officer-in-Charge Godda (M) police station on 19.02.2003 at 14:00 Hrs. in presence of her uncle Hopna Murmu, mother Singa Tudu and brother Ramesh Murmu, wherein the informant has alleged that on last Saturday i.e. on 08.02.2003 in the evening, while the informant was returning from Godda Haat alone at about 05:30 P.M. and as soon as she reached near her village Dhepa Bandh, co-villager Paltan Soren seeing her alone, caught hold her and after tying her lifted her sari and petticoat and committed sexual intercourse for half an hour. The informant was trying to raise brawl but her mouth was closed with cloth, due to which the informant could not raise voice. After returning to her house, the informant disclosed about the occurrence to her mother and brother and thereafter other co-villager just to save the prestige of the family held panchayati but nothing happened in the panchayati. As such the informant came to the police station with delay, which was occurred because of panchayati. The informant has alleged that her marriage was solemnized five years ago but since last three years she is not residing with her husband, as her husband has solemnized second marriage with another lady, as such the informant is residing at her matrimonial house. The informant has further alleged that she has no children from her marriage and the occurrence took place on 08.02.2003 at a lonely place by accused by committing rape upon her. 4. The informant has further alleged that she has no children from her marriage and the occurrence took place on 08.02.2003 at a lonely place by accused by committing rape upon her. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan, police has registered Godda (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 66 of 2003, dated 19.02.2003, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Palton Soren. 5. After completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet vide no.25 of 2003, dated 28.02.2003, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Palton Soren. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 05.03.2003 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 07.03.2003. 7. The charge has been framed against accused Palton Soren under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on 28.03.2003, 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 nine prosecution witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence as exhibits. Ramesh Murmu, brother of the victim, has been examined as P.W.-1, Mohan Murmu, cousin of the victim, has been examined as P.W.-2, Manager Hembram, being distantly related to the informant and hearsay, has been examined as P.W.-3, Singa Tudu, mother of the victim, has been examined as P.W.-4, informant and victim (whose name is not being disclosed) of the case, has been examined as P.W.-5, Ramesh Tudu, another hearsay witness, has been examined as P.W.-6, Bhagat Hembram, has been examined as P.W.-7 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution, Dr. Kaushalya, Medical Officer, has been examined as P.W.-8 and Manjoor Ali, investigating officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.-9. Signature of Hopna Murmu on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, signature of Navin Prasad Sharma the then Officer-in-Charge of Nagar police station on the formal first Information Report, has been proved and marked as exhibit-3 and format of injury report of the victim, has been proved and marked as exhibit-4. 9. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 20.03.2004, 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 but has not examined any witness or adduced any document in support of his contention. 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. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, 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 except the informant (P.W.-5) none of the witnesses are eye witness to the occurrence and there is inordinate delay of eleven days in lodging the First Information Report, as the occurrence took place on 08.02.2003, whereas the fardbeyan was recorded on 19.02.2003, as such the appellant deserve to be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence of the informant (P.W.-5), who is a married lady deserted by her husband, as her husband has solemnized marriage with another lady and she has no child from her marriage, as such the victim is residing with her mother at matrimonial house. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that informant-cum-victim and appellant may be consenting party. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that victim is 25 years old and P.W.-8, Dr. Kaushalya Medical Officer, has not found any external injury on the private part of the informant (P.W.-5) and the injury report has been proved and marked as exhibit-4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that victim is 25 years old and P.W.-8, Dr. Kaushalya Medical Officer, has not found any external injury on the private part of the informant (P.W.-5) and the injury report has been proved and marked as exhibit-4. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted, that appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of the victim, in a case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as such the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Heard, learned counsel for the State, Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned trial court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that victim has been examined as P.W.-5 and has supported the fardbeyan, which has been recorded by the investigating officer and the evidence of Dr. Kaushalya, Medical Officer (P.W.-8) and Manjoor Ali, investigating officer (P.W.-9) are consistent to each other. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Ramesh Murmu, brother of the victim, has been examined as P.W.-1, Mohan Murmu, cousin of the victim, has been examined as P.W.-2 and Manager Hembram, has been examined as P.W.-3, a distant relative of the victim, Singa Tudu, mother of the victim, has been examined as P.W.-4, Ramesh Tudu, hearsay witness of the case, has been examined as P.W.-6 and Bhagat Hembram, has been examined as P.W.-7 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the testimony of the victim-cum-informant (P.W.-5) is in complete consonance with the evidence of Dr. Kaushalya, Medical Officer (P.W.-8) and Manjoor Ali, investigating officer (P.W.-9). Brother (P.W.-1) and mother of the victim (P.W.-4) have also supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that in the lengthy cross-examination of the victim nothing has been elucidated by the defence for false implication of the accused, Palton Soren at the hands of the victim, even it has not been suggested to the victim that since she has been deserted by her husband, so she has filed a case against the appellant, Palton Soren to pressurize him to solemnize marriage. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that Palton Soren is brother-in-law of the victim, having five children. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that there is no reason for false implication of the appellant at the hands of the victim and 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. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Vikash Kishore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials brought on record i.e. first information report, framing of charge, evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, four prosecution exhibits and the statement of appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. This Court has scrutinized the evidence brought on record and found that the fardbeyan, which the basis of First Information Report and the evidence of informant-cum-victim (P.W.-5), evidence of Dr. Kaushalya Medical Officer (P.W.-8) and Manjoor Ali, investigating officer (P.W.-9) are consistent with the evidence of Ramesh Murmu, brother of the victim, who has been examined as P.W.-1 and Singa Tudu, mother of the victim, who has been examined as P.W.-4. Other witnesses namely, Mohan Murmu (P.W.-2) is cousin of the victim, Manager Hembram (P.W.-3), distant relative of the victim is a hearsay witness and Ramesh Tudu (P.W.-6) is also a hearsay witness. The victim has categorically stated that Palton Soren caught her in a lonely place in the evening, while she was returning from Godda Hatt and after lifting her sari and petticoat, committed sexual intercourse upon her. The evidence of the informant remains intact and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the informant and other prosecution witnesses. Their evidence conspire confidence in the prosecution case. As such, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed without modification in sentence. 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.