JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Mrs. Nitu Singh, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 07.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 08.01.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 434 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 323, 354, 379 and 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C., R.I. for 03 months each for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. and one year each for the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. However, no separate punishment has been awarded for the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.06.1988 at about 3:00 PM, the wife of younger brother of the informant namely, Kewali Devi (P.W.-2) had gone to her field for plucking tomato. It is alleged that the present appellants approached to Kewali Devi and asked water from her. She suggested them to take the container and water, but the accused persons told her that the container (dabba) as well as water was dirty. Kewali Devi told them to leave the container and go away. Upon this, both of the appellants have assaulted her and snatched her ornaments and attacked upon her with a view to commit rape with her. Meanwhile, she raised alarm and the villagers attempted to catch hold of the accused persons, but they managed to flee away. 4. On the basis of the above information given by elder brother-in-law of the victim lady namely, Nunu Mahto, FIR was registered as Barhi P.S. Case No. 73 of 1988 dated 05.06.1988 under Sections 354 and 379 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 4. On the basis of the above information given by elder brother-in-law of the victim lady namely, Nunu Mahto, FIR was registered as Barhi P.S. Case No. 73 of 1988 dated 05.06.1988 under Sections 354 and 379 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 434 of 1989 was registered and charges were framed under Sections 323, 379 and 376 of the I.P.C. The appellants denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, altogether five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, statements of each accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded, who have denied the allegations leveled against them and claimed to be innocent. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the appellants in their defence. 7. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence available on record, has held the appellants guilty for the offences under Sections as aforesaid and sentenced as stated above. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that even if the entire prosecution evidence is taken on its face value, no offence under Sections 376 and 379 of the I.P.C. is made out in this case. Admittedly, the victim has alleged that she was chased by the accused persons with intention to make illicit relation with her, but could not succeed, rather she raised alarm and escaped herself. Similarly, the allegation of snatching ornaments is also concocted story, which has not been proved by the prosecution because as to what type of ornaments were taken by which of the accused has not been brought on the record and there was no recovery of any ornaments from the possession of the appellants. 9. It is further submitted that out of 09 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 05 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants. P.W.-1 : Nunu Mahto is the informant and bhaisur of the victim and admittedly he is a hearsay witness of the occurrence, who was not present at the spot. 10. 9. It is further submitted that out of 09 charge-sheeted witnesses, only 05 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants. P.W.-1 : Nunu Mahto is the informant and bhaisur of the victim and admittedly he is a hearsay witness of the occurrence, who was not present at the spot. 10. The most important witness is the victim lady (P.W.-2), who has stated that when she raised alarm then Arjun Mahto arrived there and she disclosed about the incident and thereafter, she returned to her home and informed about the incident to her bhaisur Nunu Mahto, father-in-law, her husband etc. 11. It is further submitted that the victim lady in her evidence has stated that she also accompanied with the informant Nunu Mahto to police station and at first, she was interrogated by police, which was reduced to writing and she put her thumb impression over her statement, but the case has been instituted on the basis of written report of Nunu Mahto, which does not find thumb impression of the victim, rather as a witness, there appears the name of Arjun Mahto. 12. It is further submitted that in the FIR, there is no whisper about commission of rape with the victim lady or indecent assault with her, rather on the question of drinking water asked by the appellants, some altercation took place and victim was assaulted by hands only. Admittedly, the victim has not undergone for any medical examination and no injury report has been adduced in evidence. 13. It is very surprising that even the identification of the accused persons is doubtful as per the evidence of the victim, who alone has opportunity to identify them. She has stated at para-22 of her cross-examination that:- ^^22- vfHk;qDrksa dks eSaus igys igy mlh fnu ns[kk igpkuk FkkA eSa mudk uke ugha tkurh Fkh igys^^ 14. P.W.-3 Arjun Prasad Mehta has clearly stated that he saw two persons were teasing the victim lady, out of them, he identified only one namely Modo Mahto (appellant no. 1) and could not identify the another. 15. P.W.-4 Brahmdeo Singh is also a hearsay, who came to know about the occurrence by his wife. 16. P.W.-5 Ajay Ranjan Prasad, the then Officer-in-Charge of Barhi P.S., who endorsed for registration of FIR on written report of the informant. 17. 1) and could not identify the another. 15. P.W.-4 Brahmdeo Singh is also a hearsay, who came to know about the occurrence by his wife. 16. P.W.-5 Ajay Ranjan Prasad, the then Officer-in-Charge of Barhi P.S., who endorsed for registration of FIR on written report of the informant. 17. Learned Amicus has further submitted that at best, the prosecution has been able to prove the offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. that too, only catching hold of the victim lady due to rivalry dispute. The appellants have been remained in custody during investigation and trial for more than two months and have sufficiently been punished for their offence. Moreover, the case lodged in the year 1988, more than three decades have been passed and appellants have also undergone agony of trial for such a long period. Hence, they may be sentenced for imprisonment already undergone instead of awarding them sentence of imprisonment, as awarded by the learned trial court. 18. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the evidence of victim lady is reign supreme in such cases and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim (P.W.-2). There is no necessity of any corroboration of her testimony from any independent source. In the instant case, the witness, who arrived at the place of occurrence just at the time of its happening have also supported the prosecution case, therefore, there is no reasonable ground for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence by way of this appeal. This appeal has no merit and fit to be dismissed. 19. We have gone through the entire case record, impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both sides. 20. It appears that the victim of this case is sterling witness alone and other witness are simply hearsay witnesses from the mouth of the victim lady. The evidence of victim (P.W.-2) clearly goes to show that on the relevant date and time of occurrence, she had gone to pluck tomato crop from her field, where appellants arrived there and asked for water. She pointed out a cane lying there and to take water, but that water was dirty. The evidence of victim (P.W.-2) clearly goes to show that on the relevant date and time of occurrence, she had gone to pluck tomato crop from her field, where appellants arrived there and asked for water. She pointed out a cane lying there and to take water, but that water was dirty. In the meantime, both were started scuffling with her and assaulted by slaps and also snatched her necklace, payal and earring and also attempted to commit rape with her and she disclosed about the above occurrence to all the family members. Thereafter, Panchayati was convened, but the accused persons declined from Panchayati, then the case was lodged on the next day. In her cross-examination also she admits that the tomato field is situated at a distance of 1 KM from her house and adjacent to that field there is no house of any person, rather it is lonely place. In her cross-examination, she admits that Panchayat was convened and accused persons and their family members were also present and she had also gone to attend Panchayati and to police station. She also admits that just one month from the date of occurrence she was married and came to her sasural. At the time of occurrence, she was not identifying the accused persons with their name. This fact also cast cloud on the prosecution case. 21. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case and found that the story of commission of rape and theft has not been proved by the victim and nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. The manner of identification of the appellants is also shaky in nature. Therefore, we are of the firm view, conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 376 and 379 of the I.P.C. is absolutely unwarranted and illegal, which is hereby set aside. However, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the appellants have committed an offence under Section 354 / 323 of the I.P.C., for which he has been sufficiently punished in view of the imprisonment undergone during investigation and trial of the case. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellants for the offence under Section 379 and 376 of the I.P.C. is set aside and they are acquitted thereunder. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellants for the offence under Section 379 and 376 of the I.P.C. is set aside and they are acquitted thereunder. The appellants are found guilty for the offence under Section 323 and 354 of the I.P.C. for which they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment undergone during investigation and trial. 23. The appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 24. Accordingly, the instant appeal is disposed of. 25. We appreciate the able assistance provided by learned Amicus Curiae in disposal of the case. 26. Therefore, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi to pay Rs. 7,500/-(Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) to the learned Amicus Curiae, Mrs. Nitu Singh, as her remuneration. 27. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Couirt concerned along with a copy of this judgment. 28. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the High Court Legal Services Committee for doing needful.