JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2005 and sentence dated 20.07.2005 respectively passed by Sri Anant Kumar Singh then learned Additional Sessions Judge—I Sahibganj in S.C. No. 296 of 1985 by which the appellant was convicted for the charge under section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven (07) years for the offence under section 376 of the I.P.C and to pay the fine of Rs. 2000/-. However the learned Court below has acquitted one Bhado Marandi for the charge under section 342 of I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as recorded by A.S.I. R.M.Singh at 12.00 P.M. is that in the night of 01/03/1984 while the Informant alongwith her husband and mother-in-law had gone to visit the Shivratri Mela around 8:00 pm in the village Pathalgatta and that while going round the mela she and her mother-in-law were separated from her husband and in course of search for her husband and mother-in-law in mela she was forcibly dragged towards the western field below palm-tree and the Informant was forcibly raped by accused Khuchru Marandi. It has further been alleged that while she and her mother-in-law were raising hulla but none had come to her rescue and the accused forcibly raped her without her consent and while the accused tried to again rape her, then her husband arrived and apprehended the appellant Khuchiru Marandi. Therefore her husband caught hold of the accused Khuchru Marandi and hit him by the Lathi and handed over him to the Pradhan of the village pathalghatta . It has further been alleged that when she and her husband wanted to lodge the case in the police station but the Pradhan i.e. accused Bhado Marandi wrongfully stopped them in the name of Panchayati . It has further been alleged that the accused Bhado Marandi happens to be the Pradhan of village who assured them to hold village panchayati to settle the matter. However in the meantime the A.S.I. of police station arrived there and her fardbeyan was recorded by him. On the basis of fardbeyan, a case was registered vide Borio P.S. case No. 31/84, under section 342 and 376 of the I.P.C. against accused Khuchru Marandi and Bhado Marandi. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan, a case was registered vide Borio P.S. case No. 31/84, under section 342 and 376 of the I.P.C. against accused Khuchru Marandi and Bhado Marandi. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in eye of law. It is submitted that the i mpugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is bad in law as well as in facts. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned court below is not maintainable in the facts and circumstance of the case. It is submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned judgment and sentence mechanically. It is submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned judgment and sentence only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the learned court below has not appreciated the evidence on record in their right perspective and as such, has come to an erroneous finding. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that there is material contradiction amongst the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that blood stain clothes have not been chemically examined. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution, which has caused great prejudice to the case of the appellant. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the investigation is perfunctory in nature. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the medical report slows that the victim is of habitual sexual intercourse. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that this was the first offence of the appellant. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the medical report slows that the victim is of habitual sexual intercourse. It is submitted that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that this was the first offence of the appellant. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned court below is otherwise bad in law and the same is fit to be set aside. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is a married woman and such there is possibility of physical relationship with the husband also on the date of occurrence and hence the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below may be set-aside and the appellant may be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below are fit and proper and no interference are required .It is submitted that the appellant had committed rape forcibly upon the Victim lady. It is submitted that the Victim lady is a wife Tumba Soren . It is submitted that non- examination of the I.O. is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is submitted that the victim girl has fully supported the case of rape against the appellant that the appellant had committed rape upon her . It is submitted that the Doctor was examined as P.W. 5 and the evidence of the Doctor has also supports the prosecution case and the Doctor had found sign of rape . Thus the prosecution has fully proved its case and hence this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Informant, after adopting the submission of the learned A.P.P. , has further submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below. It is submitted that the P.W. 1 i.e. the Informant and prosecutrix of this case has fully supported her case that the appellant had committed rape upon her and which is also proved the evidence of the P.W. 5 i.e. the Doctor . It is submitted that the P.W. 1 i.e. the Informant and prosecutrix of this case has fully supported her case that the appellant had committed rape upon her and which is also proved the evidence of the P.W. 5 i.e. the Doctor . It is submitted that the P.W. 2 is the husband of the Informant and he has also supported the case of the prosecutrix and has caught the appellant and had assaulted him. Thus P.W. 2 is the eye witness of the occurrence. It is submitted that P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have also supported the prosecution case. Thus there is no error in the impugned judgment and sentence and hence this appeal may be dismissed. 7. Perused the Lower Court Records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides. 8. It transpires that the occurrence had taken place in the night of 01.03.1984, while the Victim lady alongwith her husband and mother-in-law had gone to visit the Shivratri Mela in the village Patlhalgatta and while moving during the Mela, she and her mother-in-law were separated from her husband. It has also been alleged that in course of search of her husband in Mela, she was forcibly dragged by the appellant towards the Western field below palm-tree and forcibly raped by accused appellant. It is also alleged that while she and her mother-in-law were raising hulla, but none had come to there to rescue her and the accused forcibly raped her without her consent and while the accused tried to again committed rape upon her then her husband arrived and apprehended the accused appellant and assaulted him by Lathi. It has further been alleged that her husband caught the accused appellant and handed him to the Pradhan of the village. It has further been alleged that the Pradlian accused Bhado Marandi wrongfully restrained them. Thereafter, the informant and her husband went to the police station. 9. It transpires that the police, after making investigation, had submitted the charge-sheet under sections 342 and 376 of the I.P.C against the appellant on 29.05.1984 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj had taken cognizance under section 376 and 342 I.P.C against the appellant and said Bhado Marnadi on 29.05.1984. However separate charge under section 342 of IPC was framed against one Bhado Marandi for confining the husband of the Informant. 10. However separate charge under section 342 of IPC was framed against one Bhado Marandi for confining the husband of the Informant. 10. After supplying the police papers to the accused i.e. the appellant and Bhado Marnadi , charges were framed against them for the offences under section 376 and 342 of I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj and to which the appellant and Bhado Marnadi pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried . 11. It transpires that prosecution had got examine five (05) witnesses in support of its case who are as follows:- (i) P.W. 1 is Victim lady ( name not being disclosed) (ii) P.W. 2 is Tumba Soren, the husband of the Informant , (iii) P.W.3 is Ramauvtar Bhagat, (iv) P.W.4 is Sufal Hansda and (v) P.W. 5 is Dr. Jagdish Pd , Sinha @ Dr. Jagdish Sao 12. The prosecution got proved the following documents as the Exhibit which are as follows: (i) Exhibit 1 is signature of Ramawtar Bhagat on Fardbeyan, (ii) Exhibit 2 is signature of Ramawtar Bhagat on the seizure list and (iii) Exhibit 3 is medical and injury report of the Victim. 13. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under section313 of the Cr.P.C. on 05.05.2005 by the learned Court below and who denied the circumstances put forth before him. 14. The defence witness has examined one witness as follows . (i) DW1 is Gulahi Baski 15. Thereafter the learned Court below has convicted the appellant under section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo for the period of seven (07) years hence the instant appeal has been filed. 16. Now this Court has consider as to whether the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is correct or not ? 17. So far as evidence of the prosecution witness is concerned, P.W. 5 is Dr. Jagdish Pd , Sinha @ Dr. Jagdish Sao who stated during his evidence that he had examined the Informant and found on her person the following injuries as follows:- i) Bruise with swelling 1" x 1" x skin deep over the valve, labia mandra swollen, ii) There was swelling in the inner wall of the vagina. iii) Semen taken shows sign of dead spermatozoa which is a case of clear rape. He also proved the medical report in his signature and medical report of the victim is marked as Ext.-3. iii) Semen taken shows sign of dead spermatozoa which is a case of clear rape. He also proved the medical report in his signature and medical report of the victim is marked as Ext.-3. He also stated that on the basis of police requisition, which is on the back side of the Medical Report , he had examined the Victim. During Cross examination by defence he had stated that the age of Victim lady was ascertained as 20 years on the date of her examination. However, he also stated the injured victim as habitual of sex and intercourse. 18. Thus, from the scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.5 i.e. the Doctor, it is evident that he has found the sign of rape upon the victim lady and thus evidence of P.W. 5 supports the prosecution case. 19. P.W. 1 is the victim lady – Informant of this case ( name of the victim has not been disclosed in view of guideline of the Hon’ble Supreme Court) who was examined before the learned Court below on 11.07.1986 and she stated during the evidence that around two and half (2 ½ ) years ago while she alongwith her mother –in-law and her husband had gone to watch Pathalghatta Mela at around 12:00 in the night , while she was moving alone then the accused – the appellant Khuchru Marandi forcibly dragged her and took her towards bahiyar near Palm tree and he thrashed her on the ground and he had forcibly committed rape upon her and the appellant had also opened her petticoat ( Saya) and lungi and committed rape upon her due to which there was stain/ semen in her cloth . She also raised alarm and then her husband arrived there and (sic) caught hold of the appellant Khuchru Marandi and assaulted him and handed over to the village Pradhan and while the matter was being discussed in the village then the accused had brought the police and she also gone to the police station on Friday ( i.e. on the next day) and had narrated the occurrence to the police . Thereafter the Darogajee had prepared the paper and she had put her thumb impression. Then her clothes was handed over to the Darogajee and there was stain upon her Saya. Thereafter the Darogajee had prepared the paper and she had put her thumb impression. Then her clothes was handed over to the Darogajee and there was stain upon her Saya. During cross-examination she stated that she has not married with her husband but she is living with her husband Tumba two years prior to the occurrence . She stated that she had meet the appellant Khuchru Marandi in the Mela and that time she was alone but there was no one known person . She climbed that she was not acquainted with the appellant Khuchru Marandi prior to the occurrence and he had taken her forcibly and no one present to save her and the appellant had taken her far away from the Mela and she could not able to resist the accused . She could bite her by teeth as he had assaulted her. She remained with the appellant for half an hour and that time no person had arrived there and lateron her husband had arrived . She also stated that she was sleeping and the accused climbed upon her and before arrival of her husband the accused has thrashed her on the ground and due to which she has sustained pain on her body and injury on her back and buttock and her Saya was torn and bangle were broken and blood was also oozing out due to injury. Thereafter her husband had altercation with the appellant Khuchru Marandi and he handed over to him to the Pradhan at about 2:30 to 3:00 in the night at that time the Pradhan was in his house . In the morning there was meeting in the village but Khuchru Marandi i.e. the appellant had not obey their advice rather her husband was taken into custody. Thereafter her husband was taken to the police station and she also went to the police station at around 12:00 in the day with Village Choukidar . She was having child from her husband at the time of occurrence. She further stated that father of Khuchru Marandi had instituted a case of theft and assault against her husband and due to which her husband was taken to the police station. She had denied the suggestion for instituting the false case in order to save her husband. 20. She was having child from her husband at the time of occurrence. She further stated that father of Khuchru Marandi had instituted a case of theft and assault against her husband and due to which her husband was taken to the police station. She had denied the suggestion for instituting the false case in order to save her husband. 20. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of the P.W. 1, it is evident that she is prosecutrix and she has fully supported her case. The appellant had committed rape upon her forcibly . Then she has stated that father of the appellant instituted that case against her husband for theft and assault . Thus P.W. 1 i.e. the prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution case. 21. P.W. 2 is Tumba Soren who is the husband of the Informant and he was also examined on 11.07.1986 before the learned Trial Court . He had stated during his evidence that while he alongwith his wife and her mother had gone to Mela two and half years prior to the occurrence and his wife was lost in the Mela and he was searching his wife and during search he saw that behind the palm tree that the appellant Khuchru Marandi was committing rape upon his wife who was sleeping and thereafter the accused tried to flee away on seeing him but he had caught him and handed over to the Pradhan ( Village Pradhan ) and one Bhado Marandi was his Pradhan and he had identified both Khuchru Marandi and Bhado Marandi . He further stated that he learnt from his wife that the appellant Khuchru Marandi has dragged her towards basti however the Pradhan had not considered but Pradhan forced him to remain there and on the next day her wife went to the police station and from there the constable took him to the police station and from there he was taken before the Court and was sent to the Jail. However he was freed by in the Court. 22. During cross-examintion he admitted to have kept to the victim lady but he has not performed married with her however there is no second wife apart from her (i.e. the prosecutrix ). He also stated that he has kept the victim lady for around three (03) years. However he was freed by in the Court. 22. During cross-examintion he admitted to have kept to the victim lady but he has not performed married with her however there is no second wife apart from her (i.e. the prosecutrix ). He also stated that he has kept the victim lady for around three (03) years. He had gone to the Mela in the evening by walking however his wife was separated at around 2:00 O’clock in night and his mother –in law was also separated at that time. He remained separated his wife around for three (03) hours . His daughter come with her mother –in –law. His wife was not raising alarm . However the appellant had taken her far away place and he had assaulted the appellant . He had arrived before the Pradhan in the night and that time blood was oozing from the body of Khuchru Marandi . Pradhan had seen his wife with Khuchru Marandi , However he was taken to the police station from the house of Pradhan and thereafter on the same day his wife also arrived at the police station . However he could not meet his wife because he was in lockup of the police station and father of Khuchru Marandi had instituted one case against him. He also stated that there is Pradhan of the village and there is dispute is decided by the Pradhan . He denied the suggestion Khuchru Marandi had not committed rape upon his wife. 23. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 2, it is evident that he is the husband of the prosecutrix and although he has not married with the prosecutrix but he keeping the prosecutrix last three (03) years as live in relationship and he has girl child also . This P.W. 2 is the eye witness of the occurrence as he had seen the appellant for committing rape upon his wife i.e. P.W. 1 , prosecutrix and when he complained before the Village Pradhan then he was taken to the police station and from there he was sent to the Jail . Thus P.W. 2 has fully supported the prosecution case. 24. Thus P.W. 2 has fully supported the prosecution case. 24. P.W. 3 is Ramauvtar Bhagat and who also stated during evidence that in the March 1984 while he had gone to Pathalghatta Mela at village then he heard that Jamadar Saheb of Borio P.S. i.e. police personnel is standing and when he went there then he had seen there one Santhal and the Santhali. Santhal was in a pool of blood and Santhali was giving her statement before the police i.e. Jamadar Saheb and the prosecutrix was stating that one Santhal has forcibly dragged near the field from the Mela and the Santhal had committed rape upon her. Jamadar Saheb i.e. the police had recorded in Hindi but he had translated the Santhali in Hindi to the Jamadar because the prosecutrix was speaking in Santhali language. Thereafter the statement of prosecutrix was recorded and she had given her thumb impression and he also put signature which is marked as Exhibit -1 . He also stated that Saya of the prosecutrix was handed over to the police officer during his presence and upon which there was stain. Thereafter a seizure list was prepared and he also put his signature marked as Exhibit -2. During cross-examination he stated that Pahalghatta Mela is Santhali Mela which is organized in the night, though he was not invited in the Mela, but apart from him there were several other person presence in the Mela including non Santhal , met with the Jamadar Saheb at 09:00 O’clock in the morning but he had not gone with the Jamadar Saheb any where. He identified the appellant in the Court and stated that said person was in full of blood however he had not seen the torn Saya . 25. Thus, from the scrutinizing the evidence of the P.W. 3, it is evident that he was called by the police for translating the statement of the prosecutrix lady who was Santhali lady and was speaking Santhali and she stated that the appellant Khuchru Marandi had forcibly committed rape upon her . He is the witness in the F.I.R and as well as seizure list . Thus , P.W. 3 has also supported the prosecution case and P.W. 3 was examined and discharged on 04.10.1986. 26. P .W. 4 is Sufal Hansda and this P.W. 4 was examined on 29.07.2002 i.e. after around 16 years. He is the witness in the F.I.R and as well as seizure list . Thus , P.W. 3 has also supported the prosecution case and P.W. 3 was examined and discharged on 04.10.1986. 26. P .W. 4 is Sufal Hansda and this P.W. 4 was examined on 29.07.2002 i.e. after around 16 years. He also stated during his evidence that he is acquainted with the Informant and her husband and occurrence took place around 12-15 years ago in the night where a drama was organized at Pathalchatta and the Informant had also alone gone to visit Mela and she was dragged by the appellant Khuchru and the appellant Khuchru taken her sepeterly and had committed rape upon her . He further stated lateron that the husband of Informant had caught hold of the appellant Khuchru and taken him to village Pradhan but no decision was taken by the Pradhan rather the Pradhan had taken the husband of the prosecutrix to the police station. Thereafter the police had seized the clothes of victim lady and the appellant and seizure list was prepared and he had also put thumb impression in the seizure list. He stated that police has recorded his statement in the police station and statement was recorded on the same day when the case was instituted. He learnt about the occurrence from his wife. He is not aware that who has taken the appellant to the Pradhan. 27. Thus, from the scrutinizing the evidence of the P.W. 4, it is evident that he is the hearsay witness but he has supported the prosecution case and he is also a witness of the seizure list. 28. D.W. 1 is Gulahi Baski who was speaking in Santhali and his statement was translated by the learned Trial Court with the consent of both the parties and who stated during his evidence that he is acquainted with the prosecutrix and the appellant . He has merely stated that the Informant is wife of the appellant Khuchru Marandi . During cross examination he stated that house of the Informant in the village Baghmundi however he not acquainted with the place of Tumba Soren (i.e the husband of Informant) He stated that the appellant Khuchru Marandi is the husband of the Informant. He has merely stated that the Informant is wife of the appellant Khuchru Marandi . During cross examination he stated that house of the Informant in the village Baghmundi however he not acquainted with the place of Tumba Soren (i.e the husband of Informant) He stated that the appellant Khuchru Marandi is the husband of the Informant. During cross-examination he stated that he is not aware Tumba Soren husband of the Informant and house of the Informant is situated at village Bhagmundi. . He had denied the suggestion for giving false evidence to the fact that the Informant is wife of the accused –appellant Khuchru Marandi . He admitted that today i.e. on 25.05.2008 i.e. the date of deposition , he had been brought by the Khuchru Marandi i.e. the appellant for giving his evidence. He further stated that he is not aware as to whether the Informant is married with Tumba Soren or not. Some part of the evidence of DW1 appears to be improperly translated. 29. Thus from scrutinizing the evidence of D.W. 1 , it is evident that he is a set-up witness of the appellant and giving evidence at first time before the Court after twenty (20) years that the Informant is the wife of appellant Khuchru Marandi. Hence the evidence of D.W. 1 is not reliable and rightly disbelieved by the learned Court below. 30. It is well settled that due to lacuna on the part of the prosecution, the victim should not suffer and the prosecution case should not fail. 31. It has been held in the case of Karnel Singh Versus State of M. P. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 at paragraph 4, 5, 6 and 8 as follows:- “ Para-4:- We have very carefully scrutinized the evidence having regard to the fact that (PW 6) the investigating officer had not taken the care expected of him. He did not record the statements of the two witnesses nor did he refer to the attachment of the ‘chaddi’ in his oral evidence. That was a very vital piece of evidence to which little or no attention was paid. If the seizure of that article was properly proved, the article with semen stains would have lent strong corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no doubt that the investigation was casual and defective. That was a very vital piece of evidence to which little or no attention was paid. If the seizure of that article was properly proved, the article with semen stains would have lent strong corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no doubt that the investigation was casual and defective. But despite these deficiencies both the courts below have recorded a conviction. The question is : are they right? Para-5:- Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any investigating officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the ‘chaddi’. That is the reason why we have said that the investigation was slipshod and defective.” “ Para-6:- We must admit that the defective investigation gave us some anxious moments and we were at first blush inclined to think that the accused was prejudiced. But on closer scrutiny we have reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult to injury.” “ Para-8:- This is what this Court said in paragraph 16 of the judgment in the aforementioned case: (SCC p. 559) “A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” Applying the above test to the facts of the present case we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt that the prosecutrix, a victim of the crime, had absolutely no reason whatsoever to falsely involve the appellant nor did her husband have any reason to do so or tutor his wife to involve the appellant. No such suggestion was made to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination nor is there any evidence on record in that behalf. The prosecutrix is a poor labourer who was toiling to earn her livelihood to augment the family income. No such suggestion was made to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination nor is there any evidence on record in that behalf. The prosecutrix is a poor labourer who was toiling to earn her livelihood to augment the family income. She was working in the factory since the last few days only and the appellant and his companion, taking advantage of the situation, drove away Charan by asking him to fetch tea and after he left the appellant violated her person. The find of semen stains on the petticoat and in the vagina lend assurance to the story narrated by the prosecutrix. The submission that there was delay in lodging the complaint has to be stated to be rejected for the simple reason that immediately after the incident she had to go in search of her husband who was a rickshaw-puller, narrate to him the incident, go down to the police station and then lodge the complaint. She has explained the absence of injuries by stating that she was laid on minute sand which was lying on the floor and, therefore, there were no marks of injury. The only explanation is by way of suggestion in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was falsely implicating the appellant in order to grab money. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter we are satisfied that it is safe to place reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Both the courts below relied on her evidence and we see no reason to take a different view.” 32. It has been held in the case of C. Muniappan and Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 at paragraph 55 as follows:- “Para-55:- There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. (Vide Chandrakant 22 Luxman v. State of Maharashtra [ (1974) 3 SCC 626 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 116 : AIR 1974 SC 220 ] , Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [ (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] , Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [ (1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1085 : AIR 1998 SC 1850 ] , Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [ (1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 104] , State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy [ (1999) 8 SCC 715 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 61 : AIR 2000 SC 185 ] , Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh [ (2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641] , Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [ (2002) 3 SCC 57 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 519] and Ram Bali v. State of U.P”. 33. It is well settled that the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecution without corroboration if it inspires confidence. 34. It has been held in the case of Phool Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 2 SCC 74 at paragraph 9, 10, 11 and 12 as follows:- “Para-9:- In Pankaj Chaudhary [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, (2019) 11 SCC 575 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 264] , it is observed and held that as a general rule, if credible, conviction of the accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration. It is further observed and held that sole testimony of the prosecutrix should not be doubted by the court merely on basis of assumptions and surmises. In para 29, it is observed and held as under : (SCC p. 587) “29. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence. [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra [Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 217] ]. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that there is no rule of law or practice that the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration and as such it has been laid down that corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the “probabilities factor” does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. [State of Rajasthan v. N.K. [State of Rajasthan v. N.K., (2000) 5 SCC 30 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 898] ].” Para-10:- In Sham Singh v. State of Haryana [Sham Singh v. State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 34 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 129], it is observed that testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should 25 find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It is further observed that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. In paras 6 and 7, it is observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 37-38) “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. In paras 6 and 7, it is observed and held as under : (SCC pp. 37-38) “6. We are conscious that the courts shoulder a great responsibility while trying an accused on charges of rape. They must deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. If the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and the court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations or sexual assaults. [See State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh [State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 316] (SCC p. 403, para 21).] 7. It is also by now well settled that the courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case 26 or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. (See Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam [Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam, (1998) 8 SCC 635 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1725] .)” Para-11:- Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove, we see no reason to doubt the credibility and/or trustworthiness of the prosecutrix. She is found to be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, without any further corroboration, the conviction of the accused relying upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can be sustained. Para-12:- Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that as there were no external or internal injuries found on the body of the prosecutrix and therefore it may be a case of consent is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance at all. No such question was asked, even remotely, to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination. Therefore, the aforesaid submission is to be . rejected outright. 35. It is evident that the P.W. 1 is the Victim lady and who has fully supported her case. The prosecution case is further corroborated and supported from the evidence of the P.W. 2 i.e. the husband of P.W. 1 i.e. Tumba Soren the prosecutrix and also corroborated from the evidence of the P.W. 3 namely Ramauvtar Bhagat who had put signature in the F.I.R. and seizure list and the P.W. 4 Sufal Hansda had put his thump impression on the seizure list. Even P.W. 5 is Doctor i.e. Dr. Jagdish Pd. Sinha @ Dr. Jagdish Sao has fully supported the fact of commission of rape upon the victim lady and the medical report has been marked as Exhibit-3. Thus the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 36. Even P.W. 5 is Doctor i.e. Dr. Jagdish Pd. Sinha @ Dr. Jagdish Sao has fully supported the fact of commission of rape upon the victim lady and the medical report has been marked as Exhibit-3. Thus the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 36. This Court find that no illegality and irregularly has been committed by the learned Court below while convicting the appellant for the charge under section 376 of the IPC. 37. It is evident that the victim lady has not forgotten her trauma of the crime committed upon her by the appellant even after 40 years . 38. Accordingly, t he impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2005 and sentence dated 20.07.2005 respectively passed by then learned Additional Sessions Judge—I Sahibganj in S.C. No. 296 of 1985 is hereby upheld . 39. It appears the occurrence took in the year 1984 the appeal has been filed in the year 2005 which remained pending since long period around 20 years after institution of the case. 40. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under section 376 of the I.P. C is affirmed, however so far sentence is concerned and sentence of R.I. for seven (07) years is reduced to R.I. for five (05) years considering the long protracted period of 40 years . 41. It is well settled that the criminal appeal is in continuation of trial and this has been observed also in the case of Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 . 42. It has been held in the case of Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar , reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 at paragraph -35 and 36 as follows:- “Para-35:- More so, it is settled law that an appeal by special leave under Article 136 is a continuation of the original proceedings. In Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews (2) v. State of Kerala [ (2007) 6 SCC 517 ] , this Court categorically observed as follows : (SCC p. 523, para 13) “13. In Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews (2) v. State of Kerala [ (2007) 6 SCC 517 ] , this Court categorically observed as follows : (SCC p. 523, para 13) “13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that despite the fact that the appellants had insisted upon before the High Court for issuance of a writ or in the nature of mandamus upon the State or its officers for the purpose of grant of police protection as this Court has exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it can and should go into that question as well viz. as to whether the writ petition itself could have been entertained or not, particularly, when the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.” (emphasis supplied) “ Para-36:- Further, this Court in Netai Bag v. State of W.B. [ (2000) 8 SCC 262 ] , while observing that the scope of an 28 appeal under Articles 136 and 226 cannot be wider than the earlier proceedings, has noticed that the appeals under the said provisions are continuation of the original proceedings.” 40. It is evident that the victim lady has supported the prosecution case for committing rape upon her. 43. It is well settled from the judgment reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 that Criminal Appeal is continuation of trial and hence, the victim lady i.e. the prosecutrix is also entitled to be compensated by the State in the light of the provisions of Section 357 of Cr.P.C. 44. Therefore this Court directs the State Authorities of the Home Department/ Competent Authorities of the State to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakh) to the prosecutrix-victim lady under Section 357 of the CrPC and also in the light of amended provisions of Section 357 A of CrPC, who had undergone the mental agony of rape through the Deputy Commissioner/Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj and learned Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to take necessary steps in assistance with DLSA, Sahibganj for payment of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) to the informant-victim lady, which may be paid to her by informing her through DLSA, Sahibganj and by the process of learned Court below . 45. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh) to the informant-victim lady, which may be paid to her by informing her through DLSA, Sahibganj and by the process of learned Court below . 45. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2005 is upheld however the sentence dated 20.07.2005 passed by the learned then Additional District Sessions Judge—I Sahibganj in S.C. No. 296 of 1985 is modified to the extent as indicated above. 46. The Appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within eight (08) weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence and period undergone by the appellant in imprisonment shall set-off from his period of sentence. 48. With the above observations and directions, this Cr. Appeal (S.J. ) No. 952 of 2005 is hereby dismissed with modification in sentence . 49. Let the Original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once by the Office. 50. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA and be also handed over to the learned A. P. P. for the needful.