JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 17.01.2020 and order of sentence dated 20.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Lohardaga in S.T. No.64 of 2016 arising out of Lohardaga Mahila P.S. Case No.42 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. No.517 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 313 and 376 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 10 years for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 313 of IPC along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix :- 3. The prosecution story as depicted in the written report (Ext.2) of the prosecutrix submitted before Officer-in-Charge, Lohardaga (M) Police Station on 20.09.2014 reveals that since months of January and February, 2013 while she was studying in B.A Part-I as a regular student of Baldeo Sahu University (College), she developed friendship with her co-villager Manbir Oraon @ Manvir Oraon(appellant), who was working in Indian Army. It is further alleged that they were frequently exchanging their views by talking on her mobile phone Nos.9631048599 and 993121626 over the mobile phone Nos.7397666987 and 97280718710 of appellant. It is further alleged that on pretext of false assurance to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix, the accused started establishing physical relationship with her since the months of January and February, 2013 due to that relationship, prosecutrix became pregnant and was carrying two months pregnancy, then she insisted for marriage to the accused but he replied that it would not be appropriate to give birth a child prior to marriage. Thereafter, on 18th May, 2014, the accused forcibly administered some medicines of abortion to the prosecutrix, which was purchased from Barhi village and due to that reason her pregnancy was terminated through bleeding. Thereafter, on 18th May, 2014, the accused forcibly administered some medicines of abortion to the prosecutrix, which was purchased from Barhi village and due to that reason her pregnancy was terminated through bleeding. It is further alleged that again on 10th September, 2014 at about 6:30 pm, the accused made a call to her from his mobile phone and asked her to come, then she went to meet with him but the accused forcibly pushed her into a vacant room and locked the door from inside and concealed the key and committed rape upon her thrice over the night. It is further alleged that when her parent and other family members finding her absent from the house started searching her, then she was released and came to her house and narrated the above incident to her family members. Thereafter, the family members of the prosecutrix went to the house of the parent of the accused and proposed for marriage of the prosecutrix with the accused, which was not accepted by them, then a village panchayat was also convened but no fruitful result yield. Hence, she lodged a written report on 20.09.2014 at the concerned police station. Accordingly, Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No.42 of 2014 was registered for the offences under sections 376 and 313 of IPC against the present appellant. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the above sole appellant for the offences under sections 376 and 313 of IPC. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.T. No.64 of 2016 was registered. The appellant denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. 4. Learned trial court, after considering oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution and the defence and examining the same in the light of legal principles and also relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 4 Cr.LJ 4283 SC and State of UP Vs Naushad (2014) Cr. LJ 540 SC, held the appellant guilty for the offences under sections 313 and 376 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of the Appellant:- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that admittedly the victim/prosecutrix was major aged about 19-20 years on the date of occurrence. LJ 540 SC, held the appellant guilty for the offences under sections 313 and 376 of IPC and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of the Appellant:- 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that admittedly the victim/prosecutrix was major aged about 19-20 years on the date of occurrence. It is further submitted that there was no love relationship or any physical contact between the prosecutrix and the appellant rather she has falsely implicated the appellant in a false rape case to pressurize the appellant for marriage because the appellant is in job of Army. Learned trial court has miserably failed to consider the representation made by the villagers before the Superintendent of Police (Ext.D) and also the fact that in panchayati held by the prosecutrix, the appellant has flatly denied to solemnize marriage with her, hence, he has falsely been implicated in this case. The impugned judgment suffers from perversity and manifest error of law due to non-consideration of testimony of victim in the light of her medical report which negates her version. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal and liable to be set aside. The appellant deserves acquittal from the charges leveled against him. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the reported judgment in Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108 . Submission on behalf of State:- 7. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. for the State refuting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly apprised, appreciated and evaluated the prosecution evidence adduced in this case. It is quite obvious that from the very inception, the intention of the appellant was to fulfill his sexual lust without undergoing the ceremony of marriage, which he promised to the prosecutrix before entering into physical relationship. The prosecutrix also became pregnant and insisted upon solemnization of the marriage and also convened pahchyati but the appellant in connivance with other co-villagers concocted a false story that the prosecutrix wants to get marriage with the appellant due to his job in army. Therefore, he has been made scapegoat and implicated in a false case. The prosecutrix also became pregnant and insisted upon solemnization of the marriage and also convened pahchyati but the appellant in connivance with other co-villagers concocted a false story that the prosecutrix wants to get marriage with the appellant due to his job in army. Therefore, he has been made scapegoat and implicated in a false case. Learned trial court has considered all the aspects of the case in a threadbare manner and arrived at right conclusion. It is a case where the appellant has seduced the prosecutrix for physical relationship on false pretext of marriage and from very inception, he was not intending to solemnize marriage with the victim except to fulfill his own sexual desire. Therefore, the consent, if any, is vitiated under law and the conviction and sentence of the appellant has been rightly recorded by learned trial court. There is no substance in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. 8. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has placed reliance upon the following reported judgments:- (i) Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 (ii) State of U.P. Vs. Naushad (2013) 16 SCC 561 9. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, calling for any interference in this appeal?” Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 10. Before delving to decide the above point, it appears appropriate to discuss the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties in support of their case. 11. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses, namely, P.W.1-Dr. Kiran Marandi, P.W.2- Binita Oraon, P.W.3-Lali Oraon, P.W.4-Informant/victim, P.W.5-Rati Bhagat, P.W.6-Jeeta Oraon, P.W.7-Raj Kishore Kujur, I.O., P.W.8-Dr. Dipti Malika Kujur and P.W.9- Shekhar Kumar Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced:- Ext. 1- Medical report of victim/informant Ext.2.-wirtten report Ext.2/1-Endorsement on written report for registration of case. Ext.3- Signature of the prosecutrix on her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ext.3/1- Statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C of victim. Ext.4- Formal FIR Ext.5- Age assessment report of the victim. 12. 1- Medical report of victim/informant Ext.2.-wirtten report Ext.2/1-Endorsement on written report for registration of case. Ext.3- Signature of the prosecutrix on her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ext.3/1- Statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C of victim. Ext.4- Formal FIR Ext.5- Age assessment report of the victim. 12. On the other hand, following witnesses have been examined by the defence, namely, D.W.1- Prakash Nath Oraon, D.W.2- Shiv Charan Oraon, D.W.3- Janki Oraon and D.W.4- Bina Oraon Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, defence has also relied upon following documentary evidences:- Ext.A- The deed of Panchayat Ext.A/1- Signature with seal of Sheo Charan Oraon (D.W.2) on stamp paper. Ext.A/2- Signature of Janki Oraon (D.W.3) over Ext.A Ext.X- The copy of representation of villagers marked as X for identification. 13. Before delving into rival contentions of the parties, we have to apprise with the evidence adduced in this case by the prosecution and defence. Out of 9 witnesses examined by the prosecution, the prime witness is the prosecutrix herself examined as P.W.4. According to her evidence, the incident started from the beginning of year, 2013, when the accused induced her to solemnize marriage with her developing friendship and started establishing physical relationship due to which she became pregnant. While the prosecutrix was carrying two months’ pregnancy, the accused administered her medicines of abortion and again on 10.09.2014 at about 6:30 pm, the accused called this witness to his room and bolting the door from inside, concealed the key and committed rape upon her thrice over the night. On request of this witness to solemnize marriage, the accused flatly declined and expressed his desire to solemnize marriage somewhere with another girl. She narrated the above incident to her parents and other family members then her parents went to the house of the accused and met with his parents but they declined to solemnize marriage of the accused with the prosecutrix. A village panchayati was also convened but no fruitful result yield. Thereafter, she went to Mahila Police Station with her aunt, Dayamani Lakra and submitted her written report, which was written and signed by her and marked as Ext.2. In her cross-examination also, this witness has remained intact and reiterated that accused, Manvir is in the service of Indian Army since 2009, she did not lodge any complaint about the incident since January, 2013 due to promise of marriage of the accused. In her cross-examination also, this witness has remained intact and reiterated that accused, Manvir is in the service of Indian Army since 2009, she did not lodge any complaint about the incident since January, 2013 due to promise of marriage of the accused. She was administered medicines for abortion on 18.05.2014. She also admits that since 10.09.2014, she did not lodge any case and when the accused flatly denied to solemnize marriage with her after establishing last physical relationship with her, then she lodged this case. She has denied the single suggestion of the defence that since the accused, Manvir Oraon is in service in Indian Army, hence with ulterior motive to solemnize marriage with him, she has falsely implicated him in this case and no such occurrence took place with her at the hands of accused, Manvir Oraon, who is innocent. 14. P.W.2-Binita Oraon and P.W.3-Lali Oraon are aunts of the prosecutrix, P.W.5-Rati Bhagat, grandfather of the prosecutrix and P.W.6-Jeeta Oraon, father of the prosecutrix are also witnesses of the facts but derieved their knowledge about occurrence from the prosecutrix (P.W.4). These witnesses have also corroborated the incident of 10.09.2014 when in evening, the prosecutrix had gone to fetch water from hand pump but did not return till night, then they started searching of her and at about 12:00 pm to 1:00 am in the night, the prosecutrix returned and narrated about the commission of rape with her by the accused and also the history of indulgence in sexual relationship on assurance of marriage with the accused since January and February, 2013 and her pregnancy and abortion. P.W.1-Dr. Kiran Marandi has examined the victim on22.09 .2014 and recorded following findings:- Height-5 feet 1 inches, Weight-40 kg, Teeth-14-15, Breast-Well Developed, Axillaries hair present, public hair present. Mark of Violence-No mark of violence present in any part of the body, no foreign body detected in any part of the body. Examination of private part of the body- No injury detected in the private part of the body, no matting of pubic hair present, old tear of hymen present, uterus normal in six, cervix cleft transversely, vaginal swab taken and examine under microscope-Spermatozoa not found. For determination of age, the prosecutrix is referred to Medical Board in CS office, Lohardaga under custody of lady hawaldar, Geeta Devi. For determination of age, the prosecutrix is referred to Medical Board in CS office, Lohardaga under custody of lady hawaldar, Geeta Devi. Opinion:- Depending upon above findings, this witness has to say that the prosecutrix is a parous lady and there is no medical evidence present in favour of recent sexual activity. Mark of identification-1. One black mole on right index finger 2. One black mole just above medial end of right clerical. This medical report is prepared by this witness and bears her signature on the same, which was identified and marked as Ext.1. P.W.8-Dr. Dipti Mallika Kujur is member of Medical Board constituted under Chairmanship of Dr. M.M. Sengupta, CS-cum-CMO, Lohardaga, Dr. Sambhunath Choudhary, Dr. Gamla Kumari Hazra and herself for age determination of the prosecutrix, which was conducted on 24.09.2014 and recorded following findings after examination of the victim:- Built- Average, Height-153 cm, Weight-41 kg, Teeth-14/15 Secondary Sexual Character-Axillary hair present, pubic hair present, Breast developed. Radiological Evidences-1. Epiphysis of head of radius is fused, 2. Epiphysis of distal end of radius and ulna are fused, 3. Epiphysis of iliac crest is fused, 4. Epiphysis of ischial tuberosity has appeared but not fused. Opinion-: According to above physical findings and radiological evidence age of prosecutrix between 19 to 20 years. Marks of Identification-1. One mole above medial end of right clavicle, 2. One mole on right index finger (distal phallanx). This report of medical board is prepared by this witness and bears the signature of Chairman and members of the board including herself. On identification of the same, the report is marked as Ext.5. P.W.9-Shekhar Kumar, the then Judicial Magistrate, Civil Court, Lohardaga has proved the statement of prosecutrix recorded on 22.09.2014 under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ext.3/1. P.W.7-A.S.I. Raj Kishori Kujur is the Investigating Officer of this case, According to her evidence, on 20.09.2014, she was posted as ASI at Mahila Police Station, Lohardaga and she was entrusted with the charge of investigation of Mahila P.S. Case No.42 of 2014. She recorded the re-statement of the prosecutrix, thereafter proceeded for inspection of place of occurrence on 21.09.2014. The place of occurrence is the house of accused, Manvir, situated at village made of bricks roofed with karkats comprising of three rooms. In the middle room of this house, the prosecutrix was raped by the accused. She recorded the re-statement of the prosecutrix, thereafter proceeded for inspection of place of occurrence on 21.09.2014. The place of occurrence is the house of accused, Manvir, situated at village made of bricks roofed with karkats comprising of three rooms. In the middle room of this house, the prosecutrix was raped by the accused. She has also described the boundary of the place of occurrence. In course of investigation, she has also recorded the statement of witnesses, Binita Oraon, Rati Bhagat, Lali Oraon, Jeeta Oraon, Sunil Oraon and Parvati Oraon etc. She also got medical examination of the prosecutrix and got her statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C by the competent magistrate. She received the medical reports and arrested the accused person and recorded his defence statement and finding sufficient evidence against the accused submitted charge-sheet No.16 of 2016 dated 30.03.2016. She has proved formal FIR as Ext.4, the endorsement of written report of the victim as Ext.2/1. After finding sufficient evidence against the accused, Manvir Oraon, she submitted charge-sheet for offences under sections 376/313 of IPC. In her cross-examination, she has also admitted that the place of occurrence was identified by the prosecutrix, who was accompanied with her at the time of inspection at the place of occurrence. She has not interrogated with the village mukhiya, ward parshad or other prominent members of the village. There is nothing else in her cross-examination. She has denied the suggestion of the defence that her investigation is defective and without collecting any concrete evidence, she submitted charge-sheet against the accused person. 15. On the other hand, as per statement of under section 313 of Cr.P.C, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication and plea of innocence. As per suggestion extended to the defence witnesses, further plea of defence is that he has falsely been implicated in this case for the purpose of trapping him with a view to get marriage with the victim because he is in job of Indian Army. 16. Apart from above defence plea, the accused has examined following witnesses:- D.W.1- Prakash Nath Oraon is Ex- Village Pradhan of village Bijwali. According to him on 16.04.2016, a panchayat was held and deed was prepared on stamp paper and duly typed, which bears signatures and sealed and marked as Ext.A. This paper bears the signatures of several villagers. 16. Apart from above defence plea, the accused has examined following witnesses:- D.W.1- Prakash Nath Oraon is Ex- Village Pradhan of village Bijwali. According to him on 16.04.2016, a panchayat was held and deed was prepared on stamp paper and duly typed, which bears signatures and sealed and marked as Ext.A. This paper bears the signatures of several villagers. He further deposed in the light of above village panchayat, several villagers signed on a representation concerning false implication of the accused, Manvir Oraon by the prosecutrix in a case of rape, which was submitted to S.P., Lohardaga. The photocopy of said representation is marked as Ext.X. In his cross-examination, he admits that he has never received any complaint in the village panchayat regarding this occurrence and denied the suggestion of prosecution that in order to save the accused, he has prepared and created some documents afterthought. D.W.2-Shiv Charan Oraon was a ward member in the year 2016 of village-Bijwali. According to him on Thursday, a panchayat was convened in the village in respect of dispute between accused, Manvir Oraon and the prosecutrix but no decision could be taken. The deed was prepared on stamp paper, which was also signed by him and marked as Ext.A/1. There is nothing regarding occurrence in the evidence of this witness. D.W.3-Janki Oraon was also present in the meeting of panchayat. According to her in the village panchayat, the prosecutrix stated about love-affair with the accused, Manvir Oraon and also expressed her desire to perform marriage with him but the said proposal was not accepted by him, then this case was lodged. She has also proved the signature on panchayat paper marked as A/1. D.W.4- Bina Oraon was also a member of panchayat held in between, accused Manvir Oraon and the prosecutrix. She stated that in the panchayat, the prosecutrix told that she has falsely implicated the accused in this case. In her cross-examination, she has failed to state the date of panchayati and also admits that the accused is her nephew in village relation. 17. She stated that in the panchayat, the prosecutrix told that she has falsely implicated the accused in this case. In her cross-examination, she has failed to state the date of panchayati and also admits that the accused is her nephew in village relation. 17. We have given anxious consideration to overall aspects of the case in the light of consistent and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is no doubt that the prosecutrix was a major girl at the time of occurrence and also a literate lady and admittedly, she left her study after B.A. part-I. The unrebutted testimony of prosecutrix-cum-victim girl depicts in clear terms her tragic love story with the present appellant. Admittedly, she developed friendship with the appellant in the beginning of year, 2013. Since, the appellant was already working in Indian Army, therefore, they were under talking terms on mobile phones with each other. The appellant promised with the prosecutrix to solemnize marriage with her and under influence of that promise induced her to indulge in sexual relationship. Accordingly, on the strength of promise of the appellant to solemnize marriage, she consented herself for sexual indulgence with the appellant and in that course, the prosecutrix became pregnant and while she was carrying pregnancy of two months, she disclosed the above fact to the appellant and insisted upon to solemnize marriage but she was advised to abort the child because it would not be appropriate to give birth a child prior to marriage. The prosecutrix has also proved that on 18th May, 2014, she was administered some medicines by the appellant, which caused her abortion. The second phase of the occurrence again took place in month of September on 10.09.2014, when the prosecutrix was called upon through telephonic call at the house of the appellant and she was subjected to rape thrice over the night and when her family members were searching of her then she was released by the appellant and came to her home. The appellant flatly denied to solemnize marriage with the prosecutrix in the panchayati, which has also been admitted by the defence witness, Janki Oraon(D.W.3). The medical examination report of the prosecutrix (Ext.1) also shows previous abortion and habituated to sexual intercourse. Since, she was examined after 10 days of the alleged occurrence of rape on 10.09.2014, but no recent sign of rape was found. 18. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix (Ext.1) also shows previous abortion and habituated to sexual intercourse. Since, she was examined after 10 days of the alleged occurrence of rape on 10.09.2014, but no recent sign of rape was found. 18. The defence has not been able to discredit the evidence of the prosecutrix in her cross-examination in any manner or to reflect her ulterior motive to falsely implicate the appellant on the basis of concocted story. The defence has simply examined the prominent persons of village panchayat and also got a written representation from the villagers, which was also allegedly submitted before Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga, which appears to be post facto endeavor on the part of the appellant to wash out the genuine case of the prosecutrix. Admittedly, the representation letter (Ext.X) dated 16.04.2016 was prepared after institution of the case and also after submission of the charge-sheet in this case dated 30.03.2016. Therefore, the defence version regarding bald plea that since the appellant was in service of Indian Army and having handsome job, therefore, the prosecutrix taking advantage of his position, she was pressurizing him for marriage and lodged this false case, cannot be entertained through any stretch of imagination. 19. The defence has flatly denied any love relationship or sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the promise of marriage but miserably failed to rebut the prosecution case as relied upon by the prosecutrix. The appellant although was in the service of Indian Army since 2009 but he has not denied that he was not in talking terms with the prosecutrix. The concoction of the defence story regarding flat denial from any incident or any relationship with the prosecutrix started taking color after submission of charge-sheet in this case against the appellant. He never raised any prompt objection at the time of the institution of FIR till the submission of the charge-sheet. The defence witnesses examined by the appellant are his henchmen, but failed to prove the defence taken by the appellant. 20. This is yet another case where a woman has been put under temptation of marriage and consequential outrage of her modesty and the very precious right of privacy and bodily integrity. The intention of the appellant from the very inception appears to be fraudulent and actuated with a motive to satisfy his own sexual lust and leave the victim at her own fate. The intention of the appellant from the very inception appears to be fraudulent and actuated with a motive to satisfy his own sexual lust and leave the victim at her own fate. Hence, such type of emotional blackmailing requires to be dealt with iron hands. In the instant case, both the prosecutrix and the appellant belong to tribal community and of same caste, therefore, there was no impediment in solemnizing marriage with each other. 21. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Naushad (2013) 16 SCC 651 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “as per Section 375 Secondly IPC sexual intercourse by a man with a woman without her consent will constitute the offence of rape. In view of Section 90 of IPC if consent is given by the prosecutrix under a misconception of fact, it is vitiated. In the present case, the accused had sexually intercourse with the prosecutrix by giving false assurance to the prosecutrix that he would marry her. After she got pregnant, he refused to do so. From this, it is evident that he never intended to marry her and procured her consent only for the reason of having sexual relations with her, which act of the accused falls squarely under the definition of rape as he had sexually intercourse with her which was obtained under a misconception of fact as defined under Section 90 of IPC. Thus, the alleged consent said to have obtained by the accused was not voluntary consent and the accused indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix by misconstruing to her his true intentions. It is apparent from the evidence that the accused only wanted to indulge in sexual intercourse with her and was under no intention of actually marrying the prosecutrix. He made a false promise to her and he never aimed to marry her. He is thus guilty of rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC and is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. The trial court was absolutely correct in appreciating the evidence on record and convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence of rape. The High Court has gravely erred in fact and in law by reversing the conviction of the accused for the offence of rape. The trial court was absolutely correct in appreciating the evidence on record and convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence of rape. The High Court has gravely erred in fact and in law by reversing the conviction of the accused for the offence of rape. Therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court deserve to be upheld by reversing the judgment and order of the High Court.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that “The trial court was correct in awarding the maximum sentence of life imprisonment to the accused as he has committed a breach of the trust that the prosecutrix had in him, especially due to the fact that they were related to each other. He thus invaded her person, by indulging in sexual intercourse with her, in order to appease his lust, all the time knowing that he would not marry her. He committed an act of brazen fraud leading her to believe that he would marry her. The woman’s body is not a man’s plaything and he cannot take advantage of it in order to satisfy his lust and desires by fooling a woman into consenting to sexual intercourse simply because he wants to indulge in it. The accused in this case has committed the vile act of rape and deserves to be suitably punished for it.” 22. We have also gone through the reported judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand (2020) 10 SCC 108 and find that the facts and circumstances of this case are absolutely different from the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus not applicable and not helpful for the purpose of deciding the issues involved in the present case. 23. In the instant case, the appellant has been sentenced with moderate, sentence of R.I. for 10 years, no appeal has been filed by the prosecution or any revision by the prosecutrix for enhancement of sentence and awarding adequate sentence to the appellant. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial court. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we do not find any error of law in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant and no merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed. 25. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial court. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, we do not find any error of law in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant and no merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed. 25. The order of suspension of sentence of the appellant vide order dated 20.04.2022 is, hereby cancelled. The appellant is on bail and his bail bond is also cancelled. 26. The appellant is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within a period of two months from the date of this judgment to sustain the remaining period of sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court. The period of imprisonment already undergone by him during trial shall be set off from the sustentative period of sentence, failing which, the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellant to sustain the sentence awarded to him. 27. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.