Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 1997 ****** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.1997 respectively passed by Shri Kamla Prasad, learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 678 of 1995. ****** Sadanand Muni, Son of Gararo Muni, resident of village – Bela Champawati, Police Station – Sarsi, District – Purnia. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellant : Mrs. Prativa Kumari, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Mrs. Prativa Kumari, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court. 2. Heard learned amicus curiae and learned counsel for the State. 3. The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 4. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant is that on the last Thursday she went to the field of agricultural land of Mulhai Bhagat for plucking Sag and at about 4 P.M. Sada Nand Muni came and asked permission for sexual intercourse and when the informant abused then Sada Nand Muni caught hold of her hand and took her in the filed of Patuwa and 2 rapped her after putting cloths in her mouth and after committing rape asked her to go out and if she will disclose to anyone then she would be killed. The victim came and informed in the village of Marar Shyamdeo Muni. He called Sada Nand Muni but Sada Nand Muni did not come, thereafter she came to the house, took her bath, washed the clothes and as it was evening she could not go to the police station. On the next day she went to the police station and reported the matter. The fardbeyan was recorded on 28.07.1995 at 12:10 hours and on the basis of which First Information Report was lodged with regard to the occurrence dated 27.07.1995 at 4:00 P.M. After cognizance, during the trial, however, seven witnesses were examined. Except the doctor and the I.O. however, witnesses 1 to 6 either tendered or declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case and the only evidence is of the prosecutrix P.W. 7 who has supported the prosecution case that at 4:00 P.M. she went to pluck Sag in the field of Mulhai Bhagat then Sada Nand Muni came caught hold of her, took her in the Patuwa filed and rapped her and then she came there and reported to Shyamdeo Muni about the occurrence. She has stated that her husband is at Punjab and disclosed about the occurrence to Rameshwar Muni, Ashok Muni etc. and she went to them even prior to Panchayati and she reported the matter to the police station where the statement was recorded and he gave her thumb impression. However, there is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve her. The defence has also adduced evidence of D.W. 1 and it is alleged that there was dispute with 3 regard to the she goat and Sada Nand Muni had taken to said she goat and so the false case has been instituted. 5. However, the trial court taking into consideration the evidence and disbelieving the case of the defence about the rape held that the non- examination of the doctor and I.O. is not relevant and the prosecution story cannot be disbelieved nor the accused has been shown any prejudice for non- examination of the I.O. and doctor. 6. The learned amicus curiae, however, contended that the only evidence in the case of the prosecutrix and there is no corroboration either of medical evidence or any other evidence to support the prosecution case. It is true that except the evidence of prosecutrix there is nothing either to support the prosecution case or to corroborate the evidence of the accused. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspire confidence and there is nothing in her evidence to disbelieve the prosecution story then there is no reason to reject the evidence of the prosecutrix particularly in a case of rape. It is pertinent to mention that in our traditional society no women would like to report about the occurrence of rape or any occurrence or allegation as such which touches the chastity of a woman as there is possibility of losing love and affection of their near and dear and particularly the husband and other member of the society and hence in such circumstance if such allegation has been made then it is not proper to disbelieve it merely because there is no corroboration to support 4 the prosecution case. However, it is true that if the evidence of the prosecutrix suffered from any defects or irregularities or infirmities then in such case the evidence of prosecutrix may be disbelieved or asked for corroboration. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances that since there is nothing to disbelieve and doubt and if the evidence of the prosecutrix stands without any defects or infirmities, there is no reason to accept the evidence of prosecutrix. Hence, having regard, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and I find and hold that the prosecution has proved itself. However, taking into consideration the fact that the occurrence is of the year 1995 and more than 15 years have already been elapsed. The appellant has remained in jail for more than three years and hence, under the facts and circumstances, the interest of justice shall meet by sentencing the appellant for the period already undergone and hence the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. 7. Mrs. Prativa Kumari, shall be supplied a copy of this judgment and she shall be entitled for the fee of hearing payable by High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 30th August, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.