Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 29 of 1997. (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 269 of 1995) ------------ CHHUTI RAI @ CHHATHU RAI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS SON OF SAKALDEO RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEORIA, P.O. & P.S. DEORIA, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR ------- APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PUSHPA KUMARI, DAUGHTER OF SHANKAR BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – DEORIA, P.S. DEORIA, DISTT. MUZAFFARPUR. ------- RESPONDENS. ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Purushottam Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, A.P.P. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Sessions Trial No. 269 of 1995 by a Judgment dated 6.12.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the victim is that on 3.10.1994 when she had gone to cut grass in the Chaur (Field) and was returning from there in the evening, the Appellant caught her and felled her on the ground and committed rape upon her. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-7 is the Doctor and PW-8 is the Investigating Officer. PW-4 is the victim herself whereas PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 are relatives of the Informant and hear-say witnesses. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.29 of 1997 dt.11-07-2011 2 4. During trial, PW-4 who was merely eight years of age, fully supported the fact that the Appellant had waylaid her when she was returning from cutting grass and had thrown her on the ground and committed rape upon her. The Doctor (PW-7) also found corroborative injuries on the person of the victim. 5. The hear-say witnesses, even though, family members but naturally so have also, fully supported the version given by the victim, both in the First Information Report as well as during trial and, therefore, finding no scope for interference in the conviction of the Appellant, the Appeal is dismissed. 6. However, considering that the Appellant has remained in custody for about four years seven months and the fact that the occurrence took place 17 years ago, the period of sentence is reduced to one that he has already undergone during trial. 7. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 11th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.