Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.139 OF 1994 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.05.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 436 of 1992. *** FARHAD KHAN @ FARHAT HUSSAIN KHAN son of Sri Md. Hussain Khan, resident of village-Sahdeo Khap, P.S. Magadh University, District- Gaya …Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …Respondent *** For the appellant : Md. Mushtaque Alam, Advocate Md. Raisul Haque, Advocate For the State : Mr. R. B. Roy ‘Raman’, APP *** 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 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by judgment 07.05.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No.436 of 1992 by the Sessions Judge, Gaya. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W.2 (victim), who was aged about four years at the time of occurrence, is that the appellant took her on the fateful day i.e. 13.08.1991 into the field and put her down and thereafter committed rape upon her. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of whom, P.W. 1 is the elder sister of the victim, who has stated that on the date of occurrence while she was busy in serving meal to her father, her sister (victim) went missing from outside. A little while later she came back crying with blood on her frock and she told her about the misdeeds of the appellant. P.W. 3 and 4, who are the parents of the victim, have also narrated likewise that when they found that the victim was missing from the cot where she was sleeping with the brother, they started looking for her and little while later they saw her crying and - 2 - then she told them about the occurrence. P.W. 5 and 6, who are the co-villagers of the informant, have corroborated the victim girl as hearsay witnesses. P.W.2 (the victim) herself has fully supported the prosecution case and it is difficult to disbelieve her testimony just on the ground of her minority. The victim was assessed to be nine years of age on the date of examination and, therefore, around seven years at the time of occurrence. It is not unlikely that the victim would be able to narrate the factum of occurrence as she has done in Court. Moreover, the doctor (P.W.9) also found external injury on the private part of the victim and on x-ray rupture of hymen was found. 4. Under the circumstances, there is no scope for interference in the conviction of the appellant. 5. The defence has examined two witnesses on the point that the appellant had some enmity with P.W.5 Yamuna Yadav. This does not raise any doubt in the manner of occurrence that the victim had been set up by this Yamuna Yadav. 6. However, considering the lapse of time of about 20 years from the date of occurrence, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and the period undergone by him shall be set off in the sentence awarded by this Court. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence. 8. The appellant is directed to surrender before the court below and serve out the remaining part of sentence. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 13th May, 2011 NAFR/ JA/-