Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 776 OF 2007 Against the judgment and order dated 31.07.2007 passed by Sri Nand Kishore Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Jamui in S.Tr. No. 622 of 1996. ************ Muso alias Rajendra Singh, S/o Late Kailash Singh, resident of Village-Rampur Ghosh, Police Station- Sikandara, District-Jamui. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Singh, Adv. : Mr. Anirudh Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-V, Jamui in S.Tr. No. 622 of 1996 by a judgment dated 31.07.2007. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 3, the prosecutrix is that on 22.06.1993 suddenly the appellant came into her house and threw her on the ground and committed rape upon her. P.W. 2 who was her son had seen the occurrence since he was sitting on the verandah on the fateful day. This complaint was instituted on 24.06.1993 which was sent to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. upon which a First Information Report was instituted on 06.08.1993. 3. During trial the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses out of whom P.W. 4 to P.W. 13 have been declared hostile whereas P.W. 14 is a formal police officer who had submitted a charge-sheet. In support of the prosecution 2 case, P.W. 1 is the husband of the prosecutrix and her son have been examined as P.W. 2 whereas the prosecutrix stated that the appellant had entered into her house and switched off the lantern and dhibri when her son protested as to why he was doing it he pushed him and catching hold of the hand of the prosecutrix threw her on the ground whereafter committed rape upon her. On her cries her relatives gathered and then the appellant ran away from there. While fleeing away the prosecutrix was threatened not to institute any case at the police station and they were also threatened but the prosecutrix herself instituted this case in the Court. In her cross-examination a suggestion was put to the prosecutrix that she had filed an affidavit in the Court below stating therein that no rape had been committed and in fact a minor altercation had arisen between the appellant and herself over grazing of cattle but she denied the fact that she had filed any such petition before the Judicial Magistrate. 4. On going through the evidence, I find that her evidence is completely trustworthy. On appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 also I find that there is full corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix and P.W. 1 has stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence on hulla and saw the appellant fleeing away. P.W. 2 has corroborated the fact that the appellant has extinguished the lantern and fallen on his mother and thereafter raped. 5. In view of such categorical evidence against the appellant it is difficult to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. The argument raised on behalf of the appellant 3 that there is no medical evidence of the prosecution and therefore it is fit to be rejected. Admittedly the First Information Report upon which this complaint was instituted only on 06.08.1993 i.e. almost one and half months later and there could not be any possibility of any sign on the prosecutrix after such a long lapse of time and, therefore, the absence of the medical opinion with regard to the objective evidence has no significance. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in view of the fact that the occurrence is of eighteen years ago the sentence is reduced to a period of seven years instead of ten years. 7. With the aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence, the appeal is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 29th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-