Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.57 OF 1995 *** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24th April, 1995, & 27th April, 1995 respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Sessions Trial No.4 of 1992. *** FAZLUR RAHMAN @ FAZLU son of Late Tahir Hussain, resident of Zitbarpur, Police Station-Azamnagar, District- Katihar …Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …Respondent *** For the appellant : Mr. Rama Nand Poddar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, 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 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by judgment dated 24.04.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1992 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.05.1991, P.W.2 (the informant) was allegedly raped by the appellant. On halla, some witnesses arrived, who took her home whereafter the present case was instituted. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of whom, P.W.2 is the victim herself, whereas, P.W. 1 and 3 are eye witnesses. P.W.4, 5, 6 and 9 are hear say witnesses out of whom P.W. 5 and 6 are the parents of the victim. P.W.8 is the doctor, who examined the victim after about five days of the occurrence, whereas, P.W.10 is formal in nature who proved the fard bayan. - 2 - 4. On going through the evidence of the victim, I find that she has fully corroborated the case of prosecution and there is no material discrepancy in her narrative. Eye witnesses P.W. 1 and 3 have also given vivid description as to how P.W. 2 was sexually assaulted by the appellant. The hearsay witnesses, namely, P.W.4, 5, 6 and 9 have also given very truthful depiction of the prosecution case what they had heard from the victim (P.W.2). No doubt, the doctor (P.W.8) had opined that she did not find any external injuries, but I find that doctor had examined the victim after five days after the occurrence and the medical report does not belie the prosecution case. 5. Under the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is upheld. However, it appears that the appellant has remained in custody for more than four years and, therefore, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him during trial. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 13th May, 20011. NAFR/ JA/-