\‘k 3am, m, W3? mm m 200 mm (W) :g '7 £9 XI-HC—78 WW,W,W Wm 1:1 2w mum (13W) WWW ‘ mmm L mmiwm ‘ émifatim 3 ammm x 2. Allegation against the present appellant is that he committed rape with the prosecutrix on 26. 10.1980 at about 3.00 p.m. in Village Tondapal. As per case 0f the prosecution the prosecutrix and his sister'Lakhmi (PW-4) were going to village B[ade Bodal from their parental home at Village” Chhindbahar to t her husband and the accused followed them. When they reached near‘forest of Tondpal, the accused ran towards Lakhmi with axe, as a result of which she got frightened and ran away. Thereafter, the accused caught the proSecutriX, raped her and ran awayfrom there. The incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her sister“ Lakhmi and also to her husband Fagnu (PW—3). The Villagers convened Panchayat in the village twice, however, the accused had absconded. Thereafter, a report of EXP/1 was lodged on 4.11.1980. After completing investigation charge sheet was filed in the year 1980 in the absence of the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur showing the accused absconding. The appellant was arrested only after 21 years of the incident on 17.10.2001 and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bastar for trial. t.» \ i 3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses and after recording statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing counsel for the respective parties, the accused/appellant was con‘i’icted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgmen; XI-HC—78 mW,m—<§,W ‘WWW WWWIWW #Wm 4. Learned counsel for inordinate delay of nine days is no explanation for the sar is not corroborated by the examined the prosecutrix d uf injury over the person of tk been convicted only on the £ the prosecutrix and her relat 5. On ‘ the other h: State/ respondent supports i 6. I have heard learned perused the material availa judgment. 7. Conviction. of the app the prosecutrix, Poyami L and Fagnu (PW-3) husband of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has stated before the Cour that Lakhmi is her younger sister. On the date of incident shv along With a child in her lap and younger sister Lakhmi we e passing through the forest near Tondpal and the accused w :he appellant submits that there is t in lodging the report, however, there ne. The statement of the prosecutrix medical evidence as the doctor Who id not find any external or internal e prosecutrix and the appellant has basis of uncorroborated testimony of IVES. WW m 2m; Wm (13W) ind, learned counsel for the mpugned judgment of the trial Court. counsel for both the parties and ale on record as also the impugned :llant is based on the statements of hmi (PW—4) sister of the prosecutrix following them. All of a sudden the accused came before her and caught her, her sister being frightened ran away from th re and thereafter the accused rapped her after taking out her cl thes and fled from there. She met XI-HC—78 EW,W,W mm 1n 200 mam (W) mmw a?“ WW§§Q§W mmm ’mrww Lakhmi on way and narre ted the incident and thereafter she narrated about the incid to her husband Fagnu. They also narrated the incident to fat er of the accused Mana. Panchayat was convened in the villag twice, however, the accused did not participate in the Panchay t. She narrated the incident in the u f Panchayat also and thereaf er report of EX.P/ 1 was lodged in the police station. In the cros —examination this witness has stated that as the accused had thr atened her sister with axe, therefore, ‘she ran ‘away from the .‘ However, she has denied the suggestion that since her ster had seen her talking with the accused, she lodged a false eport against the accused. 8. PW—3 Fagnu, husban of the prosecutrix has also stated that her wife informed hi that Boti rapped her while she was passing though the forest h her sister Lakhmi. PW-4 Poyami Lakhmi, sister of the prosec trix, has also stated that on the date of the incident she was p ssing through forest with her sister when the accused caught er sister. The accused was carrying axe, therefore, she got frigh ned. Suggestion of the defence that her sister had relations wit the accused since before has been denied by this witness. e has stuck to her statement in examination-in—chief that th accused forcibly dragged her sister. 9. It is- true that Dr. ( mt.) Manorama Tiwari (PW—5) has examined the prosecutrix o 4.11.1980 and did not notice any external or internal injury over her person and she has also g mm e r i m ‘t h XI-HC—78 mm,m,m Wm v1 2% mvm (W; WWW WWW WWW Witwaifg‘z'km s, $3imm observed that there is np Sign of forcible rape. However, considering the fact that the prosecutrix was examined after 10 days of the incident, abse 1ce of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix looses its signi nce. The defence has not been able to elicit anything in cro s—examination of ”the above three ‘fWitnesses, which mak their evidence unreliable or untrustworthy. Therefor , in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has n t committed any illegality or infirmity in placing‘reliance on the v rsion given by the prosecutriX, which is duly corroborated by the statements of PW—3 Fagnu and PW—4‘ Poyami Lakhmi. 10. So far as delay of nine days in lodging the report is concerned, the witnesses have stated that after the incident Panchayat was convened n the village and the accused was called in the Panchayat, ho ever, since he had absconded,.he did not participate ‘in the P nchayat proceedings and in these circumstances, the report as lodged after nine days. Moreover, conduct of the accused t after the incident he remained absconding from the villag and could be arrested only after 21 years, is an additional circ tance which lends credibility to the statements of the above wit esses. 11. For. the foregoing rea ons, this Court is of the opinion that conviction of the appellant nder Section 376(1) of the IPCw e f a a s w"... ‘ XI—HC—78 Wm w 299 anawm (W) mmm‘ WWWifgém r mwm ammm‘ %§$ifcm3n%¥r L trial Court is based on relia ale cvidence available on record and the same does not call for int erference. 12. Learned counsel for athe appellant submits that the appellant is in jail since l7.10.2001 and as such, has already completed almost six years cf jail sentence. He is a 63 years old . a rnan.»and is a poor tribal, therefore, his sentences may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. ' A 1 13. Taking into considerati 3n the fact that the appellant is a 63 years old person and also considering his financial background, l this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would serve if 1 conviction of the appellant is maintained and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period already undergone by him in place of R.I. of seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/—. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 376(1) of ’the IPC, in place of the senience imposed on him by the trail Court he is sentenced to the pleriod already undergone by him. He be set at liberty forthwith if nct required in any other case M“,