The main legal point established in the judgment is the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 376 IPC based on the prosecution's evidence and the modification of the sentence considering the appellant's age.

Dharnidhar Jha, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 24th February, 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Madhubani in S.T. No. 33 of 2001 by which he found the Appellant guilty of committing offence under Section 376 IPC. The learned trial judge heard the Appellant on sentence on 28th February, 2005 and directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

2. The prosecution case is contained in the petition of complaint bearing number 319 of 2000 which was sent to the police station concerned under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. Accordingly, Bisphi P.S. Case No. 56 of 2000 was registered. The case was investigated into by P.W. 9 ASI Nathuni Jha, who examined the witnesses and made over the charge to the Officer Incharge on account of transfer and it appears that the accused was sent up for trial.

3. It further appears that during the course of investigation, a Board of doctors was constituted and the Board examined the lady on 20th September, 2000 and prepared the report (Ext.4). The report is not of much relevance except that it was recording a finding that the lady prosecutrix (P.W. 4) was having a child of four months in her lap.

4. The prosecution story, in gist, was that while the lady was out in the orchard, the Appellant attempted to allure her so as to have sex with her by promising to pay Rs. 50/- to her, which was declined, where after he put her down on the ground and ravished her. She stated that she was threatened not to make the fact public, else she will be killed. On account of being raped the lady conceived and thereafter she pointed out the above facts to her father-in-law, who convened a panchayati on 1.4.2000 and lastly, the villagers directed the Appellant to keep the lady as his mistress but he refused, where after, the complaint petition was filed.

5. The lady complainant was examined as P.W. 4 and she supported the allegations verbatim. Other witnesses, who were examined, like, P.W. 1 Birju Sadai, P.W. 2 Sukhdeo Sadai, P.W. 3 Bala Sadai and P.W. 5 Ram Bilas Sadai and others, all stated on the fact that the lady P.W. 6 was ravished by this Appellant, which was brought into their notice and they convened a Panchayati where it was decided that the Appellant should keep the lady as his wife but he refused. Thus, there is a consistency and a ring of truth as regards the prosecution story. It is true that the case was lodged quite belatedly, but the Court finds no reason for discarding the whole story on that account because there is good and strong reason assigned on that behalf. It was pointed out that the lady was not divulging the fact on account of being frightened. It might not be true, but, the other part of truth could be that in order to save her married life she might have chosen to remain silent on the atrocious act. However, on the date of examination by the board of doctors the lady was found carrying a child of four months in her lap. The board has noted that there being no facility in Madhubani Sadar hospital for carrying out paternity test, they could not do it.

6. After having gone through the evidence which was produced by the prosecution during trial, I find that the learned judge who passed judgment of conviction upon the Appellant and directed him to suffer R.I. for ten years under Section 376 IPC, was making a right approach in reading the evidence. His conclusion appears quite probable on the basis of the materials which were available to him from evidence.

7. In the result, the appeal appears of no merit.

8. It is contended at this stage that the Appellant was aged about 65 years on the date of judgment and he still continues in custody. Considering the age of the Appellant, the Court is inclined to direct his release treating the period he has suffered so long in imprisonment as the sentence inflicted by this Court upon him by modifying the order of sentence which was passed by the lear