The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and trustworthy testimony, corroborated by other evidence, to support a conviction for rape.

JUDGMENT

Birendra Kumar, J. - The sole appellant-Sanjit Kumar faced trial in connection with Arwal (Mahila) P.S.Case No.26 of 2015 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.324 of 2016 for the charge under Section 376 I.P.C. before learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad. The appellant was found guilty for the aforesaid offence and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.30,000/- would go to the victim. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of 6 months was awarded. The aforesaid judgment of conviction dated 14.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 17.02.2017 are under challenge in this appeal.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report of the victim girl is that on 22.10.2015, the victim was sleeping in her house. At about 5.00 A.M. the appellant entered into the house and ravished her. The victim made alarm and the appellant fled away. Mother of the victim saw the appellant fleeing.

3. On the basis of written report (Ext.1), the aforesaid P.S.Case was registered and after investigation, the police submitted chargesheet. During investigation, statement of the victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28.10.2015 wherein she stated that on 22.10.2015, she was sleeping in her house alongwith mother. At about 5.00 A.M. mother went to answer the call of nature towards field side. At the same time, the appellant came and ravished her. Till the mother returned, the appellant had fled away and the victim disclosed everything to her mother. Villagers came to her house, and a Panchayati was convened but the appellant fled away. She stated that the appellant is her cousin uncle in the Army and at the time of occurrence he had come to the village on leave. Ext.-2 is the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W.1-the victim girl consistently supported the allegation levelled against the appellant in the FIR as well as in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The cross-examination of the witness does not create any doubt on the trustworthiness of the witness. However, some facts brought on the record at the time of cross-examination of this witness would be necessary to be noticed. The victim stated that during occurrence some sperm fall on her cloths, however she had taken a bath. She further admitted that no blood had come from her private parts though sign of assault was there. She specifically admitted that no sign of offence was there on the bed. The Investigating Officer (P.W.5) has stated that he did not find any notable material at the bed of the victim. P.W.2- Permanand Singh deposed that on the date of occurrence he heard that the victim was ravished by the appellant. Since the appellant did not attend the panchayati, no decision could be taken. P.W.3- Usha Devi is mother of the victim girl. She deposed that the victim disclosed about the occurrence to her and she had herself seen the appellant fleeing from the house. The victim had also stated that she had disclosed to her mother about the occurrence. To that extent the prosecution evidence finds corroboration. P.W.3 stated that on the date of occurrence she was sleeping alongwith the victim. At about 5.00 A.M. she went towards the field side to ease herself after shutting the flanks of the door of the house. During cross-examination the witness is specific that no male member of the family was there in the house, as the husband was at Patna and the son had gone to visit Dussehra fair. In the cross-examination the witness is specific that panchayati was not for imposing any fine on the appellant or for arranging marriage between the appellant and the victim, as the marriage between the two was not possible. Rather Panchayati was called for making everyone aware about what had happened with her daughter. P.W.4-Chandeshwari Devi is neighbour of the victim. She has deposed that sh