JUDGMENT
R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Heard.
2. This case has been transferred from Patna. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahato, assisted the Court on behalf of the appellant as Amicus Curiae.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.7.1994, passed in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1983/26 of 1993, by Sri R. Sinha, Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajmahal convicting the appellant and one Bablu Singh under Sections 458, 376/511, IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for 458 and ten years for 376/511, IPC to run concurrently.
4. In support of the Appeal, Mr. Sunil Kumar Mahato, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that it will appear from Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment itself that the First Information Report, Fard-beyan of the informant, the seizure list have not been proved; the medical evidence has not been produced, the Investigating Officer has not been examined and the trial Court observed that the prosecution has badly conducted the case. Mr. Mahato further submitted that there were vital contradictions in the evidences but the same were brushed aside by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that PW 1 (father of the prosecutrix), inter alia, clearly stated that he used to cultivate the lands of the appellant, but left the same prior to the occurrence. It is further stated that his cattle were deposited in ‘Argara’ of the father of the co-accused Bablu Single Mr. Mahato submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the reasoning of the learned trial Court cannot be assailed. The prosecutrix will not lodge a false case at the risk of her own prestige and moreover the appellant was caught at the spot.
6. After hearing the parties and going through the materials on record, I am satisfied that the learned trial Court has considered the materials available on record and has given cogent reasons for arriving at the judgment of conviction. I do not find any reason for false implication. It also cannot be believed that a young girl of 19 years will make such allegation at the risk of her prestige and her family members will support the same. It is true that there is no independent witness but only for that, the evidence of the victim, her brother and father cannot be brushed aside who have supported the case of the prosecution. In the circumstances I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
7. Heard Mr. Mahato, learned Amicus Curiae on the question of sentence. Mr. Mahato submitted that the appellant remained in jail for about one year and the alleged occurrence is of the year 1980 and no useful purpose will be served by sending him again to jail to serve out the sentence.
8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence to the extent of the period already undergone by the appellant. He will be discharged from his bail bonds.