2026: JHHC:8116 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 808 of 2005 Raju alias Rajendra Nath Ghosh son of Narayan Chandra Ghosh, resident of Village- Senul Kunda, P.S.- Kundhit, District- Jamtara … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Krishna Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Chanchal Chhaya, Advocate : Mr. Apurv Krishna, Advocate : Mr. Divyansh Krishna, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, APP For the Informant : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Advocate --- 12/23.03.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.03.2005 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.13 of 2004 / 15 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 376 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years for the charge under Section 376 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 01 year for the charge under Section 379 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period undergone by the appellant in jail custody was directed to be set off from the period of sentence awarded to him. 3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Informant- Victim, aged about 20 years, recorded on 23.04.2003 at about 02:30 PM alleging that on 23.04.2003 at about 06:30 AM, she had gone to ease towards west of Lokpur pond and when she was returning, she was caught hold by the appellant, who is her co-villager and forcibly took her to a ditch adjacent to the pond and pushed her on the ground causing injuries on her both elbows and after gagging her mouth with a portion of her saree, the appellant committed rape upon her. After the occurrence, the appellant removed the golden earrings worth 2026: JHHC:8116 2 Rs.3,000/- from her ears and left her. On raising alarm, Shricharan Ghoroi of her village came there rushing and he saw the appellant running away. She further said that she was carrying pregnancy of 07 months at the time of the occurrence and her husband had gone to her parental house. Thereafter, she alongwith her father-in-law, mother- in-law and one co-villager namely, Priyatosh Ghoroi went to the police station and reported the occurrence to the police. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the case was registered as Kundhit P.S. Case No.20/2003 dated 23.04.2003 against the appellant. 4. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet No.26/2003 dated 30.05.2003 under Section 376 and 379 of IPC against the appellant and accordingly, cognizance was taken in the case and on 22.01.2004, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. 5. Thereafter, charge under Sections 376 and 379 of IPC were framed against the appellant which were read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09 witnesses to prove the charges against the appellant. PW-1 is Sri Charan Ghoroi, PW-2 is father-in-law of the Victim, PW-3 is the mother-in-law of the Victim, PW-4 is Shashipado Ghoroi, PW-5 is Dashrath Ghoroi, PW-6 is the Informant-Victim herself, PW-7 is Dr. Pushpalata Tudu, PW-8 is Birendra Kumar and PW-9 is Bisheswar Marandi. 7. The prosecution exhibited the signature of Shashipado Ghoroi on the seizure list as Exhibit-1, Signature of Dashrath Ghoroi on the seizure list as Exhibit-1/a, signature of the Informant-Victim on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-1/b, signature of Priyatosh Ghoroi on the fard- beyan as Exhibit-1/c, Medical Report of the Victim as Exhibit-2, the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-3 and the seizure list as Exhibit-4. 8. PW-1 Sri Charan Ghoroi in his examination-in-chief deposed that the occurrence took place on 9th of Baishakh at 06:00 AM. He was in his Khalihan and the victim was raising alarm. When he rushed there, he saw the appellant running away on seeing him. Thereafter, 2026: JHHC:8116 3 the victim told him that after gagging her mouth with cloth, the appellant took away her golden earrings from her ear and pushed her. He tried to catch the appellant, but he could not catch him and thereafter, he took the victim to her house. He identified the appellant in court. During cross-examination, he admitted that when he rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing alarm, no other person had come there. 9. PW-2 is the father-in-law of the Victim. In his examination-in- chief, he deposed that the occurrence took place one year ago at 05:00 AM., when the victim had gone to ease in Lokpur Dova and she came weeping. The victim had told him that the appellant had assaulted her and had committed rape upon her and had taken away her golden earrings from her ear. Thereafter, he alongwith Shakti Ghoroi, Sri Caran Ghoroi and his wife went to the police station alongwith the victim and the statement of the victim was recorded by the officer-in- charge and her signature was taken on the fardbeyan. Dashrath and Priya tosh had also put their signature on the fard-beyan. He identified the appellant in court. During cross-examination, he admitted that the victim had not told him anything, rather the victim had told the occurrence to his wife. 10. PW-3 is the mother-in-law of the Victim. In her examination- in-chief, she deposed that the occurrence took place one year ago in the morning and she was in her house. The victim had gone to ease at Lokpur Dova and she returned the house weeping. On enquiry, the victim told her that while she was returning, the appellant came and caught hold her and forcibly pushed her in the ditch and after gagging her mouth with clothes, he committed rape upon her and also took away her golden earrings and on seeing Charan Ghoroi, the appellant fled away. She further deposed that on the date of occurrence, his son had gone out of the village and when he returned, she narrated the occurrence to him and also to the villagers. She further deposed that she had gone to the police station alongwith the victim and the fardbeyan of the victim was recorded in her presence which was read over to her and finding the same correct, the victim had signed on the 2026: JHHC:8116 4 fardbeyan. Thereafter, the victim was sent to Dumka Hospital for medical examination. She identified the appellant in court. During cross-examination, she admitted that there was no injury on the private part of the victim and sperm was found in her petticoat and the saree and petticoat were handed over to the police and the sperm was also shown to the police. 11. PW-4 Shashipado Ghoroi is a co-villager of the Informant- Victim and a witness to the seizure list. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the occurrence took place about 14 months ago in the morning and he was at his house. The father-in-law of the victim had called him to his house. Thereafter, the mother-in-law of the victim had told him that the victim had gone to ease at Lokpur Dova and when she was returning after ease, the appellant committed rape upon her after gagging cloth in her mouth and also took away her golden earring from her ear. Thereafter, he had gone to the police station alongwith the victim and her father-in-law. The saree and petticoat were handed over to the police and a seizure list was prepared. He exhibited his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1. During cross- examination, he admitted that his statement was recorded by the police, but he had not informed the police that the mother-in-law of the victim had told him about the occurrence. 12. PW-5 Dashrath Ghoroi is a witness to the seizure list. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the occurrence took place one year ago in the morning and he was at his house. The father-in-law of the victim had called him to his house. When he went to his house, the mother-in-law of the victim had told him that the appellant committed rape upon her when she was returning after ease and her golden earring was also not found. Thereafter, he had gone to the police station alongwith the victim and her father-in-law. The saree and petticoat were handed over to the police and a production-cum-seizure list was prepared. He exhibited his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1/a. During cross-examination, he admitted that his statement was not recorded by the police and he deposed in court for the first time. 2026: JHHC:8116 5 13. PW-6 is the Informant-Victim herself. In her examination-in- chief, she deposed that the occurrence took place one year two months ago on 9th date, Wednesday at 06:00 AM. She had gone to Lokpur dova for ease and when she was returning, the appellant pushed her on the ditch, climbed over her chest and forcibly committed rape upon her and made her naked completely. When she tried to raise alarm, the appellant gagged cloth in her mouth. After committing rape, the appellant snatched away her golden earring. On raising alarm, Sri Charan Ghoroi came there rushing and saw the appellant fleeing away. She further deposed that she was carrying pregnancy for 07 months and at the time of the incident, her husband had gone to her parental house. After returning home, she told about the occurrence to her mother-in-law and her mother-in-law told the same to her father- in-law and other persons of the village. Thereafter, she went to the police station and her fardbeyan was recorded. She exhibited her signature on the fardbeyan as Exhibit-1/b and the signature of Priyatosh Ghoroi on the fardbeyan was marked as Exhibit-1/c. She identified the appellant in court. During cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know the appellant before the occurrence and she had scratched the body of the appellant when he had climbed over her chest. She further admitted that when rape was being committed upon her, Sri Charan had reached there and on seeing him, the appellant fled away. The appellant had snatched away her earring. Sri Charan had chased the appellant. 14. PW-7 Dr. Pushpalata Tudu is the doctor who had examined the victim. She exhibited the Medical Examination Report of the Victim as Exhibit-2. During cross-examination, she admitted that ultrasonography report is not attached with her report. 15. PW-8 Birendra Kumar is a formal witness. He produced the material exhibits (clothes) in a packed packet, which was seized in connection with the case. During cross-examination, he admitted that the packet does not bear seal. 16. PW-9 Bisheswar Marandi is also a formal witness. He exhibited the formal FIR as Exhibit-3 and the seizure list as Exhibit-4. He 2026: JHHC:8116 6 further deposed that the Investigating Officer of the case namely, Tez Narayan Singh has retired. 17. On 04.03.2005, statements of the appellant were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he simply denied the incriminating evidences put to him and said in his defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Thereafter, the appellant examined 02 witnesses in his defence. DW-1 is Sukhdeo Ghosh and DW-2 is Bharat Ghosh. 18. On appraisal of the evidences placed on record, the learned trial court recorded its findings at Paragraph-23, 25, 27 to 32 and the ultimate findings recorded in paragraph 30 to 32 are as under: - “30. It is proper and desirable to re-capitulate; recondite circumstances emerge from the case in hand. They are these- i. Victim Savitry Ghoroi aged about 20 years is the prosecutrix. As per version of the victim, she had gone to call of nature and while she was returning alone the accused forcibly took-her towards a ditch and after falling her on the ground and after gagging her mouth with the portion of the saree committed rape as a result of which she sustained injury in both her elbow. ii. The doctor has also found the injuries over the back of portion of the elbow joint. iii. The victim came and narrated the story to her father-in-law and mother-in-law. On halla Charan Ghoroi reached at spot and witnessed the accused fleeing-away. iv. The husband of the victim had gone to his matrimonial house and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at about 14.30 hours. The distance from the P.O. and the police station is 20 k.m. The F.I.R. was lodged in a time. 31. The victim and the witnesses have clearly stated that the accused has committed rape with the prosecutrix while she was returning from easing and the victim was held-up by the accused should forcibly took-her towards a ditch and falling her on the ground and after gagging her mouth with the cloth committed rape as a result of which she sustained injury and the accused also took-away golden ring from the ear of the victim. 32. Taking into consideration, the entire facts evidence the submission on behalf of the defence and on behalf of prosecution I am of the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. On the other hand, the defence has failed to establish of false implication.” 2026: JHHC:8116 7 19. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in the eyes of law on account of following reasons: (a) The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined, and consequently, the statement of the witnesses as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C could not be taken care of and the material exhibits including the clothes of the victim have not been exhibited. He has further submitted that in absence of examination of the I.O. of the case, the place of occurrence has also not been proved. (b) He has referred to the evidence of P.W.-1 and submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, P.W.-1 had arrived at the place of occurrence and upon seeing P.W.-1, the appellant had run away from the place of occurrence. He has further submitted that as per the version of P.W.-1, the victim had only told P.W.-1 that the appellant had pushed her and had taken away her earrings. He submitted that in his entire evidence, P.W.-1 has not supported the prosecution case, so far as the incident of rape is concerned. (c) The learned counsel has submitted that the doctor has been examined and fully cross-examined and as per the medical report, there is no material to suggest commission of rape. Injury was only found on the backside of the victim, and therefore, the medical report does not corroborate the commission of rape. (d) The learned counsel further submitted that though the seizure list has been exhibited, but it has not been exhibited by the I.O. of the case and apart from exhibiting the signature on the seizure list, nothing further has been stated by the witness P.W.-9. He has also submitted that the seizure list refers to seizure of clothes of the victim and it is alleged that the semen was found on the petticoat of the victim, but the same was also not sent for any forensic 2026: JHHC:8116 8 examination, and therefore, the presence of semen has also not been proved. (e) The learned counsel has submitted that a panchayati was also held and in a serious case of this nature, there is no question of any panchayati, but ultimately, the victim had not participated in the panchayati. He submitted that even if the evidences are taken on record, at best, the alleged offence is of outraging the modesty of the lady and no case under Section 376 of IPC or even attempt to commit the offence under Section 376 of IPC has been made out. (f) He has relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Cr. Appeal No.264 of 2020 (Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar) (2020) 3 SCC 443 and referred to Paragraph-6 of the said judgement and submitted that when the conviction is primarily based on the evidence of the prosecutrix, then the same has to be carefully examined and it has to be examined as to whether the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality. He submitted that these features in the evidence of the prosecutrix is absent in the present case. The learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 20. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that irrespective of non-examination of the I.O. of the case, the evidence of P.W.-6, who is the informant and also the prosecutrix, remained intact. She has not only supported the commission of the offences of rape and theft of her golden earrings in her examination-in-chief, but also supported the case during her cross- examination and her entire evidence stood intact. She has stated that while the offence was being committed, P.W.-1 arrived and upon seeing P.W.-1, the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the place of occurrence has been duly proved not only by P.W.-6, but also by 2026: JHHC:8116 9 P.W.-1 and therefore, non-examination of the I.O. is not fatal to the prosecution case. 21. The learned counsel has submitted that even if the medical evidence does not find any injury on the private part of the victim, it cannot be said that the offence has not been committed. The offence of rape has to be seen in the light of law. 22. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned trial court found the evidence of victim trustworthy based on material on record and there is no reason to take a different view in the present case. 23. The learned counsel for the Informant-Victim fully adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the State and placed the evidence of P.W.-6 in totality and submitted that once the evidence of P.W.-6 was found to be intact, it is immaterial as to whether P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution case with respect to the commission of rape or not. 24. He has also submitted that upon arrival of P.W.-1 upon hearing alarm, the appellant had run away from the place of occurrence, so P.W.-1 is not an eye witness to the commission of rape upon the victim, rather he had seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence and he rescued the victim and took to her home. He has submitted that upon coming back home, the victim informed the incident to her mother-in-law and father-in-law and they have also been examined in this case, who have supported the prosecution case. The learned counsel also submitted that the victim was more than 07 months pregnant at the time of commission of rape and the offence is a heinous offence. 25. The law is well settled that the evidence of a rape victim is highly reliable even if it is not supported by medical evidence and it has to be examined as to whether her testimony is trustworthy, unblemished, consistent and is of sterling quality. Once the evidence of the victim inspires confidence, the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar -Vs- The State of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443 considered the test as to when conviction can be 2026: JHHC:8116 10 relied upon solitary evidence of the prosecutrix by referring to the previous judgements at Paragraph-5.4.1 onwards as under: 5.4.1. In Raju v. State of M.P. (2008) 15 SCC 133, it is observed and held by this Court in paras 11 and 12 as under: “11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved. It must, further, be borne in mind that the broad principle is that an injured witness was present at the time when the incident happened and that ordinarily such a witness would not tell a lie as to the actual assailants, but there is no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement of such a witness is always correct or without any embellishment or exaggeration. 12. Reference has been made in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 to the amendments in 1983 to Sections 375 and 376 of the Penal Code making the penal provisions relating to rape more stringent, and also to Section 114-A of the Evidence Act with respect to a presumption to be raised with regard to allegations of consensual sex in a case of alleged rape. It is however significant that Sections 113-A and 113-B too were inserted in the Evidence Act by the same amendment by which certain presumptions in cases of abetment of suicide and dowry death have been raised against the accused. These two sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in favour of the prosecution but no similar presumption with respect to rape is visualized as the presumption under Section 114-A is extremely restricted in its applicability. This clearly shows that insofar as allegations of rape are concerned, the evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should, without exception, be taken as the gospel truth. Additionally, her statement can, at best, be adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a person falsely. We believe that it is under these principles that this case, and others such as this one, need to be examined.” 5.4.2. In Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, this Court had an occasion to consider who can be said to be a “sterling witness”. In para 22, it is observed and held as under: “22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, 2026: JHHC:8116 11 therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 5.4.3. In Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is observed and held by this Court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality. 26. After referring to the aforesaid decisions, the Hon’ble supreme court posed a question as to, 2026: JHHC:8116 12 Whether it was safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix? Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality? 27. Further, in the facts of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the inconsistencies in the evidences and also found that there was land dispute between the parties and the judgement of conviction was set-aside. 28. In the present case also, the prosecution is primarily based on the evidence of the prosecutrix (victim) and it has to be considered as to whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality. 29. After going through the records of the case, this Court finds that the Investigating officer of the case has not been examined, as he had retired from service. 30. P.W.-7 is the doctor who had examined the victim. P.W-7 has deposed that on 24.04.2003, he was posted at Sadar Hospital Dumka as Medical Officer of Village- Simulkunda, P.S. Kundahit, District – Jamtara and had found the following: - (i) On external examination, abrasion over back of right elbow joint 2 cm x 1 cm. Injury simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Age of injury within 48 hours. (ii) On internal examination, hymen shows old rapture. No injury over her private part. No foreign hair present. (iii) Vaginal swab was taken and sent to pathology for microscopic examination for presence of spermatozoa. Report was received. Report showed that spermatozoa were not found, dead or alive. (iv) Ultra sonography report of lower abdomen (uterus) showed that the victim was pregnant and carrying 25.2 weeks pregnancy. (v) As far above findings, no definite opinion could be given as to whether the victim was raped or not. 2026: JHHC:8116 13 31. This Court has also gone through the evidence of the Victim who has been examined as P.W.-6 and finds that she has fully supported the prosecution case. She has given the time, place and date of occurrence and she has stated that while she was returning, she was held up by the accused Raju Ghosh, who forcibly took her towards the ditch and pushed her in the ditch and climbed on her body and forcibly removed her clothes, made her naked and committed rape upon her and when she raised the alarm, he gagged her mouth with her saree. P.W.-6 has also stated that P.W.-1, Charan Ghoroi came to the place of occurrence and upon seeing P.W.-1, the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence and thereafter, she narrated the incident to her mother-in-law, who ultimately informed the police and then the F.I.R. was lodged. The victim has also identified the appellant in the court. She has been thoroughly cross-examined and, in her cross-examination also, she has fully supported and reiterated the prosecution case that as soon as P.W.-1 came to the spot, the appellant ran away and the offence was being committed at that point of time by the accused. 32. This Court finds that the evidence of P.W.-1 remained intact with respect to the time, place and the manner of occurrence. She has also stated that she was pushed down and the medical evidence reveal that she had suffered injury on the backside at her elbows. 33. This Court finds that so far as P.W.-1 is concerned, he has stated that he came to the place of occurrence upon hearing alarm and upon his arrival, the accused ran away and the victim told him that the appellant had taken away the golden earrings from her ears. Although P.W.-1 has not stated that the victim told him that the appellant had committed rape on her, the fact remains that P.W.-1 arrived at the place of occurrence upon hearing alarm. He is certainly not an eye witness to the occurrence in view of the fact that upon his arrival, the appellant ran away. However, P.W.-1 has fully proved the time and place of occurrence and he had arrived at the place of occurrence upon alarm raised by the victim. 2026: JHHC:8116 14 34. Two witnesses have been examined by the defence as D.W-1 and D.W-2 to allege false implication on account of previous dispute which allegedly led to convening a panchayati and Rs.500/- fine was imposed upon Sesori Ghorai (P.W. 2) and Charan Ghorai (P.W. 1) and they had allegedly threatened the accused for dire consequences. However, the defence did not file any chit of paper as exhibit with regard to convening of panchayati and imposition of fine. The learned trial court did not accept the allegation of false implication. This Court is also of the considered view that once the accused had taken a plea of false implication on account of imposition of fine by the panchayat and did not produce any document to support this fact, the defence version has been rightly not accepted by the learned trial court and this court is not inclined to take a different view. 35. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that though the conviction is primarily based on the evidence of the victim supported by the nature of injury suffered by her on the backside of her elbows as she was pushed to the ditch by the appellant, the evidence of P.W.-1, who came to the place of occurrence upon hearing alarm raised by the victim and upon seeing P.W.-1, the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence and also the evidence of father-in-law and mother-in-law, who have supported the prosecution case as after the incident, the victim had informed the entire incident to them and her mother-in-law had taken her to the police station. 36. In the present case, this Court finds that no cogent material has been brought on record from the side of the defence to discredit the evidence of the prosecution, nor any material contradiction has been brought by cross-examining the witnesses. As per the medical report, no definite opinion could be given as to whether the victim was raped or not. Although the medical report did not state that rape was committed, but the injury found in the elbow of the victim clearly corroborates the manner of occurrence by which she was pushed to the ground and suffered injury at the backside of her elbow, which has been duly been proved. 2026: JHHC:8116 15 37. This Court also finds that the learned trial court has found the evidence of the victim trustworthy and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade this Court to take a contrary view. 38. Considering the totality of evidences available on record, the evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be trustworthy, unblemished, without any material contradiction and supported by the other materials/attending circumstances placed on record, the judgement of the learned trial court convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 379 of IPC does not call for any interference. 39. So far as the sentence is concerned, admittedly the victim was carrying pregnancy for 07 months at the time of the occurrence and, in such circumstances, the appellant is not entitled for any reduction of his punishment. Otherwise also, there is no scope of reduction of any punishment as the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 376 of IPC at the relevant point of time when the offence was committed was 07 years, which is the punishment imposed upon the appellant. 40. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 41. Bail bonds furnished by the appellant is cancelled. 42. Let the Original Records of the case be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/- Uploaded on 30.03.2026