JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The appellant has been convicted Under Sections 376 and 392, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years and R.I. For 2 years respectively and to pay a fine of Rs. 5OO/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month on each count, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently, by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada, in S.T. No. 11/130 of 1993. 2. The victim was a minor girl aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence. She had gone to Shiva Ratri Mela accompanied by her maternal uncle, maternal aunts and others. While her other relations had gone to the temple for the purpose of worship, she was watching 'Pala' alone. After evening, the accused who was known to the victim came there and asked her to accompany him so bring 'Prasad'. On the way, the accused met the parents of the victim and told them that he was taking the victim to bring 'Prasad' which he had brought from Bhubaneswar. On the way, the accused took the victim to a secluded spot, took away a silver chain and a gold nose ornament worn by the victim and thereafter raped her. The victim became unconscious and the accused left the place. After regaining consciousness, the victim came running towards the road, but fell down. Two old people brought her and left her near the cycle stand of the 'Mela'. Thereafter she was taken to the hospital. F.I.R. was recorded on the basis of statement of the father of the victim and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. 3. The plea of the accused was one of denial. It was pleaded that due to enmity between the father of the victim and the accused, a false case had been foisted. 4. The victim was examined as P.W. 5. The doctor who examined her was examined as P.W. 10. P.W. 3 is the father and P.W. 6 is the maternal aunt of the victim. P.W. 1 is the maternal uncle of the victim. P.W. 2 is a co-villager who had accompanied P.W. 1 and also a witness to seizure. P.W. 4 was the doctor who examined the accused on 23.2.1993, about four days after the occurrence. P.W. 7 was a seizure witness who was declared hostile. P.W. 1 is the maternal uncle of the victim. P.W. 2 is a co-villager who had accompanied P.W. 1 and also a witness to seizure. P.W. 4 was the doctor who examined the accused on 23.2.1993, about four days after the occurrence. P.W. 7 was a seizure witness who was declared hostile. P.W. 9 was the doctor who examined the blood group and P.W. 8 was the Radiologist who had taken the X-ray of the victim. P.W. 11 is the Officer-in-charge. The order of conviction is based on the testimony of the victim herself as corroborated by the post-occurrence witnesses, such as P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6 and also the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 10) regarding existence of some injuries on the private part of the victim. 5. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant emphasized on the fact that the evidence of the doctor who examined the accused and that of the doctor who examined the victim do not conclusively establish about the commission of an offence u/s 376, Indian Penal Code. It is contended that since the evidence of the child witness had not been corroborated in material particulars, it is unsafe to sustain the conviction. 6. The evidence of the victim clearly establishes the offence. Nothing substantial has been elicited from her cross-examination to disbelieve her evidence. Moreover, her statement receives sufficient corroboration from the evidence of the post-occurrence witnesses. The contention that the medical opinion does not support the prosecution case is also not true. The evidence of P.W. 10 shows existence of some injuries which are consistent with the allegation of rape. Merely because the doctor had not indicated that the victim had been identified by any person, nor indicated about taking consent of the guardian before examining the victim cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the doctor. There is no categorical suggestion to the doctor that she had not examined the victim. Some technical defects as to the manner of writing down the opinion cannot take away the effect of the evidence. The absence of any injury on the accused who was examined about four days after the occurrence does not establish the innocence of the accused in any manner. Some technical defects as to the manner of writing down the opinion cannot take away the effect of the evidence. The absence of any injury on the accused who was examined about four days after the occurrence does not establish the innocence of the accused in any manner. The accused had been examined after about four days and at any rate, there may not be an injury in each and every case of rape of a minor girl. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substantial reason to differ from the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court. 7. The allegation of commission of offence u/s 392, Indian Penal Code is also well proved through the evidence of the victim herself. There is no reason to differ from the finding of the trial court on this score. 8. However, keeping in view the poverty of the appellant, I consider that imprisonment for a period of seven years would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal. I reduce the substantive sentence u/s 376, Indian Penal Code, to Seven Years' R.I. and confirm the substantive sentence of R.I. for 2 years imposed u/s 392, Indian Penal Code. The sentence of fine on each count is confirmed. As already directed by the trial court, the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. Subject to the aforesaid modification in sentence, the Jail Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed