JUDGMENT - P.V. HARDAS, J.:---On the allegations that the appellant on 6th October, 1997, in between 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. had committed rape on Maria Gomes, 4 year old girl, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence and conviction of the appellant recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Panaji, have been assailed in the present appeal. The appellant stands convicted for the aforesaid offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 75/2000 for enhancement of sentence. Both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal may be briefly stated as under:- P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, on 13th October, 1997 lodged a report with the Goa Velha Police Station complaining therein that the present appellant had taken her minor daughter aged 4 and had asked her to lick his penis and thereafter had forced his penis in her vagina. The date of the incident as stated in the report Exh. 21 is said to be 6th October, 1997 and the report came to be lodged on 13th October, 1997. The report was taken down by P.W. 15, P.S.I. S.C. Tavares. The said report, Exh. 21 bears the signature of the complainant P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes and P.W. 15, P.S.I. S.C. Tavares, who had registered the complaint under sections 323 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and then proceeded to the scene of the offence, drew the panchanama Exh. 9, in the presence of P.W. 2, Govind Naik, and another panch Ramesh. A sketch of the scene of offence was also drawn. Photographs came to be taken by P.W. 14, Police Constable Ramchandra Sawant. The accused was arrested on 13th October, 1997 in the presence of P.W. 2, Govind Naik and one Ramesh and in pursuance to Exh. 10, the clothes which the appellant/accused was wearing came to be seized. The clothes which the prosecutrix P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was wearing came to be attached vide panchanama Exh. 7. The clothes bearing muddemal articles Nos. 4 and 5 comprising of frock and panty came to be seized. 10, the clothes which the appellant/accused was wearing came to be seized. The clothes which the prosecutrix P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was wearing came to be attached vide panchanama Exh. 7. The clothes bearing muddemal articles Nos. 4 and 5 comprising of frock and panty came to be seized. P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was referred for medical examination to Goa Medical College where she was admitted. P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was examined by P.W. 12, Dr. E.J. Rodrigues, and P.W. 13, Vaishali Joshi. The report of examination of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, are Exhs. 24 and 25 and the report of the examination of the accused which was referred for medical examination is Exh. 26. Dr. E.J. Rodrigues had also obtained the vaginal swabs and the vaginal smears and the same were handed over in sealed container vide Exh. 27 to the Police Officers. Dr. Rodrigues had also obtained two urethral swabs, two urethral smears and pubic hair test tubes which were handed over in a sealed container to the Police vide Exh. 28. During the course of investigation, the blood samples, the smears, clothes and the muddemal property were forwarded on 20th October, 1997 to C.F.S.L., Hyderabad vide Exh,. 37 which is the forwarding letter. Exh. 25, report pertaining to P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is that in view of Serological Examination Report there was seminal emission within the external genitals suggestive of vulval penetration. P.W. 5, N.R.K. Rao, a Junior Scientific Officer, C.F.S.L by his certificate Exh. 16 has opined that the vaginal smear and the vaginal swab of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, with human spermatozoa were detected so also human spermatozoa was detected on the frock and panty of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. P.W. 15, P.S.I. S.C. Tavares, after completion of the investigation which included recording of statements presented a charge-sheet before the Court. 3. After committing, the learned trial Judge framed a charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. P.W. 15, P.S.I. S.C. Tavares, after completion of the investigation which included recording of statements presented a charge-sheet before the Court. 3. After committing, the learned trial Judge framed a charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The trial Judge after recording the evidence and statement of the appellant under section 313 Cri.P.C. and after hearing the learned Counsel for the State and the accused by its judgment dated 29th May, 2000 convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. It is this conviction and sentence which is assailed before me in the present appeal. 4. With the assistance of Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. N.N. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Winnie Coutinho, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, I have gone through the entire material comprising of the evidence and the proved documents before the trial Judge. 5. The prosecutrix Maria Gomes, P.W. 11 in her evidence states that on the day of the incident, she had gone with her brother for playing. She says that the accused had put his private part in her private part and also in her mouth. She states that the appellant/accused had taken her to one building. She acknowledges the presence of her brother P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and states that the appellant had given Rs. 5/- to Rezodin Gomes to buy chocolates and her brother had gone away to buy chocolates. She further states that along with her brother she had returned to her house where she found that neither her father nor her mother were present and she had narrated this incident to her mother after she returned home. According to her, her mother had taken her to the hospital after the incident. In the cross-examination, this witness states that she had not stated to the police that she came down from the building, met her brother and came home with him after the appellant had told her to go away. According to her, her mother had taken her to the hospital after the incident. In the cross-examination, this witness states that she had not stated to the police that she came down from the building, met her brother and came home with him after the appellant had told her to go away. There are further omissions in respect of her narrating the incident to her father and to her mother and her mother taking her to the hospital. In the cross-examination, this witness further admitted and the admission is "that the accused was sitting when he put his private part in my mouth. The accused was sitting not on the steps but on the landing". This witness has further admitted in the cross-examination that she was sitting when the accused who was also sitting had put his private part in her mouth. She has also stated that she was sitting facing the accused. This witness further admits that her mother had given her a bath on the same night and had washed the clothes worn by her. 6. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had urged before me that P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is basically a child witness and the notes of her deposition do not indicate that the learned trial Judge had put preliminary questions in order to ascertain that P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, had the capacity to depose and had realised the sanctity of oath. A perusal of her evidence at Exh. 22, does show that before administration of oath, the learned trial Judge had not put any preliminary questions and if put, they are not recorded. At the close of the evidence of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, a note appears to have been made by the learned trial Judge that the evidence of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, came to be recorded after she was found competent to make her statement and that the evidence was recorded in a camera in accordance with section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the matter of (Sadashiv Tukaram Dipake v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 1999(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)121. 7. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon a decision in the matter of (Sadashiv Tukaram Dipake v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in 1999(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)121. The Division Bench of this Court has held that "there is no prohibition to administer oath to a child witness unless he is under 12 years of age and he/she does not understand the nature of oath. A child who can understand the questions put to him or her and who can give rational answers to the same, is a competent witness. It is emphasised for the guidance of all the trial Judges/Magistrates, that whenever there is an occasion to decide whether oath should be given to a child witness before recording his/her evidence, it is desirable that they should not only put certain questions to such child witness to ascertain whether they understood the sanctity of oath or not, but also incorporate, at the top of deposition the questions put by the Court and the answers given by the child witnesses. This enables the Appellate Court to verify whether the opinion recorded by the Court, as to the fact that the child witness is capable of understanding the sanctity of oath, is correct or not. Where the trial Judge had made a note that he had put some questions to the child witness and the witness gave proper answers to the same, that the child witness understands the sanctity of oath, which was done after there was compliance with the provisions of section 4(1) of the Oaths Act, 1969". 8. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has also placed reliance in the matter of (Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan)2, reported in A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 54. The portion on which reliance is placed is "a Judge who recorded the statement of a girl of seven or eight years certified that she did not understand the sanctity of an oath and accordingly he did not administer one to her. He, however, did not certify that the child understood the duty of speaking the truth. The question was whether this omission rendered her evidence inadmissible. Held (1) An omission to administer an oath, even to an adult, goes only to the credibility of the witness and not his competency. The question of competency is dealt with in section 118, Evidence Act. The question was whether this omission rendered her evidence inadmissible. Held (1) An omission to administer an oath, even to an adult, goes only to the credibility of the witness and not his competency. The question of competency is dealt with in section 118, Evidence Act. The Oaths Act does not deal with competency and under section 13 of that Act omission to take oath does not affect the admissibility of the evidence. It therefore follows that the irregularity in question cannot affect the admissibility of the evidence of the girl". 9. A further reliance is also placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant on a judgment in the matter of (State of Maharashtra v. Sharanappa Malappa Sakhare)3, reported in 1975 Bom.L.R. 182. In this judgment, the Division Bench of this Court has held "that while recording the evidence of a child witness, the Judge should put preliminary questions in order to ascertain whether the child witness is in a position to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Evidence of a child witness should be recorded invariably in the form of questions and answers. This form of recording gives an idea to the Court which takes down the deposition as well as to the Appellant Court what exactly the question put was and what answer was given. From the frame of questions and answers given one would make out how far the witness is tutored, if at all, and in what manner". 10. It is certainly necessary for the Court in recording the evidence of a child witness to put preliminary questions to the witness to ascertain and satisfy itself whether the witness has the capacity to state and whether the witness understands the sanctity of the oath. These preliminary questions should be recorded and should form part of the evidence of the witness so that the record is available to the Appellate Court to ascertain for itself whether the trial Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that oath could be administered to the witness. In this case, what I find is that in respect of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes the record does not disclose what questions had been put to the witness for ascertaining her capacity to depose before the Court. In this case, what I find is that in respect of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes the record does not disclose what questions had been put to the witness for ascertaining her capacity to depose before the Court. I am guided principally by the note at the foot of the evidence where the trial Court says that it had ascertained the capacity and had found P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, competent to depose before the Court. The first question, therefore, is whether the evidence of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is vitiated on this whole count. The answer is to be found in the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant i.e. in the matter of Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has held that it would not affect the admissibility of the evidence. This is not as if in this case, the trial Judge has not made any endorsement at all. The trial Judge has recorded the substantive satisfaction that it had found the witness competent to depose. It would have been desirable had the trial Judge maintained the record of the questions put to P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, and thereby giving an opportunity to the Appellate Court to satisfy for itself regarding the correctness of the proposal made by the trial Judge. However, on this ground, there is no contemporaneous record of the questions put by the trial Judge. Non-availability of the record does not vitiate the testimony of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. It only puts the Court on guard while appreciating her testimony. 11. Mr. S.K. Kakodkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has urged before me that P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is a child witness and, therefore, her evidence has to be appreciated with caution, as a child witness is susceptible to being tutored and because of the delay in lodging the F.I.R., apparently, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, an opportunity was available for tutoring of this witness. Same argument is also advanced in respect of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, who is the brother of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, who was then aged 7 to 8 years. 12. In case of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, the evidence at Exh. 21 thus contain the answers which have been given by the same witness in response to the preliminary questions put to him. 12. In case of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, the evidence at Exh. 21 thus contain the answers which have been given by the same witness in response to the preliminary questions put to him. His evidence thus discloses that the trial Court has recorded its opinion that it had found the witness competent and, therefore, this witness should be administered oath. The evidence of this witness, who is the elder brother of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is that on the day of the incident, this witness and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, were playing in the evening time at Dandi. There are buildings and bakery shops near the place where they were playing. According to this witness, the appellant came to this spot and took his sister and this witness to one of the buildings. The accused then is said to have slapped this witness and given him a note of Rs. 10/- and sent him to a shop to buy chocolates. This witness then went to buy chocolates and returned to the same building. He climbed the stairs and saw that the accused had put his penis in the mouth of his sister and also in her vagina. According to this witness, he thereafter went to the house of the Sarpanch, P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, where his mother was present. This witness states that he had narrated the incident to his mother. Before adverting to the cross-examination and considering the credibility of this witness, I must say that both P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, were minors at the time of trial and their evidence should be examined with utmost caution keeping in mind that children are susceptible to be tutored. 13. It is true that a child witness is susceptible to being tutored. It is not as if in all cases the Court would come across child witnesses who are tutored. Children, because of the age at which they are, often believe as true what is told to them by elders particularly their parents. A child gradually begins to believe what is told to him is the truth. A Court while appreciating the evidence of a child witness should always bear in mind that children are susceptible to begin tutored. In this case, what I find is that the trial Court was alive to this fact while appreciating evidence of child witnesses. A child gradually begins to believe what is told to him is the truth. A Court while appreciating the evidence of a child witness should always bear in mind that children are susceptible to begin tutored. In this case, what I find is that the trial Court was alive to this fact while appreciating evidence of child witnesses. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence of these witnesses. The evidence of a child witness should not be normally accepted unless the same is corroborated. The corroboration may be from circumstantial evidence or from direct evidence. 14. The evidence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, thus suffer from certain discrepancies. What has to be appreciated is whether these discrepancies are self destructive i.e. whether acceptance of evidence of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, destroys the evidence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and vice versa. The discrepancies vis a vis P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is that according to P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, he had gone alone to the house of Sarpanch P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, and had informed the incident to his mother. P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, does not refer to the visit to the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, i.e. Sarpanch and states that she had gone straight to her own house. P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, thereafter in the cross-examination states that P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, had also gone along with him to the house of Sarpanch P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. Both the witnesses speak as one when they say that their mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, had bathed them and had washed their clothes. According to me, this discrepancy in the evidence is not self destructive at all. P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, in the first instance, states that he had gone alone and thereafter states that he was accompanied by P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, mother of these two witnesses states that both these witnesses i.e. P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, had come to the house and had narrated the incident. She in turn had narrated the incident to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, who had advised her to lodge a report. P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, also states that P.W. 9 Piedade Gomes, had narrated the incident to him. She in turn had narrated the incident to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, who had advised her to lodge a report. P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, also states that P.W. 9 Piedade Gomes, had narrated the incident to him. It is obvious that P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, because of lapse of memory due to the passage of time is not able to recollect the visit to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes and P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, in categorical terms state that P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, had gone to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira's house where P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, had narrated the incident to the mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes. P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, when she came to be examined as witness to the Court was a 6 year old child. It is quite possible that because the incident had happened two years back, this witness because of lapse of memory was not able to recollect her visit to the house of P.W. 8. Francis Silveira, and narrating the incident to her mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes. As I have said, this discrepancy is not such that it is self destructive and according to me does not destroy the basic fabric of the evidence of P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. I, therefore, accept the evidence of P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, that P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, had gone to the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, and both had narrated the incident to her. 15. P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, the mother of the unfortunate girl P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, states that on the day of the incident i.e. on 6th October, 1997, she had gone for work to the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, at about 7 p.m. There her son had told her that the accused had forced his penis in the vagina of the minor girl and P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, had also told her that the accused had told the minor girl to lick his penis. She states that P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, had told her that the accused had given Rs. 10/- to buy chocolates. P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, further states that she asked her minor daughter what had happened and she also told about the same. She states that P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, had told her that the accused had given Rs. 10/- to buy chocolates. P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, further states that she asked her minor daughter what had happened and she also told about the same. On her narrating this incident to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, he asked her to report the matter to the police. Later on, according to her, she had questioned the accused when she had met him on the way to her house. But the accused had denied. According to these witnesses, she had bathed her daughter who was complaining of pain in her private part. Her husband P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes, who was present in the house was not informed about the incident and according to P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, he would have gone and fought with the accused. P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, further states that she had not lodged a complaint to the police as she feared that the accused may harm them. However, as the little girl P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was complaining of pain in her private part, she had gone and lodged a report to the police and she had identified her complaint at Exh. 21. She also identified the clothes, muddemal objects Nos. 4 and 5 as the frock and panty worn by the prosecutrix Maria Gomes at the time of the incident. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that some persons had told her children that she was in the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. She was unable to tell the names of the persons. In the cross-examination, this witness admits that the children had reached the house of P.W. 8, Francies Silveira. As soon as she had reached the house, her two minor children had immediately reported the matter to her and waited in the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, till 9 p.m. and they had left the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, along with her. According to this witness, in the cross-examination, she had not informed her husband till the lodging of the report. She further admits in the cross-examination that she had bathed her children and had also cleaned their private parts and had washed their clothes. Thereafter, she states in her cross-examination that the clothes of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was not washed by her but she had kept them aside. She further admits in the cross-examination that she had bathed her children and had also cleaned their private parts and had washed their clothes. Thereafter, she states in her cross-examination that the clothes of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was not washed by her but she had kept them aside. The reason for keeping the clothes aside according to this witness is that she had preserved the said clothes to show to her (P.W. 11, Maria Gomes) when she grew up and also to show to the relations when they make enquiry about the incident. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, states that on her way, from the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, she had met the accused and had confronted the accused with the narration and the accused had denied. P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, in his evidence does not support meeting of the appellant on the way from the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the evidence of these two witnesses on this point is reconciliable and self destructive. According to me, this discrepancy is not of so much importance that it can be blown up into an event which would destroy the evidence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. Meeting of the appellant on the way does not advance the prosecution case any further. In fact, nothing turns on the answer given by the appellant. It would have been a different case altogether had the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused had made an extra judicial confession. In this case, all that P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, states is that the accused had denied this incident. Assuming that P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, had not met the appellant on the way and that she is improving, that in any way according to me does not affect credibility at all. If this witness had improved and stated that she had met the appellant on the way, she would have also attributed an extra judicial confession. Since nothing of this sort is attributed, merely because P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, does refer to meeting the appellant on the way from the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, that inference cannot be drawn. According to me, this discrepancy is not at all important and does not affect credibility of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes. Since nothing of this sort is attributed, merely because P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, does refer to meeting the appellant on the way from the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, that inference cannot be drawn. According to me, this discrepancy is not at all important and does not affect credibility of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes. The second submission which has been advanced in respect of the report Exh. 21 is that admittedly, this report came to be lodged on 13th October, 1997. The incident is said to have been occurred in the evening of 6th October, 1997. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the reasons which are given for not lodging the report promptly are that:--(I) had the report been lodged, P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, feared that the appellant may cause harm. (II) had P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, informed P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes, her husband and father of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes, would have gone and fought with the appellant. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is material on record to show that there are no criminal antecedents against the present appellant. Also, when he is alleged to have met P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, who was in the company of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, on her way, the appellant had not threatened them at all. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the apprehension which is expressed by P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, that they would have suffered some harm at the instance of appellant is an afterthought. Thus, according to the defence, the delay in the F.I.R. is not properly explained which goes to the root of the matter. 16. Delay simplicitor, if an explanation is offered is not fatal to a prosecution case. Prompt lodging of the F.I.R. affords a slight guarantee to the Court that what is stated in the F.I.R. is not as a result of deliberations. If the report is lodged promptly, there is a guarantee regarding what is narrated in the F.I.R. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. in respect of other crimes has to be appreciated differently than delay which is occasioned in respect of crimes of sexual molestation and rape. If the report is lodged promptly, there is a guarantee regarding what is narrated in the F.I.R. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. in respect of other crimes has to be appreciated differently than delay which is occasioned in respect of crimes of sexual molestation and rape. It has to be remembered that sexual molestation or rape is suffered not only by the victim but by the entire family with unprecedented trauma. The horrors of this crime have no precedence. In offence of this nature either the victim or other members of the family hesitate to lodge a report to the police fearing defamation, stigmatization and at times ostracization from the society. It is these reasons which occasion delay in lodging of a prompt F.I.R. to the police. In this case, P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, states that she had apprehended danger and harm at the hands of the appellant. It is true that the appellant is not a fearsome character having criminal antecedents. What was in the mind of P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, when the act was narrated to her by P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes is difficult to fathom. She must have been stunned beyond limits and in such a state and situation, it is quite logical for her to presume that if she goes to the police and informs the police, the appellant/accused would harm her and her family members. May be the threat of retaliation was not justified at all. May be she was mistaken in her belief that her husband would quarrel with the appellant/accused. I cannot examine these reasons which had prevailed in the mind of the witness at that moment. It is quite possible that upon reflecting later on, a Court may appreciate that the reasons given for not lodging the F.I.R. were not justifiable. But this does not mean that these reasons did not exist at that time. Justifiable reasons are entirely different from prevalent reasons which existed as to why these witnesses could not lodge a report. These reasons, therefore, according to me, may not be justifiable but inference cannot be drawn that these reasons did not weigh for lodging the report. But this does not mean that these reasons did not exist at that time. Justifiable reasons are entirely different from prevalent reasons which existed as to why these witnesses could not lodge a report. These reasons, therefore, according to me, may not be justifiable but inference cannot be drawn that these reasons did not weigh for lodging the report. According to me, therefore, the delay which has been properly explained by P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, is not fatal to the prosecution case and, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the delay in this case is not fatal and has been properly explained. 17. P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes, the father of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, and husband of P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, states that on the day of the incident, he had been informed by one person from Dandi, Agacaim that the appellant had taken his daughter to a building on 6th October, 1997 and had raped her. He states that he had questioned his wife as to why she had not informed him on the earlier date. He further states that his son P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, had also told him about the incident giving all the details. In the cross-examination, this witness had admitted that he had not disclosed to the police that his son had informed him about the incident, so also that his minor daughter had started complaining about the pain in her private part and had been taken to the doctor for examination. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this witness is not speaking the whole truth. According to the learned Counsel, P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, admits that she had not narrated this incident to P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes, at all till a complaint was lodged. P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, also does not state to have narrated the incident to his father on the next day. Despite the tall claim made by P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes, that he had learnt about the incident on the next day and had questioned both, his wife and children. I am not inclined to accept the statement at all. It is highly unnatural that he would keep silent and not go and lodge the report. P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, makes a truthful statement when she states that she had not told her husband about the incident till the complaint. I am not inclined to accept the statement at all. It is highly unnatural that he would keep silent and not go and lodge the report. P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, makes a truthful statement when she states that she had not told her husband about the incident till the complaint. P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes, has been examined by the prosecution in order to buttress the evidence of P.W. 9 Piedade Gomes, P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. The prosecution should rely upon the evidence that is tendered. The prosecution should not make attempts at creating evidence in order to corroborate the version of evidence. The role of Investigating Officer is not by fabricating and creating evidence. It is his duty to present before the Court unvarnished truth, whether it supports the prosecution or supports the defence. According to me, this was an attempt made by the prosecution to buttress the evidence of P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. I am, therefore, not inclined to attach any weight whatsoever to the evidence of P.W. 7, Vincent Gomes. 18. Prosecution has examined P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, at whose house P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, was working on 6th October, 1997. P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, states that on 6th October, 1997, P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, came to his house and informed him that her minor daughter of about 4 years had been raped by the accused. He further states that P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, had also told him that the incident was witnessed by her son aged about 8 years. Thereupon, according to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, he had told P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, to report the matter to the police. The prosecution has examined this witness in order to corroborate immediate disclosure made by P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, to their mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes. This witness has been examined to further corroborate the said disclosure by P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes informing this witness about the incident. In the cross-examination, an omission is brought in the evidence in respect of the function of the visit of statue of Our Lady to his house. In the cross-examination, this witness further admits that he does not know at what time the complainant left his house since he was busy with the function in his house. In the cross-examination, an omission is brought in the evidence in respect of the function of the visit of statue of Our Lady to his house. In the cross-examination, this witness further admits that he does not know at what time the complainant left his house since he was busy with the function in his house. He denied the suggestion that P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, had not disclosed to him the incident that was witnessed by her son. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that this witness makes no reference about the presence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Piedade (sic Maria) Gomes, at his house. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the prosecution's case regarding immediate disclosure by P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, to their mother in the house of this witness is rendered false. P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, in his evidence states that he had gone to the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira and he had no talk with P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. He further states that they had waited in the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, till the religious function was over. P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, in his cross-examination admits that he had invited some persons from the locality to attend the function in his house. It is, therefore, quite apparent that P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, was engrossed in the religious function and in attending to the guests and, therefore, he could not have noticed the presence of these two minor children in his house. Since P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, admits that he had no talk with P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, the omission of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, to refer to the presence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, in his house is self explanatory. According to me, the evidence of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, corroborates the evidence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, that they had informed their mother and the mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, informed P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, regarding the incident. The natural conduct of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, in immediately informing their mother goes a long way in lending assurance to the Court in accepting their testimony. The natural conduct of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, in immediately informing their mother goes a long way in lending assurance to the Court in accepting their testimony. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a mystery how P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, came to know that their mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, was working in the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. The answer for this is not difficult to be traced. It is to be found in the evidence of P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, herself when she states that some persons had informed her children that she was in the house of P.W. 8, Francis Gomes. This has been brought out in the cross-examination itself. No questions were put to P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, as to how they learnt that their mother was working in the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. Even otherwise, with this evidence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, regarding the disclosure of the incident to their mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes; and the disclosure of incident by P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, is accepted, the manner in which the children reached the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira, then pales into insignificance. 19. The question posed before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant is whether the evidence of P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, can be accepted for establishing the charge of rape. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, has admitted that both P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, and the appellant were sitting facing each other when the appellant asked P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, to lick his penis and also when he had inserted the penis in her vagina. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, also in so many words says the same thing. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, penetration in such a posture is not possible and this according to him is borne out from the evidence of D.W. 2, Dr. Madhu Waze. The question that was put to D.W. 2 Dr. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, penetration in such a posture is not possible and this according to him is borne out from the evidence of D.W. 2, Dr. Madhu Waze. The question that was put to D.W. 2 Dr. Waze was:— Q. In case the victim and the accused were in sitting position would it be possible for them to be penetration even in the vulval part. A. No. It is not possible since the anatomical position, location and levels of the 2 parts would be such that while sitting it would not be possible to penetrate the vulval part. 20. Much capital has been sought to be made on the basis of this answer of D.W. 2, Dr. Waze, to render the version of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, as impropable. At the out-set, it is necessary to state that P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, were both child witnesses. The sex act, to both of them was unknown. Their admission that P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was sitting facing the accused when he had inserted his penis in her vagina has to be accepted in the background of the fact that both of them are minors. The posture which is referred to by P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is not such as to render penetration impossible. When P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, speaks about sitting facing the accused, no questions are put to her that in such a posture penetration had not taken place. Despite referring to this posture, both P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, and P.W. 11, Maria Gomes are firm in their statement that the accused had inserted his penis in the vagina of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. According to Exh. 25, a report by Dr. E.J. Rodrigues, that in respect of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, it was a vulval penetration. In such circumstances, it would be extremely hazardous to accept the defence plea and to outright reject the prosecution case on the touchstone of the posture which is referred to by P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. The circumstantial evidence tendered by the prosecution does not render the version of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, improbable. 21. In such circumstances, it would be extremely hazardous to accept the defence plea and to outright reject the prosecution case on the touchstone of the posture which is referred to by P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. The circumstantial evidence tendered by the prosecution does not render the version of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, improbable. 21. As pointed out by me earlier, the frock, muddemal object No. 4 and panty muddemal object No. 5 came to be seized from the house of P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, in the presence of P.W. 1, Sebastiao and P.W. 16, Simon Dias. The evidence of P.W. 1, Sebastiao, is that of an oscillating witness. He admits that his signature was taken in the Police Station. The seizure of frock and panty is fully supported by P.W. 16, Simon Dias though a vain attempt was made by learned Counsel for the appellant to persuade me to hold that P.W. 16 Simon Dias had been examined at a much later stage in the trial in order to fill the loop holes punched in the evidence of P.W. 1 Sebastiao. It is needless to mention that the prosecution has a right to examine the witnesses in the sequence it wants to. No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution much less as desired by the learned Counsel for the appellant to hold that P.W. 16 Simon Dias was withheld to fill up the loop holes in the testimony of P.W. 1 Sebastiao. The testimony of P.W. 5, P.S.I. Tavares, coupled with the evidence of P.W. 16, Simon Dias establishes beyond a shadow of doubt that muddemal object No. 4 frock and muddemal object No. 5 panty came to be seized. P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, was referred for medical examination and Dr. E.J. Rodrigues had obtained the vaginal swab and vaginal smears vide Exh. 27. Dr. Rodrigues in his evidence does not refer to the fact that the swab and the smear had been sealed. However, he does make a reference that "I had sent two vaginal swabs and two smear slides of the victim girl along with specimen seals in the prescribed form to Goa Velha Police Station". The prescribed form Exh. 27 bears the impression of the specimen seal. However, he does make a reference that "I had sent two vaginal swabs and two smear slides of the victim girl along with specimen seals in the prescribed form to Goa Velha Police Station". The prescribed form Exh. 27 bears the impression of the specimen seal. The report of the Serologist P.W. 5 and R.K. Rao refers to the fact that he had received sealed covers and the seal impressions tallied with the specimen receipts. Thus, according to me, the chain is complete, though Dr. E.J. Rodrigues does not say in so many words that he had affixed the seals on the vaginal swabs and vaginal smears collected by him. The report of the Serologist is positive that both the vaginal swabs and vaginal smears show the presence of human spermatozoa. In the light of this evidence, it is not open for the appellant to contend that since according to P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, as both she and the appellant were sitting facing each other vulval penetration was not possible. I accept the evidence of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, that on the date and time mentioned in the charge, the appellant had committed a rape on her and had subjected her to indignity of licking his penis. 22. In respect of the Serologist, it is canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the Serologist P.W. 5 has not at all stated about the tests performed by him in arriving at his opinion. It is true that in the examination-in-chief, P.W. 5 N.R.K. Rao does not refer to the tests performed by him. In the cross-examination, he is asked about the various tests to which he replies in the affirmative. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing in the trial Court ought to have been vigilant in seeing that when an expert witness is examined, it should be brought on record the various tests performed by him for arriving at the findings. In this case, the kinds of tests that had been performed had been brought out in the cross-examination and I see no reason to disbelieve P.W. 5 N.K.R. Rao and to hold that he has mechanically given his opinion. 23. Mrs. Winnie Coutinho, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)4, reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 753. 23. Mrs. Winnie Coutinho, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat)4, reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 753. She has particularly invited my attention to paras 7 and 9 of the judgment in which it is stated that "corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. In the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society". On the point of corroboration, Mrs. Winnie Coutinho, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has invited my attention to para 11 of the judgment in which it is stated "on principle the evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands on par with evidence of an injured witness. Just as a witness who has sustained an injury (which is not shown or believed to be self inflicted) is the best witness in the sense that he is least likely to exculpate the real offender, the evidence of a victim of a sex-offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. And while corroboration in the form of eye-witness account of an independent witness may often be forthcoming in physical assault cases, such evidence cannot be expected in sex offences, having regard to the very nature of the offence. It would therefore be adding insult to injury to insist on corroboration drawing inspiration from the rules devised by the courts in the Western World. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities-factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration". This judgment of the Supreme Court was considered in (State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain)5, reported in 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 630 . Mrs. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities-factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration". This judgment of the Supreme Court was considered in (State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain)5, reported in 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 630 . Mrs. Coutinho, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has also invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (State of Rajasthan v. N.K.)6, reported in 2000(5) S.C.C. 30 in which the Supreme Court has held that the testimony of prosecutrix should be appreciated on the basis of probabilities like the testimony of any other witness and conviction can be based solely on such testimony. But if the Court finds it difficult to accept her testimony, it may seek assurance to her testimony, which may be short of corroboration from other evidence. 24. The learned Counsel for the appellant attacks the evidence of P.W. 12, Dr. Rodrigues and P.W. 13, Joshi on the ground that according to D.W. 2, Dr. Madhu Waze, the vaginal swab and the vaginal smear could not have been taken without administering anaesthesia to P.W. 11, Maria Gomes. Dr. Waze, D.W. 2 admits that since the position to collect the samples is very awkward and to his mind the victim girl would not be co-operative. The samples i.e. the vaginal swab and the vaginal smear, which has been collected by P.W. 12 and P.W. 13, there is nothing in their evidence to show that P.W. 11 was unco-operative. Had they found her to be unco-operative, experienced Medical Officers as they are, would have administered anaesthesia to her. Thus, by not administering anaesthesia, it cannot be presumed that the vaginal swab and vaginal smear had not been collected. 25. That takes me to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. in the prescribed form has not been placed on record by the prosecution. P.W. 16, P.S.I. Tavares, in his evidence states that on receipt of the report Exh. 21, he had registered an offence under sections 323 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation papers disclose that an offence at Crime No. 50/97 was registered. P.W. 16, P.S.I. Tavares, in his evidence states that on receipt of the report Exh. 21, he had registered an offence under sections 323 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation papers disclose that an offence at Crime No. 50/97 was registered. The final report which is filed along with the charge-sheet has shown that the F.I.R. was registered as F.I.R. No. 50/97. It is extremely distressing that the F.I.R. in the prescribed form was neither placed along with the charge-sheet nor was produced subsequently and proved. Be that as it may, according to me since the offence came to be registered on the basis of Exh. 21, the non filing of the copy of the F.I.R. at this stage cannot vitiate the conviction. It is painful for me to record the mechanical attitude at which the trial had been conducted. 26. Thus, summing up the prosecution evidence, it is seen that the evidence of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, stands substantially corroborated by the evidence of her brother P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes. The circumstances against the appellant which emerge from this evidence of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, are (i) in which she speaks about rape being committed on her by the appellant. (ii) her version stands corroborated by P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, her brother who had witnessed this incident. (iii) their conduct in immediately disclosing this incident to their mother P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, at the house of P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. (iv) the immediate disclosure of the incident by P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes to P.W. 8, Francis Silveira. (v) Presence of human spermatozoa in the veginal swab and vaginal smear of P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, as well as presence of human spermatozoa on the frock muddemal object No. 4 and panty muddemal object No. 5 vide report of the Serologist Exh. 16. (vi). There is no reason for P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, to falsely implicate the accused. 27. The absence of any injuries on the person of either the appellant/accused or P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, is of no consequence in view of the fact that it was a case of vulval penetration and not a full penetration. So also the evidence of P.W. 6, Philip D'Souza who saw the children playing on the date of the incident in the morning with the appellant/accused standing nearby is of no consequence. So also the evidence of P.W. 6, Philip D'Souza who saw the children playing on the date of the incident in the morning with the appellant/accused standing nearby is of no consequence. The evidence of P.W. 4, Felix Pereira who runs a restaurant opposite the scene of occurrence does not support the prosecution that P.W. 10, Rezodin Gomes, had gone to purchase chocolates. 28. From the circumstances narrated by me above, according to me, the prosecution has proved the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. I see no merit in the appeal and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed confirming his conviction. 29. This takes me to the appeal of enhancement of sentence filed by the State. According to Mrs. Winnie Coutinho, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned trial Court had lost sight of the fact that under section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code minimum sentence which is prescribed for committing an offence on a girl below 12 years is ten years. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the trial Court has not taken this into consideration while awarding the sentence of 7 years, which according to her is less than the minimum. She also submits that the trial Court has not given any special reasons as to why a sentence less than the minimum should be imposed. Mrs. Coutinho, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa)7, reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1470. The Supreme Court has observed thus: "The normal sentence in a case where rape is committed on a child below 12 years of age, is not less than 10 years R.I. in exceptional cases "for special and adequate reasons" sentence of less than 10 years R.I. can also be awarded. It is a fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered with relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso particularly in such like penal provisions. The courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. Recourse to the provise can be had only for "special and adequate reasons" and not in a casual manner. The courts are obliged to respect the legislative mandate in the matter of awarding of sentence in all such cases. Recourse to the provise can be had only for "special and adequate reasons" and not in a casual manner. Whether there exist any "special and adequate reasons" would depend upon a variety of factors and the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, No hard and fast rule can be laid down in that behalf of universal application." 30. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before me that the present appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence is not maintainable in view of the fact as according to the learned Counsel for the appellant no statement is made in the body of the Memo of Appeal that the appeal had been presented on instructions of the State Government. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, it was mandatory that the prosecutor ought to have made a statement that the appeal has been presented on instructions of the State. Before admitting this appeal, this Court had issued notice to the appellant who was the respondent in the appeal for enhancement of sentence. No such objection was at all raised at the time of admission. Moreover, according to me, when the prosecutor presents an appeal in the High Court it has to be presumed that it has been presented on instructions of the State Government. According to me, it is not necessary for the prosecutor to state in the Memo of Appeal that the appeal is being presented on instructions of the State Government. There is a presumption that all Official acts have been duly performed and I see no reason to depart from this presumption. The original appellant/accused and respondent in the State Appeal has been put on notice as to why the sentence should not be enhanced. The trial Court had not found any special reasons for imposing sentences less than 7 years. The learned Counsel for the appellant was heard and was requested to state special reasons as to why the sentence of less than the minimum should be imposed. The learned Counsel for the appellant has stated four reasons. The trial Court had not found any special reasons for imposing sentences less than 7 years. The learned Counsel for the appellant was heard and was requested to state special reasons as to why the sentence of less than the minimum should be imposed. The learned Counsel for the appellant has stated four reasons. They are:- (i) age of the accused which is said to be 24 years on the date of the incident, (ii) no criminal antecedents to his discredit, (iii) the accused comes from an ordinary fisherfolk family and (iv) is the sole earning member of his family in the absence of his deceased father. 31. I have given my anxious consideration to the four points urged before me. It is true that the accused was 24 years at the time of commission of offence and it is established that there are no criminal antecedents to his discredit. Apparently, this appears to be the only offence for which he was either charged or convicted. While balancing these special reasons against the clamouring need for imposing a deterrent sentence, it has to be borne in mind that the girl whom the appellant had ravished was hardly 4 years old. This tender girl is the victim of the carnal lust of the appellant. This incident is bound to leave indelible scars on the memory of this tender girl P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, and no amount of love or affection in later life will ever alleviate the suffering and the trauma which she had faced. Therefore, according to me, there exists no special reasons as to why the trial Court had awarded the sentence less than the minimum of 10 years. 32. I am, therefore, inclined to allow the Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2000 filed by the State against the Appeal for enhancement of sentence. The Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2000 filed by the appellant challenging his conviction stands dismissed. 33. Thus, the appeal against conviction stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence is allowed. The sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months is set aside and is substituted by the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months. The sentence of 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months is set aside and is substituted by the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for 6 months. From the amount of fine so recovered, an amount of Rs. 5000/- shall be given to P.W. 9, Piedade Gomes, who shall hold it in custody for the minor girl P.W. 11, Maria Gomes, till she attains the age of majority. The period during which the appellant was in custody pending his trial shall be set off against the sentence imposed on him. Order accordingly. -----