JUDGMENT : S S. K. SAHOO, J. 1. The appellants Tianbulu @ Dhrubendriya Mahakud and Swadhin Taria faced trial in the Court of learned Addl. Session Judge -cum- Judge, Special Court, Bargarh in Criminal Trial No.45 of 2005 for offences punishable under sections 342/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PA) Act, 1989 (hereafter ‘1989 Act’). The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2007 acquitted the appellants of the charge under section 3(1)(xii) of the 1989 Act, however found them guilty of the charges under sections 376(2)(g) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence under section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence was imposed under section 342 of the Indian penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by P.W.3 Daitari Dehury is that on 20.06.2004 he and his wife had been to Bandapali village. At about 4.00 p.m. they returned home and found their daughter (hereafter ‘the victim’) was crying and when they asked the victim, the victim told that at about 12.30 p.m. the appellants asked her to give some water and suddenly they entered inside the house, gagged her mouth and closed the door and one after another committed rape on her and while they were leaving the house of the victim, the neighbour Rupadhar Chandan was taking rest on the verandah and seeing the appellants, the said neighbour came inside the house of the informant and found the victim in a naked position. The informant reported the matter before the Gram Panchayat and he was advised by the ward member as well as the villagers to report the matter in the police station and accordingly, he submitted the report. On the basis of such FIR, Attabira P.S. Case No.124 of 2004 was registered on 21.06.2004 under sections 342/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the 1989 Act. On the basis of such FIR, Attabira P.S. Case No.124 of 2004 was registered on 21.06.2004 under sections 342/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the 1989 Act. P.W.8 Sarat Kumar Paramguru, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the district of Bargarh took over the charge of investigation and during course of investigation, he examined the informant, the victim and her mother and sent the victim to the District Headquarters Hospital, Bargarh for her medical examination. The appellant Swadhin Taria was taken into custody and he was also sent for medical examination and the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the spot map Ext.11 and he seized the wearing apparels of the victim under seizure list Ext.12 and also the wearing apparels of the appellant Tianbulu who surrendered in Court on 24.06.2004 under seizure list Ext.13 and he was medically examined on the prayer of the investigating officer. He also seized the wearing apparels of the appellant Swadhin Taria. The medical examination report of the victim was received. The school admission register of the victim was also seized on the production of the Head master of the school under seizure list Ext.6. The caste particulars of the informant and accused persons were also seized from Tahasildar, Atabira. The seized articles were sent to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur for chemical analysis and chemical examination report of the victim was received. On completion of investigation, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet on 16.10.2004 against the two appellants under sections 448/506/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1)(xii) of the 1989 Act. 3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned trial Court charged the appellants under sections 342/376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(xii) of the 1989 Act on 20.02.2006 and since the appellants refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. 4. The defence plea of the appellants was one of denial. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim who narrated the incident in detail. 4. The defence plea of the appellants was one of denial. 5. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 is the victim who narrated the incident in detail. P.W.2 Malati Dehuri is the mother of the victim and she stated about the age of the victim as well as the disclosure made by her regarding the occurrence. She has further stated that a meeting was convened relating to this issue. P.W.3 Daitari Dehury was the father of the victim and he also stated about the disclosure made by the victim regarding the occurrence. P.W.4 Dr. P.N. Dash was the Medical Officer attached to District Headquarters Hospital, Bargarh and he examined the victim on police requisition and opined her age to be 14 to 16 years as per his report Ext.2. P.W.5 Dr. E. Ch. Sahu was the Asst. Surgeon, District Headquarters Hospital, Bargarh and he examined both the appellants and proved their medical examination reports under Exts.3 and 4. P.W.6 Purna Chandra Meher was the Head master of Kadobahal M.E. School who proved the admission register of the school indicating the date of birth of the victim. P.W.7 Dr. A. Behera was the Asst. Professor of F.M. & T. at V.S.S. Medical College, Burla who examined the victim girl and proved his report Ext.9. P.W.8 Sarat Kumar Paramguru was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the district of Bargarh and he is the Investigating Officer in this case. P.W.9 Rupadhar Chandan stated about the presence of both the appellants in the house of the informant. The prosecution exhibited as many as nineteen documents. Ext.1 is the first information report, Ext.2 is the medical examination report of the victim, Ext.3 is the medical examination report of the appellant Dhrubendriaya, Ext.4 is the Medical Report of appellant Swadhin Taria, Ext.5 is the query report, Ext.6 is the seizure list, Ext.7 is the Zimanama, Ext.8 is the admission register of Kodabahal Govt. UGME School, Ext.9 is the Examination report, Ext.10 is the report of P.W.7 to the query of the I.O., P.W.11 is the spot map, Exts.12 to 16 are the seizure lists, Ext.17 is the caste certificate, Ext.18 is the copy of forwarding report and Ext.19 is the Chemical Examination Report. The prosecution proved three material objects. M.Os.I to III are the wearing apparels of the victim. 6. The prosecution proved three material objects. M.Os.I to III are the wearing apparels of the victim. 6. The learned trial Court after assessing the evidence on record has been pleased to hold that taking the entire materials on record, the age of the victim girl was around 14 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and therefore, her normal age during the alleged period of occurrence was much less than 16 years as placed on record. It is further held that on perusal of the victim’s evidence, it appears she is a rustic teen of an illiterate parent and hails from a remote village apparently having no axe to grind against the accused persons and their family members have no enmity or grouse against the accused persons admittedly even before the incident and therefore, the question of false implication is remote. It is further held that on the mid noon, during absence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the accused persons came to the house of the victim and their presence at the questioned house during that mid noon is thus a fait accompli and a cul de sac finding. It is further held that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 & 3 appears to be natural having a ring of truth. It is further held that the statement of the victim does not suffer from any infirmity and the probability factor does not render her evidence unworthy of credence and therefore, there is no reason to discard her version. 7. Mr. Manoj Kumar Panda, was engaged as the counsel for the appellants since the engaged counsel by the appellants did not appear to argue the appeal. He was supplied with the copy of the paper books and given time to prepare the case. After going through the case records, he placed the impugned judgment so also the evidence of the victim and contended that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is not sustainable in the eye of law and there are several infirmities in the evidence of the victim and her parents and the medical evidence runs contrary to the statement of the victim and therefore, it is a fit case where the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellants. Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, learned Addl. Mr. Chitta Ranjan Swain, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the victim girl was not only minor at the time of occurrence but her evidence coupled with her disclosure before her parents and the other materials available on record clearly establishes the complicity of the crime and therefore, no interference is called for to the impugned judgment. 8. Coming to the age of the victim, on the date of deposition, the victim stated her age to be 16 years and she stated that the occurrence took place two years prior to the date of her deposition. She further stated that she was a student of Class-VIII at the time of her deposition. Her parents P.W.2 and P.W.3 have also stated about her age which corroborate the evidence of the victim. P.W.6 was the Head master of the school where the victim was prosecuting her studies and he has proved the school admission register and it shows that on the date of admission in the school on 19.07.2003 in Class-VI, the victim was aged 11 years and nine days old and her date of birth is 11.07.1992. The school where the victim was prosecuting her studies was a Govt. educational institution. The defence has not challenged the age of the victim in any manner. The learned trial Court after assessing the ocular as well as the documentary evidence has come to a finding that the age of the victim was around 14 years at the time of alleged occurrence. After going through the materials available on record and the discussion which has been made by the learned trial Court, I find no infirmity in such finding and I am of the view that as on the date of occurrence, the prosecution has established the victim girl was 14 years of age. The victim (P.W.1) has narrated the incident in detail and she has stated that on the date of occurrence, both the appellants came inside the house, asked for water and when she provided water then the appellant Tianbulu @ Dhrubendriya Mahakud gagged her mouth and appellant Swadhin Taria bolted the door from inside and then both the appellants took her to Puja Ghara (daity room) and flunged her on the floor of that room, undressed her and they also removed their clothes and committed sexual intercourse on her. She stated that first appellant Tianbulu @ Dhrubendriya Mahakud committed rape on her and thereafter the appellant Swadhin Taria committed rape. The victim has specifically stated that during such sexual intercourse, she sustained much pain and she noticed bloodsemen like stain on her scot which she had worn at the time of occurrence. After the appellants left the place, the victim was weeping and when her parents arrived, she disclosed about the entire occurrence before them. P.W.2, the mother of the victim has stated that when around 4 p.m. they arrived at the house, they found the victim was weeping and when she asked the victim as to the cause of her weeping, she disclosed that the appellants committed rape on her. This fact is also corroborated by the father of the victim who has been examined as P.W.3. The victim as well as her parents has stated that in connection with the case, a meeting was held in the village and since the meeting failed to deliver justice and parties were directed to inform the police, they proceeded to the police station and accordingly, lodged the report. The F.I.R. was lodged on the next day of the occurrence. Thus, the evidence of the victim is corroborated by the ocular testimony of her parents. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence. P.W.4 Dr. P.N. Das who examined the victim at District Headquarters Hospital, Bargarh stated that as per radiological evidence of film number 743 and 744 taken on the same day, her age would to be 14 to 16 years. The evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) who examined the victim on 28.08.2004 indicates that there was hymenal tears which were old and were consistent with sexual intercourse in past. The doctor (P.W.5) who examined the appellants on 30.6.2004 found no marks of injury on the private parts but since there was long gap between the date of occurrence and the examination of the appellants, non-finding of any injury per se would not be a ground to discard the evidence of the victim. The evidence on record clearly proves that not only the victim was minor and she was around of 14 years of age at the time of occurrence but from her evidence which is clear, cogent and trustworthy, it is apparent that the appellants committed gang rape on her on the date of occurrence. The evidence on record clearly proves that not only the victim was minor and she was around of 14 years of age at the time of occurrence but from her evidence which is clear, cogent and trustworthy, it is apparent that the appellants committed gang rape on her on the date of occurrence. The evidence of the victim is also corroborated from the evidence of her parents. The learned trial Court after vividly discussing the evidence on record has found that the charges under sections 376(2)(g)/342 of the Indian Penal Code have been established by the prosecution against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has also imposed rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the appellants which appears to be just and proper. I find no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and therefore, the conviction of the appellants under sections 376(2)(g)/342 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed thereunder by the learned trial Court stands confirmed. 9. In view of the enactment of the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012, keeping in view the age of the victim at the time of occurrence and the nature and gravity of the offence committed and the family background, I feel it necessary to recommend the case of the victim to District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh to examine the case of the victim after conducting the necessary enquiry in accordance with law for grant of compensation under the Orissa Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012. Let a copy of the order be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, Bargarh for compliance. Lower Court's record with a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. 10. Before parting with the case, I would like to put on record my appreciation to Mr. Manoj Kumar Panda, the learned counsel for rendering his valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. The learned counsel shall be entitled to his professional fees which is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. 11. In view of the above discussions, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.