JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The sole appellant stands convicted for the offences under Sections 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.7.2011/2.7.2011 passed by the learned Court of Additional Judicial, Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 159/2007. In default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The appeal has been preferred through the High Court Legal Services Committee vide letter no. HCLSC/470/IV dated 5.9.2012 by the learned counsel Dr. Waris. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution story inter alia alleges as follows: FIR being Angara P.S. Case No. 77/2006 was registered under Sections 376/342 of the Indian Penal Code on 1.9.2006 on the fardbeyan of the victim girl Bilasi Kumari recorded before the Office-incharge, Angara P.S. at about 14.00 hours, which inter alia alleged that the informant (victim girl) who was aged about 14 years was on the way to her sister's house on 20.8.2006 when the accused asked her to accompany her. The accused is said to be 18 years of age and was studying in Class-VI. The informant alleged that she was taken to the jungle and he kept her for five days. During the night, she was taken to the school and after giving food, the accused committed rape on three occasions. In the morning, he used to take her to the 'forest again. On 26.8.2006 the accused left her free. Thereafter, she reached Sonahatu. During the course of wandering in the market, she met her sister's husband and returned with him on 31.8.2006. This fardbeyan was made before the Sub-Inspector Fojail Ahmad, Officer-in-charge of Angara Police Station thereafter on 1.9.2006 which led to the institution of the FIR. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. Cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 9.3.2007. This fardbeyan was made before the Sub-Inspector Fojail Ahmad, Officer-in-charge of Angara Police Station thereafter on 1.9.2006 which led to the institution of the FIR. 5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. Cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by order dated 9.3.2007. Learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi transferred the records to another Court and thereafter it came to the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi for trial. Charges were read over to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Case of the defence is of denial of the occurrence and false implication. 6. During course of trial, ten witnesses were examined. PW-1 is Mritunjay Mahto, PW-2 is Kartik Munda, PW-3 is Dr. Uma Sinha, PW-4 is Mangal Linda, PW-5 is Chuka Oraon, PW-6 is Krishna Swansi, PW-7 is Pandu Munda, PW-8 is Ganesh Munda, PW-9 is the informant Bilashi Kumari, (victim girl) and PW-10 is Illisius Minz who is the Investigating Officer of the case. Except the victim girl (PW-9), other prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are all hearsay witnesses ~ who have given the account of occurrence on the basis of information given by the victim girl or through some other witnesses. The victim girl in her statement supported the prosecution story in detail and inter alia stated that the incidence happened two and half years back on Tuesday at about 12-00 - 1.00 PM. She was on the way to the house of her sister at Kankatta, Ranchi. She was going alone on foot. When she reached Nawatoli, the accused/appellant Tau Nayak @ Ram Ratan Harizan (Harijan) @ Ram Ratan Nayak met her and asked her to accompany him towards the forest. After spending time till evening, she was taken to Purnadih School where he committed rape on her. She was kept in the school in the night. In the next morning, she was again taken to the jungle. She remained in the jungle and again was taken to the school. Food was brought by the accused from his Maternal Uncle's house to feed her. In this way, they stayed for five days, during which he used to commit rape on her in the night. He finally left her in the forest one day, stating that he would come back. Food was brought by the accused from his Maternal Uncle's house to feed her. In this way, they stayed for five days, during which he used to commit rape on her in the night. He finally left her in the forest one day, stating that he would come back. Thereafter, she went to Sonahatu and met her brother-in-law in the market who brought her to the house. She narrated the incidence to her family members including her father and brother. Thereafter, fardbeyan was recorded before the police which has been marked as Exhibit-2/1 bearing her signature. She also stated that she was examined in the hospital and she had handed over the clothes also. In her cross-examination, she has identified the accused as he was staying with his Maternal Uncle and she knew him from before. She also stated that thereafter, she has been staying for two years at Ranchi. The distance of the accused's house is at a five minutes distance from her house. She has also stated that she used to go alone to her sister's residence at Kankatta on foot. She has denied suggestion that she had gone to any relative's house and had falsely implicated the accused of the aforesaid charges. She also stated that she had made attempts to flee during the period she was kept in the jungle. 7. The Medical Officer (PW-3) who has conducted the examination on the prosecutrix, in his statement, has stated that she was examined on 2.9.2006 at Sadar Hospital, Ranchi at 12.45 PM on being brought by' the Constable Suresh Ram of Angara P.S. The medical examination of the prosecutrix revealed the following bodily features of her private part. Breast -developed, Pubic hair-present, Hymen-not recently torn Introits-admits two fingers No stain on cloth worn by victim. Cloths brought had bloodstains. Vaginal swab and smear taken and sent for microscopic examination. X-ray of wrist and pelvis and elbow and hand advised. According to Pathologist, in the vaginal smear report, no alive or dead spermatozoa were found. X-ray report was received on 6.9.2006 vide plate no. 275. According to the radiologist, X-ray of wrist and hands show pissiform ossification. Heads of metacarpal not fused. Lower ends of radia and ulna not fused. X-ray of elbow shows medical epicondyl not fused. Opinion radiologically-the individual is about 12-13 years of age. X-ray report was received on 6.9.2006 vide plate no. 275. According to the radiologist, X-ray of wrist and hands show pissiform ossification. Heads of metacarpal not fused. Lower ends of radia and ulna not fused. X-ray of elbow shows medical epicondyl not fused. Opinion radiologically-the individual is about 12-13 years of age. Medical Officer in his opinion however stated that there is no evidence of a recent sexual intercourse at the time of examination. The medical report is marked as Exhibit-1. Despite repeated calls, no one appeared to cross-examine the Medical Officer who was then discharged on 3.9.2008. 8. The Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-10. As per the I.O., he conducted the investigation after the FIR was instituted by the Officer-in-charge Fojail Ahmad. He has identified the fardbeyan written in the handwriting of the Officer-in-charge. The fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-4. Endorsement on the fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-4/1. He has narrated the place of occurrence where the victim was taken by the accused. Statement of other witnesses like Sukhdeo Machhua, Harihar Machhua, Krishna Swansi, Ganesh Munda, Mangal Linda, Chuka Uraon and Mritunjay Mahto were also taken by him. According to him, accused had surrendered on 13.11.2006 before the police. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not inspect the second place of occurrence that was the school, neither took statement of any teacher of the school. He has denied the suggestion that implication was false. 9. Learned Trial Court found the testimony of the sole prosecutrix credible together with the report of the Medical Officer that internal examination of the victim showed that she had undergone sexual intercourse, though not recently. Learned Trial Court also found corroboration of her statement from hearsay witnesses such as PW-2, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. Accordingly, it came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused/appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is said to be 18 years of age studying in Class-VI at the time of occurrence in the same school where the victim was studying and were known to each other. There are no other• witnesses who have alleged absence of the girl during the period of 22.8.2006 till she came back on 31.8.2006. Silence on the part of the family members in respect of her missing is inexplicable. There are no other• witnesses who have alleged absence of the girl during the period of 22.8.2006 till she came back on 31.8.2006. Silence on the part of the family members in respect of her missing is inexplicable. There is definitely delay in the institution of the FIR which also remains unexplained. Apart from the prosecutrix who is alleged to have stayed for five days with the accused, there are no other witnesses who have seen them together. The doctor has also found no recent sexual intercourse, though internal examination of the private parts of the victim girl shows that she had experience of sexual intercourse. All these facts taken together create a doubt in the prosecution story. Therefore, the accused/appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. The appellant was only 18 years of age at the time of occurrence. He surrendered on his own on 13.11.2006. The girl has also stated in her deposition that she is working in Ranchi for two years after the incidence. This shows that she has not undergone any psychological scar either. In these circumstances, interest of justice would be served in case conviction is upheld, that the accused/appellant may be released as he has undergone the custody for about 11 years by now. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamal Kishore Vs. State of H.P. [ (2000)4 SCC 502 ]. He submits that the imprisonment for life awarded by the learned Trial Court is not proportionate even if conviction is upheld, keeping into account the young age of the appellant at the time of occurrence, nor any acts of aggression. He may be given a chance to rehabilitate in the society. 11. Learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the basis of material evidence on record and finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. He submits that in a case of such a heinous offence of rape of a minor girl of 12-13 years of age, who does not have any other motive to implicate the sole accused in such fashion and the medical evidence that corroborates that she was subjected to sexual intercourse, the entire prosecution story clearly points out to the guilt of the accused/appellant. There can be no other eyewitness to such occurrence. There can be no other eyewitness to such occurrence. The victim girl was only 12-13 years of age and only after she was let free and she met her elder brother-in-law and she returned home on 31.8.2006. Thereafter the fardbeyan was recorded on 1.9.2006. The incidence was narrated to her family members only after her return. Delay is therefore well explained. Testimony of other witnesses who are though hearsay, fully corroborate the prosecutrix statement. Prosecutrix has also stood the test of cross-examination and supported the original case made out in the FIR. Therefore, the conviction must be sustained. Learned counsel for the State has however not been able to forcefully rebut the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant on the point of sentence which in the present case is life imprisonment. 12. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment. The material evidence discussed hereinabove that of the prosecutrix (PW-9) and Medical Officer (PW-3) Dr. Uma Sinha, do lead to the inference that the victim girl of 12-13 years of age have been misled to accompany the accused on his insistence and kept in confinement for five days during which, she had undergone forcible intercourse. The examination of the private parts of the victim girl, as narrated by the Medical Officer, clearly shows that there was rupture of hymen and that she has been subjected to sexual intercourse at the tender age. Since the incidence was reported only on 1.9.2006 and the prosecutrix was examined on 2.9.2006, that at least after seven days of her being released by the accused, there could not be presence of live or dead spermatozoa in the vaginal swab and smear, upon microscopic examination. The doctor had therefore reason to state that there was no evidence of recent intercourse. However, the prosecutrix has, without any ulterior motive, clearly deposed and supported the original case put up in the FIR that she had been taken by the accused to the jungle on 22.8.2006 and kept for five days thereafter in the jungle during which period, she was subjected to rape. However, the prosecutrix has, without any ulterior motive, clearly deposed and supported the original case put up in the FIR that she had been taken by the accused to the jungle on 22.8.2006 and kept for five days thereafter in the jungle during which period, she was subjected to rape. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecutrix who though was only 12-13 years of age at the time of occurrence and about 15½-16 years of age at the time of her deposition, had also stood the test of cross-examination. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the appreciation of the evidence on the part of the learned Trial Court convicting the accused/appellant for the aforesaid offences. However, we find reason and substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was only 18 years of age at the time of occurrence, may have just crossed the age of juvenility and was reportedly studying in Class-VI in the same school where the victim girl was also studying in Class-V. There are no aggression either evident from the physical examination of the victim girl, though it revealed that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. The victim girl after the incidence has also not undergone any psychological scar or depression as she was working at Ranchi for two years thereafter when she deposed before the learned Trial Court. 13. Considering all these facts and circumstances and the fact that the accused/appellant has undergone 11 years of custody by now, we are of the view that interest of justice would be met if the sentence of life imprisonment awarded be reduced to the period undergone. Accordingly, we direct the appellant, Tau Nayak @ Ram Ratan Harizan (Harijan) @ Ram Ratan Nayak, who is in jail, to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The fine amount of Rs.25,000/- is also waived. We direct the State Government to consider payment of victim compensation to the prosecutrix, as per the guidelines laid down under the victim compensation scheme, with the aid and assistance of the District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi. 14. Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner. 15. We accord appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned counsel for the appellant Dr. 14. Appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner. 15. We accord appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned counsel for the appellant Dr. Hasnain Waris who is on the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee.