JUDGMENT Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - The instant criminal jail appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Kan Singh from Central Jail, Udaipur challenging the judgment dated 5.6.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 39/2009 whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 and 341 IPC and passed the following sentence : Under Section 376 IPC 10 years RI with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months SI. Under Section 341 IPC 15 days SI with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 5 days additional SI. 2. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months SI. Under Section 341 IPC 15 days SI with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 5 days additional SI. 2. As per facts of the case, the complainant PW-3 Panna Singh submitted a report at Police Station Bheem on 25.10.2008 in which following allegations were levelled by him, which reads as under:- lsok esa] Jheku~ Fkkusnkj lkgc iqfyl Fkkuk Hkhe] ftyk jktleUn jktLFkku ÁkFkhZ & iUuk flag firk mn;flag jkor fuoklh Vksxh dYyk ekuk dk ckfM+;kA fo"k; & dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkus ckcr~A egksn; th] fouez fuosnu gS fd vkt fnuakd 25-10-2008 dks eSa rFkk esjh iRuh ehjk 'kke dks djhc 5-00 cts gekjs chM+s [kk[kkyk Fkkd ls ?kkl dkVdj okil ?kj tk jgs Fks jkLrs esa ubZ rykbZ esa 'kh'ke ds isM+ ds ikl esjs NksVs HkkbZ enu flag dh yM+dh lqJh pUæk dqekjh mez 9 o"kZ feyh tks jks jgh Fkh ftls eSaus dgk fd pUæk D;ksa jks jgh gS rks eq>s pUæk us crk;k fd eSa cdfj;ka ysdj ?kj tk jgh Fkh fd ;gka ,d vutku O;fDr vk;k tks eq>s idM+dj okyh dh rjQ ys x;k rFkk mlus viuk isUV [kksydj is'kkc djus dk fudkyk rFkk esjh ;ksfu esa Mky fn;k os esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;k ftlls esjs dkQh nnZ gqvk eSa fpYykus yxh rks mlus dgk fd fpYykbZ rks ekj nwaxk fQj eq>s NksM+dj igkfM+;ksa esa Hkkx x;kA fQj pUæk dks eSa rFkk esjh iRuh ?kj ysdj vk, pUæk ds ekrk&firk Hkh chM+k ls vk x, tks jkLrs esa gekjs lkFk gks x,A ?kj vkus ds ckn pUæk dh ;ksfu dks ns[kk rks dkQh [kwu fudy jgs Fks ftls ge Hkhe gkWfLiVy ysdj vk, gSA pUæk ds lkFk fdlh vKkr O;fDr us cykRdkj dj fn;k gS pUæk rhljh d{kk esa i<+rh gS tks dHkh&dHkh cdfj;ka pjkus Hkh tkrh gSaA fjiksVZ djrk gwa dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djkosaA fnuakd & 25-10-2008 ,lMh@& iUukflag 3. During investigation, the accused appellant was arrested on the basis of the statement of PW-1 Mool Singh and, thereafter, identification parade was conducted on 2.7.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur Smt. Brij Madhuri Sharma (PW-19). In that identification parade accused appellant was identified by the prosecutrix ''C''. During investigation, the accused appellant was arrested on the basis of the statement of PW-1 Mool Singh and, thereafter, identification parade was conducted on 2.7.2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur Smt. Brij Madhuri Sharma (PW-19). In that identification parade accused appellant was identified by the prosecutrix ''C''. The medical examination of the injuries suffered by the prosecutrix was conducted by medical jurist at CHC, Bheem at 10.00 pm on 25.10.2008 in which 9 abrasions were found upon the body of 9 years old prosecutrix. Her medical examination was conducted to ascertain the fact whether any sexual intercourse was committed with her. After examination by the Dr. T.C. Gangarani (PW-10) and Dr. Prem Nath reports Ex. P/19 and P/20 were prepared and given by the doctors. The investigating officer collected the proceedings of identification Ex. P/43 in which accused appellant was correctly identified by the 9 years old prosecutrix and after completing investigation, the investigation officer filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant under Section 341, 376 and 201 IPC in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bheem from where case was committed to the court of District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand for trial. 4. The learned District & Sessions Judge after framing charge under Section 201, 341 and 376 IPC commenced, the trial. 5. During trial, the statements of 22 prosecution witnesses were recorded and, thereafter, statements of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 were also recorded by the trial court in which the accused appellant denied all the allegations and said that I have been wrongly implicated in this case, no offence is committed by me with the prosecutrix. In defence, no evidence was produced by the accused appellant. 6. After recording evidence, the learned trial court heard final arguments and convicted the accused appellant vide judgment dated 5.6.2010 in Sessions Case No. 39/2009 for offence under Section 376 and 341 IPC but acquitted him from the charge under Section 201 IPC on the ground that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for offence under Section 201 IPC. 7. 7. While challenging the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye witness of the incident, the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence of last seen, so also identification by prosecutrix but chain of circumstances has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused appellant has committed rape with the 9 years old prosecutrix, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial court is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that in absence of direct evidence although the accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence or on the basis of identification by the prosecutrix, but here in this case, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because none of the witnesses proved the fact of last seen together or any evidence so as to connect the accused appellant with the crime, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. No other argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case in which rape was committed by the accused appellant on the small girl of 9 years of age, further submits that though there is no direct evidence but the witness PW-3 Panna Singh and PW-4 Smt. Keri deposed in her statement before the court that on 25.10.2008 when he and his wife coming from the field after cutting the grass, at that time, outside the Bide under the Shisham tree, prosecutrix "C" was sitting and crying and informed that one person wearing red t-shirt and jeans forcibly taken her in the bushes and committed rap with her. The witness PW-3 Panna Singh immediately called Madan Singh, father and Keri, mother and informed about the incident to them. 9. PW-2 Madan Singh and PW-4 Smt. Keri categorically stated in their statements that after hearing voice of Panna Singh at 5.30 pm on 25.10.2008 both went on spot and saw that their daughter ''C'' was crying and informed that one unknown person forcibly taken her in the bushes and committed rape with her. It is also informed by prosecutrix that after committing rape run away in the hills after giving threat to kill. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital for medical examination. It is also informed by prosecutrix that after committing rape run away in the hills after giving threat to kill. The prosecutrix was taken to the hospital for medical examination. The blood was oozing from private part of 9 years old prosecutrix and as per information given by the prosecutrix that the person who committed rape with her was wearing jeans and red t-shirt. The accused appellant was arrested and, thereafter, identification parade was conducted as per law in which accused appellant was identified by the prosecutrix. It is also argued that in the medical examination number of injuries were found upon the body of the prosecutrix, so also, as per medical examination hymen of prosecutrix was ruptured and doctor gave opinion that there is evidence of recent forceful sexual assault with the prosecutrix. In the examination report Ex. P/20 number of injuries were recorded by the medical jurist, therefore, it is a case in which the learned trial court has rightly arrived at with the finding that rape was committed with the small girl of 9 years by the accused appellant. 10. According to learned Public Prosecutor there is no force in this appeal because prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the entire evidence. There is no eye witness in this case, but soon after the occurrence when the prosecutrix was found near the tree of Shisham to the witness Panna Singh (PW- 3) informed that one unknown person wearing red t-shirt and jeans forcibly took her and committed rape with her. As per statement of PW-3 Panna Singh blood was oozing from her private part of small girl and incident was immediately reported to her father PW-2 Madan Singh and PW-4 Smt. Keli mother. Both these witnesses categorically proved that information was given by Panna Singh that somebody has committed rape with her daughter and upon receiving such information both the witnesses PW-2 Madan Singh and PW-4 Keri immediate take care of prosecutrix ''c'' and took her to the hospital for medical examination. The prosecutrix informed her father Madan Singh (PW-2) and mother Keri (PW-4) that unknown person who committed rape was wearing red t-shirt and jeans having no hair upon his head. In the hospital prosecutrix was medically examined by the medical jurist and after examination, report (Ex. The prosecutrix informed her father Madan Singh (PW-2) and mother Keri (PW-4) that unknown person who committed rape was wearing red t-shirt and jeans having no hair upon his head. In the hospital prosecutrix was medically examined by the medical jurist and after examination, report (Ex. P/19) was given in which 9 abrasions were reported by the medical jurist. The prosecutrix ''c'' was examined by the gynecologist and gynecologist gave opinion that there are signs of recent forcible sexual assault. The medical jurist PW-9 Prem Nath categorically stated that prosecutrix ''c'' of 9 years of age was examined by him on 25.10.2008 and after examination of her body, I find that there were 9 abrasions upon her body. PW-10 Dr. T.C. Gagrani medically examined prosecutrix ''c'' to ascertain the fact whether intercourse is committed with her or not and after examination, the PW-10 gave following statements in support of his report Ex. P/10, which reads as under: ^^eSa fnukad 25-10-2008 dks lhŒ,pŒlhŒ Hkhe esa fpfdRlkf/kdkjh ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml fnu jkr dks 10 ctdj 20 feuV ij dqekjh pUæk iq=h enu flag jkor mez 09 o"kZ fuoklh Vksxh dk] cPph dk cykRdkj ls lacaf/kr ijh{k.k esjs }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA blds fy, cPph dh cM+h eka dh lgefr yh xbZA tks ijh{k.k ls iwoZ lgefr yh xbZ FkhA ijh{k.k esa eSaus ik;k fd mlds xqIrkax ij yslsjsVsV ?kko Fkk ftldh lkbt esa 1@2 lsŒehŒ xq.kk 1@4 lsŒehŒ Fkk tks xqIrkax ds ck;ha rjQ FkkA nwljk 3@4 lsŒehŒ xq.kk 1@4 lsŒehŒ xqIrkax ds nk;ha rjQ FkkA vkSj mlls [kwu cg jgk FkkA ihŒchŒ ,Dtkfeus'ku tc eSaus fd;k rks mlesa fctkbuk esa ,d maxyh tk jgh Fkh vkSj f>Yyh QVh gqbZ FkhA mlds ckn esa eSaus fotk;buk] ljokbdy Loko ,oa fotk;buk Loko ds lsEiy fy,A eSaus ihŒ,lŒ Hkhe dks lqiqnZ fd,A eSaus viuh jk; esa ;g ik;k fd cPph ds lkFk esa cy ds lkFk rktk cykRdkj ds fu'kku ik;s x;sA fjiksVZ esjs }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ tks ÁŒihŒ 20 gksdj , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lh ls Mh ppsjh ekrk deyk ds gLrk{kj gSA bZ ls ,Q pUæk ds gLrk{kj ,oa th ls ,p lgefr gSA ;g lkjh tkap eSaus ckMZ ysMh ljLorh dh mifLFkfr esa fd, Fks vkbZ ls ts ljLorh ds gLrk{kj gSA** 12. Similarly PW-9 Dr. Similarly PW-9 Dr. Prem Nath gave following report with regard to the injuries found upon the body of prosecutrix which reads as under: lkekU; 'kjhj] ckyksa ds jax yM+dh ds gYdk Hkwjk FkkA cxy esa ,oa isV ds uhps cky ugha FksA fnekx ls Bhd FkhA lsdsUMzh lsDl djsDVj Moyi ugha FksA csLV Moyi ugha FksA vkokt uksjey FkhA mapkbZ 122 lsŒehŒ FkhA out 20 fdŒyksŒ FkkA Nkrh Qqykus ij 60 lsŒehŒ uksjey daM+h'ku esa 57 lsŒehŒ FkhA dqy 24 nkar FksA ftlesa 18 VsEijsjh Fks ijekusUV nkar 6 FksA pksVksa dk fooj.k %& pksV uEcj 1 & [kjksap 1 1@2 xq.kk 3@4 lsŒehŒ nk;h vka[k ds iklA pksV uEcj 2 & [kjksap 1 1@3 xq.kk 3@4 lsŒehŒ xky ds nk;h rjQA pksV uEcj 3 & [kjksap 1 3@4 xq.kk 3@4 lsŒehŒ nk;h vxz Hkqtk ijA pksV uEcj 4 & [kjksap 3@4 xq.kk 1@2 lsŒehŒ nk;h vxz Hkqtk ijA pksV uEcj 5 & [kjksap 1@2 xq.kk 1 lsŒehŒ nkfguh dksguh ds ikl esaA pksV uEcj 6 & [kjksap 1@2 xq.kk 1@2 lsŒehŒ ihB ds mijh Hkkx ijA pksV uEcj 7 & [kjksap 3@4 xq.kk 1@2 lsŒehŒ ihB ds ck;h rjQA pksV uEcj 8 & [kjksap 1@2 xq.kk 1@2 lsŒehŒ ihB ds ck;h rjQA pksV uEcj 9 & [kjksap 3@4 xq.kk 3@4 lsŒehŒ ihB ds ck;h rjQA lHkh pksVsa lkekU; Ád`fr dh gksdj dqUn gfFk;kj ls dkfjr FkhA pksVksa dh vof/k 12 ?k.Vs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA ;ksuh ls [kwu fudy jgk FkkA ÁkbZosV ikVZ dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k tks L=h jksx fo'ks"kK VhŒlhŒ xxjkuh ds }kjk fd;k x;kA ftldh fjiksVZ i=koyh ij layXu gSA 13 .The statement of prosecutrix ''c'' were also recorded as PW-17 in which following statement is given by the prosecutrix, which reads as under :- ^^oloky yksd vfHk;kstd us loky fd;k fd eSa gkftj vnkyr eqyfte dku flag dks igpkurh gwaA djhc ,d lky igys gkftj vnkyr eqyfte dku flag us tc eSa [ksr ls cdfj;ka ysdj vk jgh Fkh rks feyk Fkk tks eq>s ysdj >kfM+;ksa esa ys x;kA vkSj viuk isaV [kksydj viuk is'kkc djus dks esjs is'kkc djus dh txg ij Mky fn;kA eSa fpYykbZ ftl ij dku flau us cksyk fd dq,sa esa Mky nwaxkA esjs [kksVk dke djus ls [kwu fudy vk;s FksA ml jkst gkftj vnkyr eqyfte us yky Vh 'kVZ o thal igu j[kk Fkk vkSj mlds flj ds cky mM+s gq, FksA ?kj ls esjh eka o dkdk vk;s ftudks eSaus lkjh ckr crkbZA mlds ckn eq>s gkWLihVy ysdj x;s FksA esjh MkWDVjh dh FkhA esjs dks tsy esa ys tkdj igpku djkbZ Fkh fd [kksVk dke fdlus fd;k gSA ogka ij Hkh eSaus tsy esa gkftj vnkyr eqyfte dks igpkuk FkkA ftldh QnZ f'kuk[rxh dk;Zokgh ÁŒihŒ 43 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA** 14. In above statement it is categorically stated by prosecutrix that after identification by her before the magistrate the report of identification parade (Ex. P/43) was prepared which bears my signature. PW-19 Smt. Brij Madhuri Sharma who was working as Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Devgarh appeared before the court and proved that identification parade was conducted in jail at Bheem where prosecutrix identified accused appellant and after identification the report Ex. P/43 was prepared by me. All these witnesses were cross-examined by the defence, but witnesses proved the incident of committing rape by the accused appellant with 9 years old prosecutrix and medical evidence categorically supported the fact of rape with prosecutrix by the accused appellant. 15. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for committing such heinous offence of rape of 9 years old girl. In my opinion, no sympathy is warranted in this case. Therefore, this cr. jail appeal is hereby dismissed. 16. In view of the fact that prosecutrix was only 9 years of age when incident took place and she was subjected to rape by the accused appellant, therefore, the child victim is entitled for compensation under Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 as per section 357A of Cr. P.C., 1973 Therefore, the District Services Legal Authority, Rajsamand is directed to consider the case of prosecutrix for granting compensation as per the scheme of 2011 after due inquiry and grant compensation as per the provisions of the scheme within a period of two months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. The copy of this order may be sent to the DSLA, Rajsamand forthwith.