JUDGMENT : The sole appellant – Paikira Diggi @ Dasa @ Julus Diggi has faced the trial in S.T. No. 27/2010 in the Court of Sri Rama Kant Mishra, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, who under judgment dated 18.06.2016 has held the appellant guilty under Sections 366/376 of the I.P.C. and further under order dated 20.06.2016 has awarded sentence to undergo R.I. for eight years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-under Section 366 of I.P.C. and further awarded sentence to undergo R.I. for eight years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-under Section 376 of I.P.C. Further, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution, as unfolded in the written report of Shanti Bading, P.W.-4 (prosecutrix), aged 35 years given to Officer-in-Charge, Sonua P.S. alleging therein is that on 06.04.2009, she had gone to local market and when at about 6:00 p.m. she was returning from Pansua Bazar, in the mid way one Paikirra Diggi (appellant herein) met her and proposed to marry her and when she refused, then appellant threatened her with knife and took her to his house and six other persons also accompanied them. Thereupon appellant kept the P.W.-4 in his house for three days and continued making physical relationship with her, but anyhow on the fourth day, P.W.-4 escaped and went to the house of the elder sister of her Bhabhi at Raihatu (Khootpani Block) where she remained for three months. Thereafter his brother came and she disclosed the incident to him and thereafter Panchayati was organized, but appellant didn't marry. On the basis of written statement, Sonua P.S. Case No. 29 of 2009 dated 21.07.2009, registered under Sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. was instituted. The fardbeyan is marked as Exhibit-4 and formal F.I.R. is marked as Exhibit-2. The police after investigation submitted final form vide Final Form No. 45 of 2009 dated 09.12.2009. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 02.02.2010 and charges were framed on 13.02.2012 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa under Sections 366 & 376 of I.P.C. Further, in course of trial, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely, P.W.-1 Tuvan Bading (brother of the informant); P.W.-2 Dr. Meena Kalundia; P.W.-3 Devnandan Murari; P.W.-4 Shanti Bading (Informant); P.W.-5 Dilip Kumar Bading, who has been declared hostile; P.W.-6 Rameshwer Pandey is Sub-Inspector of Police, who is the part I.O. of this case. Meena Kalundia; P.W.-3 Devnandan Murari; P.W.-4 Shanti Bading (Informant); P.W.-5 Dilip Kumar Bading, who has been declared hostile; P.W.-6 Rameshwer Pandey is Sub-Inspector of Police, who is the part I.O. of this case. Prosecution has produced Exhibit-1 – Medical Report, Exhibit – 2 Formal F.I.R., Exhibit-3 – Endorsement on written report and Exhibit – 4 Written report of the Informant. 3. Thereafter, the trial court after appraising the evidences and hearing the parties, under judgment dated 18.06.2016 has held the appellant guilty under Sections 366 / 376 of the I.P.C. and further under order dated 20.06.2016 has awarded sentence to undergo R.I. for eight years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-under Section 366 of I.P.C. and further awarded sentence to undergo R.I. for eight years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-under Section 376 of I.P.C. Further, both the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. The appeal was filed on 30.09.2016, but it was hit by limitation of 39 days. Thereafter, on 30.11.2016, delay condonation petition was filed through the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee and on 14.12.2016, petition filed for condonation of delay was allowed and appeal was admitted and LCR was called for. Thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing on priority basis as appellant is in custody since 12.11.2009, so this case is heard out of turn. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is delay of three months in lodging the F.I.R. which casts serious doubt on the case of prosecution. P.W.-4, informant, who is aged about 33 years, is a major lady. He has also referred the evidence of P.W.-2 Dr. Meena Kalundia, who has assessed the age of the victim / prosecutrix between 32-35 years, who has examined the victim on 22.07.2009 and has not found any mark of violence on her body or private parts. He further submitted that P.W.-4 did not understand Hindi and Ho entrepreneur was given to interpret. It is submitted that proper procedures were not followed. Further, P.W.-3 Devendra Murari, who is part I.O. has formally submitted the final form. P.W.-6 Sub-Inspector of Police, who has stated that he has recorded the statement of one Dilip Kumar Bading, who knows Hindi language and he translated the written report to P.W.-4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that from perusal of the written report Ext.-1, only a thumb impression of P.W.-4 prosecutrix has been taken. P.W.-6 Sub-Inspector of Police, who has stated that he has recorded the statement of one Dilip Kumar Bading, who knows Hindi language and he translated the written report to P.W.-4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that from perusal of the written report Ext.-1, only a thumb impression of P.W.-4 prosecutrix has been taken. Although, Dilip Kumar Bading P.W.-5, has been declared hostile by prosecution and was cross-examined by the prosecution, but he has not denied that he has not scribed the contents of the written given by P.W.-4. He has deposed that he does not know anything about the occurrence. So, the very factum of the prosecution fails. 6. Keeping in view the evidence of P.W.-4 victim and doctor finally recorded by the trial court and the considered view that the interest will be served if the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366 & 376 of the I.P.C. is upheld, but sentence is reduced to the period undergone as appellant is in custody since 12.11.2009 keeping in view the fact that after amendment in Section 376 of the I.P.C., maximum sentence of 7 years is to be awarded and admittedly, the appellant has already remained in custody for more than seven years. 7. Taking this fact and also the fact that the prosectrix is a major and the appellant has remained in custody for more than seven years, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence and the sentence as awarded by the trial court is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The appellant, named above, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 8. Further, it appears that the judgment dated 18.06.2016 of the learned trial court has not considered the fact regarding granting compensation to the victim – Shanti Bading (P.W.-4) under Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme. The appellant, named above, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 8. Further, it appears that the judgment dated 18.06.2016 of the learned trial court has not considered the fact regarding granting compensation to the victim – Shanti Bading (P.W.-4) under Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme. In this view of the matter, the Secretary, DLSA, Chaibasa in association with the trial court and also the Chairman-cum-Principal District Judge, Chaibasa is directed to frame a scheme for that purpose and the trial court is directed to issue notice to Shanti Bading P.W.-4 and on her appearance, the trial court will frame a scheme and provide financial help from Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme and will also try to give benefit of any of the nine schemes in which P.W.-4 falls fit which is sponsored and run by NALSA in Jharkhand and will submit a detailed report within 16 weeks from today. 9. Further, copies of the judgment be sent to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for quantifying the fees of Mrs. Pragati Prasad, Advocate and also to the trial court and to the Chairman-cum-Principal District Judge, Chaibasa and the Secretary, DLSA, Chaibasa for framing rehabilitation scheme and for submitting report. List this case after 16 weeks.