JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.07.2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 84/2014 (CIS No. 262/2014) by which learned trial court has convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 5(N)/6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’) for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default further to undergo five months’ simple imprisonment. 2. 2. The First Information Report disclosing the factual aspect of the offence reads as under:- ^^lsok esa] Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh th] iqfyl Fkkuk jktuxj ftyk jktleUn] ¼jktLFkku½ izkFkhZ;k & ikjlh lkyoh firk ghjkyky lkyoh mez 14 o"kZ fuoklh eksjp.kk rglhy ,oa ftyk jktleUnA fo"k; & dk;Zokgh ckcr~A egksn; th] mi;qZDr fo"k; esa esjk fuosnu gS fd eSa jktdh; mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; xk¡o eksjp.kk esa d{kk 8 esa i<+rh gw¡A esjh tUe fnukad 4-3-2000 gSA bl f'k{k.k laLFkk esa d{kk 3 ls v/;;ujr gw¡A esjh lxh ek¡ pk¡nh ckbZ fiNys dbZ o"kksZa ls ukrk fookg xk¡o lasxuok esa dj fy;k gSA bl otg ls eSa esjs lxs firk ghjkyky lkyoh iq= nykth fuoklh eksjp.kk ds lkFk o"kZ 2008 ls lkFk jg jgh gw¡A esjh lkSrsyh ek¡ iq"ik ckbZ lkyoh o blds ,d yM+dk x.ks'k mez 11 ekg o ,d yM+dh dkty mez 6 o"kZ Hkh ,d gh dejs esa jgrs gSaA eSa d{kk 5 esa i<+rh Fkh rc ls vc rd esjs firk ghjkykyth }kjk djhcu 2 & 2 1@2½ o"kZ igys fnu esa eSa ?kj eksjp.kk ij vdsyh FkhA vkSj esjs firkth Hkh ?kj ij FksA esjh ek¡ mlds ihgj xk¡o Q¡wfd;k xbZ gqbZ Fkh rc esjs lkFk ,dkUr ns[kdj esjk itkek [kqyok;k vkSj dgk fd rsjs is'kkc dh txg o vkl&ikl cky D;ksa mx jgs gSaA fQj eq>s uhps lqyk fy;kA vkSj eq>s Mjk /kedkdj eq>ls [kksVk dke dj fy;k bl nkSjku esjs is'kkc dh txg ls [kwu fudyk vkSj nnZ Hkh gqvk rks dgk fd pqipki lkQ dj ysA vkSj eq>s Mjk;k vkSj /kedk;k fd fdlh dks ugha dgsxhA blds ckn ge ekpZ&vizSy 2014 esa ,d 'kknh esa cksjt x, tgk¡ jkLrs esa ,dkUr esa cuh dksBjh esa ys tkdj esjs lkFk tcju [kksVk dke fd;kA xro"kZ esjh lkSrsyh ek¡ gksyh ij mlds Hkrhtk gksus ls <q¡< ysdj ihgj xk¡o Qw¡fd;k xbZ Fkh rc Hkh eksjp.kk esa ?kj ij vdsyh ikdj jkr esa esjs lkFk [kksVk dke fd;kA vkSj esjs dks Mjk;k&/kedk;kA vkSj dgha ikl&iM+kSl fj'rsnkjh esa Hkh ugha tkus fn;kA ,d ckj esjh lxh ek¡ ls feykus ds fy, lasxokl xk¡o ysdj x, rks Hkh jkLrs esa ,dkUr txg ns[kdj va/ksjs esa eksVj lkbZfdy jksddj fQj [kksVk dke fd;kA xrekg 6 ;k 7 tqykbZ 14 dks jktuxj Ldwy dh dkWfi;ksa fnykus ds fy, ysdj vk, rks Hkh /kksyh [kku dh rjQ ,dkUr esa cuh ,d dksBjh esa ys tkdj [kksVk dke fd;kA bl ?kVukØe ls esjs dkQh ;kSu ¼'kkjhfjd½ mRihM+u gqvk gSA iM+kslh gtkjhyky lkyoh ls eSaus mldk eksckby Qksu ekax dj esjh lxh ek¡ pk¡nh ckbZ dks Hkh bl ?kVuk dh tkudkjh nhA ftl ij esjh ek¡ us dgk fd rw rsjs ikik dks cksydj esjs ikl vktk ukA rks esjs ikik us eq>s esjh lxh ek¡ ds ikl ugha tkus fn;kA esjs lkFk gks jgs 'kkjhfjd vR;kpkj dk dksbZ lek/kku ugha fudyk rks eSaus esjs Ldwy dh efgyk f'kf{kdkvksa Jhefr laxhrk tks'kh] Jhefr gsedkark ikyhoky] Jhefr utek [kkrwu ,oa Jhefr ikjl d¡oj dks Hkh ?kVuk ds ckjs esa crk;kA eq>s dk;Zokgh gsrq jktuxj ysdj vk,A fjiksZV djrh gw¡A dk;Zokgh djkuk QjekosA izkfFkZ;k ikjlh lkyoh fnukad % 6-8-2014** 3. Heard submissions of both the sides learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant has submitted that allegations regarding rape are wrong, in fact, the prosecutrix was disobeying command of her parents and she was instructed to mend her behaviour and not to nurture unwanted relationship with vagabond elements, which was not endured by the prosecutrix and in retaliation, she lodged a bogus FIR to harass her father. It has further been argued that the prosecutrix got admitted directly in the third standard and she was not a minor at the time of alleged offence so, provisions relating to POCSO Act does not attract in this case and the trial court ignored this aspect, which was agitated before the trial court but without paying any heed to the legal contentions, the trial was conducted. All the witnesses are hearsay and the FIR has also been lodged belatedly by two days, in a well thought way. The findings of the trial court are perverse and unsustainable, so the appeal be allowed and the appellant-accused be set at liberty. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that narrations of minor victim-prosecutrix are reliable and trustworthy since she has revealed a true story. 4. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant-accused Heeralal has been convicted for ravishing virginity of his own daughter at multiple occasions, she ultimately complained this wrong to the school teachers, who approached along with victim to the Police Station and the FIR, Ex.P/1 came into existence, which categorically names appellant-accused. There is a disclosure in the FIR, that accused “Heeralal” father of victim, started committing the awful for last 2½ years or so, when she was alone at her residence. 5. Appraisal of the evidence substantiate version of the FIR, since PW-3 “victim” [hereinafter called as “P” to avoid disclosure of her identity in view of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act], has said in her testimony that she is a student of Class IX, her date of birth is 04.03.2000, she lodged Ex.P/1, when she was studying in Class VIII in Government Higher Secondary School, Morchna which contains her signature from A to B. She has further said that name of her natural (real) mother is Chandi Bai and Pushpa Bai is her step mother, name of her father is Heeralal. She has further said that her natural (real) mother got her “naata” marriage ceremonized with someone else, when she was aging 9-10 years and when her mother got her “naata” (another marriage) ceremonized, she was residing at her grany’s residence. She has further said that in Morchna’s house; she, her step mother Pushpa, her father Heeralal, step brother Ganesh and step sister Kajal reside together. She has made a painful say by narrating that her father perperated cohabiting her, when she was student of Vth Standard. She has further uttered way by which coercive rape was perpetrated upon her by her own father and has said that she was raped by her father firstly, when her step mother was away during Holi and has said that she was ignorant about this unwanted act and once an aunty informed her, that kind of act, results in begotting progeny. She has again uttered miserable by saying that she informed this to her step mother and other family members but they did not help and has said that she was cohabited by her father at residence, as well as on way when she was taken to Sangadwas on pretext of meeting with her father and once on way to Bharoj in a lonely room. She has also said that when she informed the unlawful to her family members, her father got infuriated and warned not to convey it to anybody, when she declined to yield, her father thrashed her which caused injuries on her face and eye. She has further said that when she went to school, teachers asked reason of the injury and weeping, then she revealed act of unlawful rape, which was forcibly perpetrated upon her by her father. Subsequent to this, the teachers, after informing to the Principal and others, brought her to police station, Rajnagar, where she presented FIR Ex.P/1. She has again said that when her father cohabited for the first time, it was asked to her, pretending to show as to why pubic hairs were grown on her private part and under such pretention, he got her undergarments stripped and cohabited with her. She has admitted her signature on chalk FIR from C to D and has said that Heeralal, present in the court, is her father, who committed rape upon her. She has admitted her signature on chalk FIR from C to D and has said that Heeralal, present in the court, is her father, who committed rape upon her. She has further said that her medical report relating to rape is Ex.P/3 and injury report is Ex.P/4, which contains her signature. She has further said that Ex.P/5 is her statement made before Rajsamand Court, which contains here signature and Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/7 relates to spot map prepared and Ex.P/8 also contains her signature by which her apparels were taken, in her cross-examination, she has said that her father married secondly with Pushpa, when her mother Chandi was there and so her real mother got “naata” marriage ceremonized. She has denied that she was inclined to marry with some boy and her parents were reluctant and wanted to marry her somewhere else, in her cross examination, she has also said that after registering the FIR, she got herself lodged in Mahila Mandal, Udaipur and did not join her parental abode. 6. Entire narrations, disclose nothing colorful, rather, the testimony touches realm of reality, prosecutrix say rather reveals unfortunate incest that how a minor sibling was ravished by her own sire. 7. PW-1 Smt. Sangeeta Joshi is a teacher of Government Higher Secondary School, Morchna, has said that the prosecutrix had disclosed her and another teachers, working there regarding misdeed of rape perpetrated upon her by her father for last 2-3 years and daunted her not to say to anybody. She has further said that natural mother of “P” had left, so prosecutrix “P” was living with her father and step mother. She has further said that after getting this information, the said awful was conveyed to the Principal Sohanlal Kumawat and on request of prosecutrix, other teachers along with Principal, went to Rajnagar Police Station and the FIR was lodged accordingly, which is Ex.P/1, which contains signature of prosecutrix as well as of this witness. She has further said that the rape report is Ex.P/3, in her cross-examination she has said that she is working in that school since September. 2000 and has said that prosecutrix was a regular student of the school and at that time their school was having seven teachers out of which three were male. She has further said that the rape report is Ex.P/3, in her cross-examination she has said that she is working in that school since September. 2000 and has said that prosecutrix was a regular student of the school and at that time their school was having seven teachers out of which three were male. PW-2 Radheshyam Ameta, another teacher of the school has also narrated similar kind of story and has said that when all the teachers came to the Principal with Prosecutrix, he was present there, where prosecutrix informed the ravishing story perpetrated upon her by her own father and the Principal inquired for a day or two, then they all went to Rajnagar Police Station and registered the FIR, which is Ex.P/1 which contains his signature and this chalk FIR is Ex.P/2. Nothing abnormal has emerged from the cross-examination of these witnesses. PW-9 Motilal Kumawat Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Mochrna has said that the matter is 1½ years old, when he was in his office, female teachers Sangeeta Joshi, Hemkanta Paliwal, Paras Kunwar, Nazma Khatoon came to him and informed that prosecutrix was raped by her father for last 2 – 2½ years, on this “P” was summoned in his office then prosecutrix “P” also narrated everything before them and they went to Police Station, Rajnagar for her legal help. He has said that Ex.P.1 and Ex.P/2 FIRs contain his signatures and has said that Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12 relates to date of birth of prosecutrix, which contain his signatures. He has said that he has brought Ex.P/13, register relating to admission of prosecutrix. Ex.P/13 contains entry of date of birth, which is mentioned as 04.03.2000. Likewise Ex.P/12 is certificate issued from the Principal of the said school, which also contains that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 04.03.2000 according to scholar register, S. No. 1360. PW-4 Sunil, another teacher of Government Higher Secondary School Mochrna, has uttered everything alike to other school teachers and has accepted his signature on Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2. PW-6 Mangilal has said that Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/9 contain his signature, which were made by him, while police asked to sign as motbir. PW-4 Sunil, another teacher of Government Higher Secondary School Mochrna, has uttered everything alike to other school teachers and has accepted his signature on Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2. PW-6 Mangilal has said that Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/9 contain his signature, which were made by him, while police asked to sign as motbir. PW-12 Smt. Chandi Bai natural and real mother of prosecutrix has said that she had earlier married with Heeralal and prosecutrix (“P”) is her daughter and has further said that after separating from Heeralal 9-10 years ago, she got her second marriage ceremonized with Bherulal of Segadwas and since then she is residing at Segadwas and her daughter (“P”) was residing with her father Heeralal at Mochrna. She has also said that 15-16 months back, her daughter (“P”) talked to her on mobile and apprised that she was being raped by her father, on this she advised “P” to leave that place and come to her, she has further said that she had never gone to Mochrna after her second marriage to meet with her daughter “P” at Mochrna, though there appears a probable age utterance of the prosecutrix but the documentary evidence relating to her education does not match with the oral and probable say of the age of “P.” 8. PW-7 Jaipal Singh malkhana in-charge, has said that he kept the malkhana intact and further consigned four articles for deposit in FSL and has said that malkhana register is Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/10A is its copy, which contains the entry of concerned. PW-10 Vijay Singh Constable who has deposited samples with FSL and he has corroborated forwarding letter Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16 and Ex.P/17. Similarly, PW-11 Shantilal is Police Constable, who has corroborated the receipt of FSL. 9. PW-8 Hajarilal, father of a classmate of prosecutrix has said that once prosecutrix, who was studying with her daughter Mamta, came to them and phoned her natural mother. What did she talk, is not known to him. 10. PW-13 Dr. Ashok Kumar Kuldeep, who examined appellant-accused Heeralal, while confirming Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/19, has said that he did not find anything suggestive to indicate that Heeralal was not competent to cohabit. 11. PW-14 Dr. Sheeshpal Singh, while corroborating Ex.P/20, injury report of prosecutrix, has said that she was having two injuries, one near her left eye and another near her right eye, which were simple. 11. PW-14 Dr. Sheeshpal Singh, while corroborating Ex.P/20, injury report of prosecutrix, has said that she was having two injuries, one near her left eye and another near her right eye, which were simple. PW-15 Rakesh Joshi is a Police Sub-Inspector who has said that he had lodged FIR No. 193/2014 and Ex.P/1 contains his signature, investigation was handed to Dy. S.P. Circle Rajsamand, in his cross-examination he has also said that at the time, when Ex.P/1 was lodged, prosecutrix was there with her teachers, description is mentioned therein. 12. PW-17 Gynecologist Dr. Sushma Singh has said that on 06.08.2014, she was Gynecologist in R.K. Hospital, Rajsamand then she examined prosecutrix (“P”) daughter of Heeralal, aged 14 years for alleged rape and had taken the smears and vaginal swabs and had prepared Ex.P/3, which contains her signature. She has further said that it is correct that “P” was found habitual to have sex. 13. PW-16 Om Kumar is investigator, who has said that he had investigated matter pertaining to FIR No. 193/2014, registered under section 376 IPC coupled with Sections 4 and 5 of the POCSO Act and has corroborated all the exhibits relating thereto and has said that Ex.P/12 is scholar register of prosecutrix and Ex.P/14 is her T.C. and date of birth of “P” is 04.03.2000. He has also said that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix is Ex.P/5 and application for the same is Ex.P/32 and has further said that after investigation, he had found a case under Section 375 IPC coupled with Sections 4, 5 POCSO Act was made out against the accused Heeralal and entire chronology and methodology of the investigation has meticulously been narrated by this witness, nothing abnormal or anything causing infirmity has come out from cross-examination of this witness. 14. Statements made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., Ex.P/5 by the prosecutrix, aged 14 years on 05.08.2014, also contains similar kind of say of misery since she has said that her father perpetrated sexual cohabitation coercively upon her. She narrated this to her step mother and other relatives but none came to support and has further said that she narrated everything relating to beating and forcible rape to her school teachers. All the documentary evidence is well ratified. She narrated this to her step mother and other relatives but none came to support and has further said that she narrated everything relating to beating and forcible rape to her school teachers. All the documentary evidence is well ratified. Ex.P/3, Rape Report dated 06.08.2014 also shows that prosecutrix (“P”) was found to be habitual of intercourse and two fingers were found easily admissible. Likewise Ex.P/4 confirms two bruises upon the face of the prosecutrix (“P”). 15. Entire evidence of victim “P” invariably connects accused with the offence. Prosecutrix has narrated how she was ravished by her own “sire” under pretext of observing uncommon growth of pubic hairs around her private part and after getting her stripped, raped his own sibling and ravished her chastity, while his spouse was away. Not singularly but on multiple occasions, prosecutrix was repeatedly ravished, to satiate beastly lust, misery of victim remained unfold for years together and when she was beaten on account of denial, unusual was found in school, then she could narrate formidable, perpetrated upon her to her school teachers and Principal, who came to her rescue and went along with her to lodge the FIR. Whole of the testimony reveals awful perpetrated and her say is a reliable disclose of ravaging wrong perperated upon her, so it is trustworthy. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of M.P. vs. Basodi has, while restoring the judgment of trial court and quashing the reduction of sentence passed by Hon’ble High Court, has observed that: “The Criminal law adheres in general to the principles of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows some significant discretion to the Judge in arriving at a sentence in each case, presumably to permit sentences that reflect more subtle considerations of culpability that are raised by the special facts of each case. Judges in essence affirm that punishment ought always to fit the crime; yet in practice sentences are determined largely by other considerations. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. Sometimes it is the correctional needs of the perpetrator that are offered to justify a sentence. Sometimes the desirability of keeping him out of circulation, and sometimes even the tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these considerations cause a departure from just desert as the basis of punishment and create cases of apparent injustice that are serious and widespread. Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has come very undesirable practical consequences.” In Sevka Perumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1991 Cri. LJ 845, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed:- “Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court.” In Ravi vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1996 SC 787 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that: “It has been held in the said case that it is the nature and gravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be falling in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The Court will be falling in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of he crime warranting public abhorrence and it should ‘respond to the society’s cry for justice against the criminal’. If for the extremely heinous crime of murder perpetrated in a very brutal manner without any provocation, most deterrent punishment is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will lose its relevance.” 17. As such, the Prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case, FIR is well corroborated with statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which are almost akin to the testimony recorded in the court, medical examination also reveals that the chastity of the victim was not intact and she was found habitual of sexual indulgence, which indelibly connect the accused with the crime. It has also come in the evidence that victim got shelter in Mahila Mandal, Udaipur gravity of her misfortune could very well be ascertained. Everything as observed above is enough to indicate that prosecution has succeeded in establishing and proving its case beyond all the realms of suspicion with a positive testimony. We, hence, are of considered view that learned trial court has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment. So, we confirm and upheld the same. 18. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharastra, (2013) 6 SCC 770 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued guidelines and has held that provisions of section 357 are mandatory to provide victim compensation and reasons are required to be recorded in every case and vide judgment Suresh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 2 SCC 227 , scope of Section 357A has further been enhanced and it is ordained that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain whether there is tangible material to show commission of crime, whether the victim is identifiable and whether the victim of crime needs immediate financial relief. Under the provisions of Section 357A of Cr.P.C. Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 has been made applicable and according to the provisions of the said Scheme, prosecutrix “P” is a victim of crime and has sustained irreparable injury because she became a forlorn minor girl, who was constrained to dwell in Mahila Mandal, Udaipur because of her misery since her own father ravaged her chastity and real mother remarried and she was tortured by her step mother. Observations as passed by learned trial court for recommending the case of the prosecutrix under the provisions of Section 357A Cr.P.C. are worthy to be confirmed and the District Legal Services Authority, Rajsamand is expected to decide the case of the prosecutrix for disbursement of adequate compensation without delay. With these observations, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.