JUDGMENT : RATNAKER BHENGRA, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2002, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No.311 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, the sole appellant, on being found guilty, has been convicted under Sections 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default of the payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The amount of fine realized was ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation. 3. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan of informant Ganesh Singh, PW-5 and father of the victim girl (name concealed) is that at about 11:00 a.m. he was at his shop, which is situated near Road No.10. At that time, his son Naresh Kr. Thakur, who is PW-1 in this case came to him and informed that his mother is calling him at his residence. Then the informant went to his residence where Indu Devi, who is PW-2 informed him that on the same day at about 10:30 a.m. his minor girl aged about 5 years who is PW-4 was forcibly taken away by the accused Sanjeev Kumar Jha, alias Pinku Jha, resident of Road No.11, quarter No.20/1/6 for committing rape to his house. She told that victim girl herself has stated about the occurrence to her. Then the informant asked to the victim girl about the occurrence. Then the victim girl told that before the alleged occurrence, she came from the school and after taking meal, she was playing near a tree near her house. In the meantime, the accused came there and asked her to accompany him. He also told the victim gril that he would give him chocolate. The victim girl further stated when she did not become ready, the above accused forcibly took away her in his quarter and undressed her under pant as well as tried to commit rape on her. When she started weeping, the accused asked to stop weeping and then she returned to her house and narrated the entire occurrence to her mother. Thereafter the informant came to the police station along with his victim daughter and recorded his statement. 4. When she started weeping, the accused asked to stop weeping and then she returned to her house and narrated the entire occurrence to her mother. Thereafter the informant came to the police station along with his victim daughter and recorded his statement. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Adityapur P.S. Case No. 125/98 dated 25.7.98 under Sections 342/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Charges were framed under Sections 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the accused was convicted under Sections 376/ 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 5. In all, prosecution examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. 6. PW-4 is the victim girl, aged about six years. She deposed that on the date of alleged occurrence, she returned from school and was playing. In the meantime, accused Pinku Jha came there and told her to accompany him and said that he would give her chocolate and thekua. She further deposed that when she denied to accompany him then accused forcibly took her inside his quarter on upper floor and undressed her under pant. She also said that he tried to commit rape on her from front side and back side. Thereafter she returned to her house and informed about the occurrence to her mother. Her father had taken her to the police station. Earlier her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. PW-4 was cross-examined by the defence at length. Even in her cross-examination, she said that she informed the occurrence to her mother. In her cross-examination, she further said that the accused forcibly took her away and she raised alarm but none came to save her. She also said that the blood came out. 7. PW-1 is brother of the victim girl. He deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence he saw PW-4, returning from the school and crying. Then he took PW-4 to her mother and PW-4 told mother that accused Pinku Jha took her away to his house and did bad things. This witness was cross-examined at length but even in his cross-examination he has said that while PW-4 narrated about the occurrence to his mother PW-2, he was also present there and he also saw the mark of blood in the cloth of PW-4. 8. This witness was cross-examined at length but even in his cross-examination he has said that while PW-4 narrated about the occurrence to his mother PW-2, he was also present there and he also saw the mark of blood in the cloth of PW-4. 8. PW-2 is mother of the victim girl. She said that on the date of alleged occurrence, her daughter PW-4 returned from school and she went to play. She started searching for her daughter PW-4 and she heard cry of PW-4 from the upper stair of the house of the accused. Then she called PW-4, who came down weeping and told that accused took her forcibly and told that he would give chocolate to her. She also informed to her mother that the accused locked the door and did bad things in front and back. She further said that she called her husband from the shop and then they went to the police station. In her cross-examination, she said that victim, PW-4 told her about the alleged occurrence while she was returning with her from the quarter of above named accused. She also said that at the time there were other ladies of the nearby houses. 9. PW-5 is the informant and father of the victim girl. PW-5 deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence, he was at his shop. In the meantime, PW-1 came to him and told that his mother is calling him at the house. Then he went to his house where his wife told that the accused Pinku Jha attempted to commit rape on his daughter. He further said that the he enquired the matter from her victim daughter PW4, who had also corroborated the same and told that the accused did bad things from front and back. Then this witness informed the matter to his brother-in-law PW-3 and went to the police station along with victim girl and recorded his statement there. His signature on the fardbeyan is marked as Ext.1/1. This witness was cross-examined by the defence at length. However, he said that he did not find any mark of injury on the person of the victim girl. 10. PW-6 is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl on 25.7.98 at about 7:50 p.m. She has exhibited the medical report of the victim girl which was marked as Ext.2. This witness was cross-examined by the defence at length. However, he said that he did not find any mark of injury on the person of the victim girl. 10. PW-6 is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl on 25.7.98 at about 7:50 p.m. She has exhibited the medical report of the victim girl which was marked as Ext.2. From her evidence as well as from Ext.2, it appears that she did not find any sign of rape and injury on the private part of the victim girl. According to this witness, the age of the victim girl was between 6-7 years. Argument advanced by counsel for the appellant: 11. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the deposition of PW1, Naresh Kumar, the brother of the victim and submitted that it is surprising that the victim PW-4 did not tell her brother about the incident when he was the first person she encountered. The alleged victim only first told her mother about the incident. Counsel also says that three other children were playing with her, then after the alleged offence, why this victim did not tell any of the three children, Rani, Sanjay and Sonu about the deed committed by the accused-appellant. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant further referred to the deposition of PW-2, Indu Devi, who is the mother of the victim and submitted that at para-3 this witness had said that she had given her statement to the police about the alleged occurrence. Counsel says since the I.O. was not examined, the veracity of this statement could not be tested. Contradictions were not allowed to be elicited, hence, the appellant was prejudiced. Learned counsel further referred to para-4 and said other women had also gathered there, as per her deposition, then why none of them has deposed as witnesses. Even the wives of Jagdish, Binod and Bhushan referred to have not been made witnesses. 13. Learned appellant's counsel has then referred to the evidence of PW-3, Ramchandra Prasad. He is maternal uncle(mama) of the victim. She is his niece. Counsel says he is a hearsay witness, informed by informant Ganesh Singh, so he is not reliable. Even the wives of Jagdish, Binod and Bhushan referred to have not been made witnesses. 13. Learned appellant's counsel has then referred to the evidence of PW-3, Ramchandra Prasad. He is maternal uncle(mama) of the victim. She is his niece. Counsel says he is a hearsay witness, informed by informant Ganesh Singh, so he is not reliable. From para-3 of his evidence, he submitted he had gone or taken the father of the victim and the victim too to the police station at 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. whereas the incident is of the morning hours, so they plotted and manufactured accusation against the appellant and then came late to the police station. Further, this witness has deposed that the police had not taken his statement and his evidence is of 1.5.2000, after about two years from the date of occurrence, so his evidence is contrived and manufactured. Learned counsel also points out that there are twelve quarters in the vicinity but no one is made witness. Only family members, who are interested witnesses, have deposed, this raises serious doubt. 14. Learned counsel then referred to the evidence of PW-4, the victim herself and argued that she is a taught and tutored witness. Counsel says that in para-3 of her evidence, she has deposed that she was playing with Soni, Goldy and others, and when the appellant is said to have taken her, she had screamed and so also had the other children screamed and people were called from the vicinity. Learned counsel said that in such circumstance it is not believable that with such alarm being made by the children, accused would have taken the child away anyway. It was also day time, and before noon time. Learned counsel further says that the alarm was made in the open and it is also said she was taken elsewhere, so place of occurrence is doubted. Also where the alleged victim and other children made alarm, no offence, as alleged, had been committed, so the manner of occurrence is not proved. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in para-4, the girl has said that she had given her statement when told to do so by her maternal uncle, so she is a tutored witness. 15. Also where the alleged victim and other children made alarm, no offence, as alleged, had been committed, so the manner of occurrence is not proved. Learned counsel has also pointed out that in para-4, the girl has said that she had given her statement when told to do so by her maternal uncle, so she is a tutored witness. 15. Referring to the evidence of PW-5, Ganesh Singh, learned counsel submitted that on getting such information, he did not rush either to the hospital or police, which means nothing had occurred. Rather, he takes advice from his wife's brother, with whom there is some dispute between the accused person's parents. Discussion took place, case was manufactured then they went to police. This is a clear case of concocted false implication. The incident is of allegedly around 9:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. and the FIR is lodged in the second half, the delay is not innocent, but, foul may be committed. 16. Learned counsel has then referred to the evidence of PW-6, Doctor, who examined the victim girl on 25.7.98 at about 7:50 p.m. She exhibited the medical report of the victim girl Ext.2. In her evidence as well as from Ext.2, it appears that she did not find any sign of rape and injury on the private part of the victim girl. She has also not found any injury on the body of the victim girl. According to this witness, the age of the victim girl was between 6-7 years. Learned counsel submitted that the Doctor has given opinion that “hymen was intact”, so nothing adverse occurred. Learned counsel further submitted that there was some bleeding, but, Doctor's report does not mention so. Learned counsel said that in the Doctor's examination there was no any injury, so counsel concluded that no attempt was even made, may be only preparation and he cannot be held accountable for preparation. 17. On conclusion of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has summarized that:- (i) The whole story was advised and built up at the instance of the maternal uncle (mama) of the victim girl. It is on record that this uncle had met by the girl's side before lodging of the FIR and even he had also gone to the police station. It is on record that this uncle had met by the girl's side before lodging of the FIR and even he had also gone to the police station. The uncle's opposition to the accused persons' family starts from the fact that he was refused money by the parents of the accused. (ii) It is on record that many children, including three afore-mentioned were playing with the alleged victim prior to the said incident, but, they have not said anything adverse against the appellant, and they were not made witnesses. Even it has come that there are twelve quarters in the vicinity, but, no one has come forward as witness. All the witnesses are family members and related witnesses. There is no reference to any seized clothes, if there was allegedly a sexual assault, there will be telling clues or evidence. No such seizure was made because no offence occurred. (iii) Even Doctor's (PW-6), evidence is contrary to the claims of the prosecution. The Doctor has stated that “the hymen was intact”, and no opinion of rape was given. Hence, benefit of doubt has to be allowed to the appellant. Arguments advanced by learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State: 18. Learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, has, on the other hand, argued that there is no delay in lodging of the FIR. It was done in the afternoon on the same day. The suggestion that there was concoction consultation with the maternal uncle (mama) and this uncle had some enmity with the parents of the accused is incorrect. In circumstances when child was sexually abused by accused, it is natural to tell family members and relatives. It is but natural and the family is the first support group. Moreover, the enmity with the mama is only presumed, there is no such evidence on record. 19. Learned A.P.P. has then also argued that the argument that there are no independent witnesses, but only family members and interested witnesses and hence, they are not believable and not tenable has no force. It is well-known that witnesses do not like coming forward and it is only persons, who have personal or some other stake in the incident's truth, came forward. In this case, it is the victim and her father, mother and maternal uncle. 20. It is well-known that witnesses do not like coming forward and it is only persons, who have personal or some other stake in the incident's truth, came forward. In this case, it is the victim and her father, mother and maternal uncle. 20. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that in fact in such cases, it is well established that the sole testimony of a single, reliable witness is sufficient. The victim is a minor girl. Normally, little children are more believable and why will parents put their little girl to share, harassment and ridicule by putting her into such false predicament. Moreover, the victim girl has also stood by her case in the questioning under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Apart from victim girl testimony, she is corroborated by her mother, who heard about the incident in the morning and then itself, her father, who was then immediately summoned and then her uncle. R E A S O N S 21. The argument that the victim failed to inform her brother or the other children about the incident, but, only first informed her mother does not necessarily retract or make the evidence of the victim of no use. Even if she had not, it will not serve any purpose and this line of argument will not demolish the prosecution case. The evidence is that she told her mother and she has sustained her allegations in the statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in her deposition in Court. 22. Regarding the failure of other witnesses not deposing, or why the wives of Jagdish, Binod and Bhusan not having been made witnesses, it may be a lacuna, but, it is not sufficient to dislodge the other evidences and particularly the evidence of the victim. The same could be said about the persons from the vicinity who have not deposed or come forward as witnesses. It is pointed out that the witnesses who have come forward are related or family members or interested witnesses. It is well-known that people avoid involving themselves in issues related to crime, or matters that are taken to Court, unless there are compelling circumstances or it concerns the family. 23. Counsel has argued also that one of the witnesses has played a devious role to entrap the appellant. It is well-known that people avoid involving themselves in issues related to crime, or matters that are taken to Court, unless there are compelling circumstances or it concerns the family. 23. Counsel has argued also that one of the witnesses has played a devious role to entrap the appellant. He has referred to one Ramchandra Prasad or PW-3, who is the maternal uncle (mama) of the victim, and argued that he was not on good terms with the parents of the accused, on the other hand, rather inimical, over some money matters, and it is due to his counsel or instigation that the case has been manufactured against the appellant. This line of argument is not believable, simply because of the reason that it is not conceivable that the parents of the girl in conspiracy with the maternal uncle would so circumstance the minor girl of 6 years to undergo all the accompanying uncertainties, predicaments and rigours of trial and also put the future of their daughter at stake. Simply not believable. 24. Appellant's counsel has also argued that the lack of examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) has prejudiced the appellant. The non-examination of the IO is a lacuna in the proceeding. However, it does not demolish the prosecution case. Particularly, in the instance of rape or crime against women of a sexual nature, the single witness of a person or victim, if reliable and trustworthy, is believable. In this case, it is seen that the victim is a child of only 6 years. Why she will be come up with such a concocted story. It is not possible to cook up such allegation unless there is some truth in it and it has taken place. 25. On closing, counsel has cited the case of “State of Himachal Pradesh versus Dharam Pal” reported in (2004) 9 Supreme Court Cases 681 and prayed that taking the age of the appellant at the time of offence, and that the offence is of the year 1998 and 19 years have passed, the appellant may be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In this cited case, the parties were related to each other, which is not the case in the case on hand. 26. In this cited case, the parties were related to each other, which is not the case in the case on hand. 26. Thus having gone through the arguments of both counsels, the records and in the facts and circumstances, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2002, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No.311 of 1998 is, hereby, upheld. However, bearing in mind that it is an old case and the appellant was of just 19 years of age at the time of occurrence, his sentence is modified, and he is directed to spend another six months imprisonment. The learned concerned or successor court is directed to issue process against the appellant to serve out the imposed sentence. The fine of Rs.10,000/-remains. To convert the fine as compensation as ordered by learned court below for the victim girl, who must have already moved on in life, after almost twenty years will retouch and revive old wounds, and thus at this stage compensation is not necessary. His bail bond is cancelled. 27. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed, though with modification in sentence. Appeal dismissed.