Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 428 (ORI)

Damodar Das @ Bhoi v. State of Orissa

2018-04-19

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. K. SAHOO, J. The appellant Damodar Das @ Bhoi faced trial in the Court of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge (Special Track), Puri in S.T. Case No.8/158/336 of 2013/2011 for commission of offences under sections 366/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that on 27.05.2011 at about 11.00 p.m he kidnapped the victim who was aged about 12 years, with intent that she might be forced to illicit intercourse and committed rape on the victim and also committed criminal intimidation by threatening the victim to kill with injury to her person. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.12.2013 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. of six months for committing offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for six more months for committing offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo S.I. for two months for committing offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report submitted by P.W.4 Dhaneswar Sahoo, the father of the victim on 28.05.2011 before I.I.C, Sadar police station, Puri is that a marriage procession was going in front of the house of the informant on 27.05.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. which is situated in village Kashi Haripur and the victim who was aged about 12 years was standing in front of her house and watching the procession. The brother of the victim namely Niranjan left with the marriage procession and at that time, the appellant came in a motorcycle and took the victim towards Chandanpur and in an isolated place, he committed rape on her forcibly. When the victim shouted, some persons arrived there for which the appellant left the spot. The victim was brought to the house by some persons and she was found in a critical condition. The appellant threatened that in case the incident is disclosed, the victim would be killed by throwing bomb. When the victim shouted, some persons arrived there for which the appellant left the spot. The victim was brought to the house by some persons and she was found in a critical condition. The appellant threatened that in case the incident is disclosed, the victim would be killed by throwing bomb. On the basis of such F.I.R., Puri Sadar P.S. Case No. 90 dated 28.11.2011 was registered under sections 366-A/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code by P.W.11 Srikant Kumar Tripathy, Sub-Inspector of police in the absence of Inspector in charge who also took up investigation. During course of investigation, he examined the informant and the victim and other independent witnesses, visited the spot and prepared spot map. The victim and the appellant were sent for medical examination on police requisition. The appellant was arrested on 29.05.2011 and he was forwarded to Court on 30.05.2011. The wearing apparels of the victim were sent for chemical examination to S.F.S.L, Bhubaneswar and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 24.09.2011 against the appellant under sections 366/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial after observing due committal procedure where the learned trial Court charged the appellant under sections 366/376(2)(f)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and since the appellant refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute him and establish his guilt. 4. During course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. P.W.1 Sushama Behera was the Sarpanch of Gopinathpur Panchayat and she stated that 28.05.2011 the informant came with the victim and other relatives to her house and disclosed before her that the victim had been raped by the appellant and she was not in a position to stand and accordingly she advised the informant to lodge the first information report. The evidence of P.W.2 Sadasiva Pradhan is no way relevant. P.W.3 is the victim and she narrated the incident in detail. P.W.4 Dhaneswar Sahoo is the father of the victim and he is the informant in the case and he stated about the disclosure made by the victim about the occurrence and he is also a witness to the seizure of wearing apparel of the victim. P.W.3 is the victim and she narrated the incident in detail. P.W.4 Dhaneswar Sahoo is the father of the victim and he is the informant in the case and he stated about the disclosure made by the victim about the occurrence and he is also a witness to the seizure of wearing apparel of the victim. P.W.5 Ashok Das stated about the disclosure made by the victim about the occurrence. P.W.6 Kabita Pradhan is the aunt of the victim and she stated about the disclosure made by the victim about the occurrence. P.W.7 Kanchan Sahu is the mother of the victim and she also stated about the disclosure made by the victim about the occurrence. P.W.8 Sanjaya Kumar Mishra did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile. P.W.9 Dr. Soumya Mishra was the Asst. Surgeon, District Headquarters Hospital, Puri and he examined the victim on police requisition on 29.05.2011 and proved his report Ext.3. P.W.10 Girish Chandra Behera was the Asst. Surgeon attached to District Headquarters Hospital, Puri and he examined the appellant on police requisition and proved his report Ext.4. P.W.11 Srikanta Kumar Tripathy was the Sub-Inspector of police attached to Sadar Police Station, Puri who is the Investigating Officer in the case. The prosecution exhibited five documents. Ext.1 is the seizure list, Ext. 2 is the F.I.R., Exts.3 & 4 are the Medical examination reports and Ext.5 is the Spot map. 5. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial. 6. The learned trial Court after assessing the evidence on record has been pleased to hold that on the occurrence date, the victim was below 12 years of age. The Court accepted the victim’s evidence so also the evidence of others before whom she disclosed about the occurrence and taking into account the corroborative medical evidence, found the appellant guilty of the offences charged. 7. Smt. Sunanda Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no clinching material available on record to show that the victim was under twelve years of age at the time of occurrence which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Smt. Sunanda Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no clinching material available on record to show that the victim was under twelve years of age at the time of occurrence which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that since the victim is a child witness, the learned trial Judge should have first ascertained the competency of the victim to depose by putting some questions in order to ascertain whether the witness was intelligent enough to say what has past with her and whether she understood the duty of speaking truth or not and in absence of preliminary examination of the victim, her credibility is seriously affected and her evidence should be rejected on that score alone. It is further contended that the evidence of the victim is full of contradictions and the place of occurrence is also discrepant and the scribe of the first information report has not been examined and lodging of the first information report is suspicious and the motorcycle in which the victim is stated to have been taken away by the appellant has not been seized by the Investigating Officer and therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and contended that the substratum of the prosecution case which was deposed to by the victim girl gets ample corroboration from other witnesses like her parents and others before whom she immediately disclosed about the occurrence and her conduct his admissible as res gestae under section 6 of the Evidence Act. It is further contended that at the time of giving evidence in Court, the victim was 14 years of age and the manner in which she has narrated the incident in chief examination as well as faced different questions put to her by the defence counsel in the cross-examination shows that she was able to give rational answers after understanding the questions put to her and therefore, even though no preliminary examination of the victim has been conducted by the learned trial Court, on that score alone, her evidence cannot be rejected particularly when it appears to be clear, cogent and trustworthy. The doctor also noticed injuries on the private part of the victim when she was examined a day after the occurrence. Not only the victim and her mother stated the age of the victim to be 12 years but also the doctor (P.W.9) has stated that the age of the victim to be 11 to 12 years and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination to disbelieve the same and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. He further contended that from the evidence of the victim, the ingredients of offences under sections 366 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are also made out and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. There is no dispute that in view of section 118 of the Evidence Act, all persons are competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions due to tender years etc. No particular age has been prescribed as a demarcating line for treating a witness incompetent to testify by reason of his/her tender age. Competency to testify depends on ability to understand questions and to give rational answers. It depends on the capacity and intelligence of the child witness, his appreciation of difference between the truth and falsehood as well as his duty to speak truth. Competency to testify depends on ability to understand questions and to give rational answers. It depends on the capacity and intelligence of the child witness, his appreciation of difference between the truth and falsehood as well as his duty to speak truth. When a witness is called upon to give evidence and there is reason to suspect that he/she may not be capable of giving rational answers to the questions put to him/her, it is but necessary for the Court to put some questions to such witness with a view to ascertain whether he/she is a competent witness to give evidence or not. There is no dispute that since a child witness is prone to tutoring, his/her evidence should be scanned carefully and preliminary questions are required to be put to such witness to ascertain as to whether he/she has intellectual capacity to understand the questions and give rational answers thereto. The preliminary examination of a child witness is nothing but a rule of caution. The trial Court is required to record its query to a child witness in the form of questions and answers so that the Appellate Court will be in a position to see whether child witness understands the duty of speaking truth. Even though it is desirable to make such preliminary examination but it is not always imperative. There is no rule that in case of every child witness, the trial Court should conduct a preliminary examination. It is only a rule of prudence and not a legal obligation. When questions are raised regarding the intellectual capacity of the child witness, the Court can peruse the evidence of the victim in its entirety to find out as to whether he/she was capable enough to give rational answers to the questions put to him/her after understanding the same. Absence of preliminary examination of the child witness would not render his/her evidence inadmissible. The victim in this case was aged about 14 years at the time of her deposition. Absence of preliminary examination of the child witness would not render his/her evidence inadmissible. The victim in this case was aged about 14 years at the time of her deposition. Even though the learned trial Court has not put any formal questions to the victim to testify her competency but the nature and tenor of the evidence of the victim, the manner in which she has deposed about the occurrence in examination-in-chief and also faced and stood the test of searching cross-examination by the defence counsel, I am satisfied about the competency of the victim girl and I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the victim should be rejected in toto as the learned trial Court has not made any preliminary examination of the victim. However, I have to scan the evidence of the victim more carefully and with greater circumspection to convince myself regarding the quality and reliability of her version. 9. Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code prior to Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (13 of 2013) was prescribing punishment for commission of rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, in order to attract the ingredients of the offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code not only the prosecution has to prove that rape was committed on the woman but also it is to be proved that at the time of commission of offence, the woman was under twelve years of age. Since age of the victim at the time of offence is one of the relevant factors, I have to first deal with such aspect. The victim (P.W.3) has stated her age to be 14 years when she deposed in Court on 19th February 2013. The occurrence in question as already stated took place on 27.05.2011 night. The informant who is the father of the victim has not whispered anything about the age of the victim. The mother of the victim being examined as P.W.7 has stated that the victim was aged about 12 years. The occurrence in question as already stated took place on 27.05.2011 night. The informant who is the father of the victim has not whispered anything about the age of the victim. The mother of the victim being examined as P.W.7 has stated that the victim was aged about 12 years. Coming to the evidence of the doctor (P.W.9), in the chief examination, she has stated the age of the victim to be approximately between 11 to 12 years. In the cross-examination, the doctor has stated that she was not a radiologist but from the x-ray plates she could ascertain that the victim’s age was within twelve years. She further stated that the x-ray plates are not available in the case record including the report of the radiologist. She further stated that she preserved the same in her department for future reference. She further stated that she had not seen as to how many teeth the victim had, to assess her age. The prosecution has not made any endeavour to call for either the x-ray plates or the x-ray report which were stated to be preserved by P.W.9 in the Department. When the opinion of the doctor relating to the approximate age of the victim is based on documentary evidence i.e. examination of X-ray plates and X-ray report which were prepared by the radiologist, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution not only to produce the x-ray plates and x-ray reports but also to examine the concerned radiologist who had prepared such x-ray plates and x-ray report. The primary evidence has not been brought on record, therefore, the doctor’s opinion evidence relating to the approximate age of the victim to be in between 11 to 12 years is very difficult to be accepted. The primary evidence has not been brought on record, therefore, the doctor’s opinion evidence relating to the approximate age of the victim to be in between 11 to 12 years is very difficult to be accepted. Coming to the oral evidence of the victim (P.W.3) and her mother (P.W.7) who have stated about the age aspect, since the prosecution has failed to prove the birth certificate and from the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, it is not clear as to what was the actual date of birth of the victim, from such oral evidence which is almost at the margin of the requirement for fulfilling one of the essential ingredients of the offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code that she must be under twelve years of age is not found out, therefore, I am of the view that neither from the oral evidence nor from the medical evidence, the prosecution has successfully proved that the victim was under twelve years of age when the incident in question took place. Therefore, the age of the victim being found not to be under twelve years, the conviction of the appellant under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. However, it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved that the victim was subjected to rape. 10. Now coming to the evidence of the victim, she has stated that on the occurrence day, a marriage procession was passing in front of her house and she was standing and witnessing the marriage procession and her younger brother Niranjan was also present there and witnessing the procession and he went with the procession party for which she followed him to bring him back and at that point of time, the appellant came in a motorcycle and called her to accompany him and despite her refusal to go with him, the appellant forcefully took her in the motorcycle towards jungle. The victim has further stated that when the appellant crossed the marriage procession party taking her in the motorcycle, she was crying and raising hulla to invite the attention of others and the appellant took her to a lonely place and threatened her for which she did not raise any voice out of fear and then the appellant undressed her langa and undressed her inner garment (chadi) and opened his pant and chadi and then committed rape on her. She further stated that she sustained bleeding injury on her private part. After committing the crime, the appellant went to a nearby pond to wash his private part and during such period, she fled away from the spot. She further stated that some persons saw her on the way, rescued her and left her at the marriage pandal where the marriage function was going on and she stayed there till morning and came back to the house and then she narrated the entire incident to her parents. In the cross-examination, it has been confronted to her about her previous statement that she has not stated before police that her younger brother Niranjan was present with her and witnessing the marriage procession and the appellant came in a motor cycle and called her to accompany him and that she was crying and raising hullah to invite the attention of others and the appellant threatened her not to disclose the incident before anybody otherwise to face dire consequences. It has also been confronted to the victim that she has not stated before police that the appellant lied upon her body and committed rape and she sustained bleeding injury on her private part. When the I.O. was examined as P.W.11, the contradiction part was sought to be proved through him. The I.O. has stated that the victim has not stated before him that her younger brother Niranjan was present with her and watching the marriage procession when the appellant came in a motor cycle and called her to accompany him and that she was crying and raising hulla to invite attention of others and that the appellant threatened her not to disclose the act before anybody otherwise to face dire consequence and the victim has not stated that the appellant lied down over her body and committed rape for which she sustained bleeding injury on her private part. The prosecutor raised objection at the time of proving the contradictions and stated that the victim’s evidence is in conformity with her statement before police and therefore, such contradiction in verbatim should not be entertained by Court. The relevant portion of the statement of the victim recorded by the Investigating Officer was accordingly marked as ‘X’ and ‘Y’ for the purpose of identification. In case of Mukund Lal -Vrs.-Union of India reported in A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 144, it is held that under sub-section (2) of section 172 of Cr.P.C., the Court itself has the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust in the Court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the Court to call for any such relevant case diary, if there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case diary. The Court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer as provided in sub-section (3) of section 172 of the Cr.P.C. Ultimately there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of justice than the Court trying the case. In order to verify the authenticity of such confrontation, I went through the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and I find that not only the victim has stated about the presence of her brother when the marriage procession was going on but also stated that the appellant came in a motorcycle and took her forcibly. She further stated that she shouted seeing the Barayatri Party and she further stated about commission of rape by the appellant on her by opening her undergarments and scott. After going through the marked portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the victim is not acceptable. When a witness is confronted with his/her previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer by the defence and the contradictions are sought to be proved through the Investigating Officer, it is the duty of the prosecution as well as the Court to verify the record to see whether the contradictions are genuine and whether those are major contradictions or not. When a witness is confronted with his/her previous statement recorded by the Investigating Officer by the defence and the contradictions are sought to be proved through the Investigating Officer, it is the duty of the prosecution as well as the Court to verify the record to see whether the contradictions are genuine and whether those are major contradictions or not. If the contradictions are not significant and relevant, the Court should not permit such contradictions to come on record. If the Court and the Public Prosecutor are not actively involved during trial, a shrewd and witty defence counsel may bring on record many contradictions which might not be there in actuality and take advantage of the same and thereby change the course of justice in favour of the accused. Coming to the case in hand, it appears that after the victim came back to her house, not only before her mother (P.W.7), her father (P.W.4) but also before others, she disclosed about the occurrence implicating the appellant to have committed rape on her. The conduct of the victim is admissible as res geste under section 6 of the Evidence Act. The doctor has examined the victim on 29.05.2011. The Investigating Officer has stated that on 28.05.2011 when the victim was sent for medical examination, the doctor refused to conduct the same in the late hour of night for which it was deferred to the next day and the victim was kept in the custody of her father in the visitor’s house of police station. The doctor has noticed one red and very tender labia majora, labia minora, posterior commissure, fourchette and vestible and found hymenal opening was very tender and hymen was torn. The doctor on examination of genitals found that there was forcible sexual intercourse within 24 hours. The doctor has stated in her cross examination that in case of minor aged below twelve years, vaginal discharge need not necessarily occur after forcible sexual intercourse and as the victim washed it away, traces of discharge could not be obtained. Therefore, the evidence of the victim also gets corroboration from the medical evidence. The doctor has stated in her cross examination that in case of minor aged below twelve years, vaginal discharge need not necessarily occur after forcible sexual intercourse and as the victim washed it away, traces of discharge could not be obtained. Therefore, the evidence of the victim also gets corroboration from the medical evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to point out same improbable features of the case contending that when the victim was taken in the motor cycle, she was crying and raising hullah to invite the attention of others and therefore, in such a scenario, it could not have been possible that the crime would have gone unnoticed. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the occurrence took place during the late night hours and the marriage procession was going on and therefore, the sound must be emanating from the band party for which it might not have drawn the attention of others to the cries of the victim. The appellant was carrying the victim on the motor cycle and he had given threat to the victim and on the approach of the marriage procession party, in all probability he might have taken the mortor cycle speedily at that particular place to escape the attention of others. Therefore, it cannot be said there is any improbable feature in the prosecution case. 11. So far as the lodging of the F.I.R. is concerned, P.W.4, the informant has stated that when he came to know about the occurrence from the victim, he took her to local Sarpanch who is none else than P.W.1 and the incident was disclosed to the Sarpanch who advised the informant to go to the police station for lodging the F.I.R. and accordingly, he told the incident to one Narahari Barik who scribed the F.I.R. and the contents of the F.I.R. were read over and explained to him and thereafter, it was lodged. The scribe of the F.I.R. has not been examined during the trial. Though on perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that it is written by one Narahari Barik of Gopinathpur, merely because scribe is not examined during trial, it cannot be said that the lodging of F.I.R. is a suspicious feature or it is fatal to the prosecution. The scribe of the F.I.R. has not been examined during the trial. Though on perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that it is written by one Narahari Barik of Gopinathpur, merely because scribe is not examined during trial, it cannot be said that the lodging of F.I.R. is a suspicious feature or it is fatal to the prosecution. The informant has stated that when he came to the police station after discussion with the Sarpanch for lodging the F.I.R., the police did not accept the same for which he went to the police station again for lodging the F.I.R. and when he came to the police station for the second time, some persons accompanied him and after discussion with those persons, the F.I.R. was prepared and presented in the police station. One of such persons is Sadariba Pradhan (P.W.2) who has not stated anything in that respect. Mere non-examiantion of the other persons who accompanied the informant to the police station at the time of lodging of F.I.R. cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the informant or doubt the authenticity of the F.I.R. No doubt the motorcycle in which the victim was taken has not been seized nor the registration number of the motorcycle could be ascertained by the I.O. but for the laches of the I.O. in seizing the motorcycle or ascertaining its registration number from the appellant, the prosecution case can not suffer. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on some decisions of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Subash Pradhan -Vrs.-State of Orissa reported in 2016 (63) Orissa Criminal Reports 865, Jaya Chandra Pradhan -Vrs.-State of Orissa reported in 2017 (I) Orissa Law Reviews 71 and Raja and others -Vrs.-State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 4930. The decisions were placed to show the improbability features appearing in those cases. 12. The testimony of a victim in cases sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. 12. The testimony of a victim in cases sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of a statement, the Courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of the victim of a sexual assault alone to convict the accused. No doubt, her testimony has to inspire confidence. The deposition of the victim has to be taken as a whole and since she is not an accomplice and her evidence stands at a higher pedestal than an injured witness, seeking corroboration to her statement is not always necessary. Wherever the Court finds it difficult to accept her version, it may seek corroboration from some evidence which lends assurance to her version. The evidence of the victim of rape should not be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. (Ref:-(2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 551, Bhupinder Sharma -Vrs.-State of Himachal Pradesh). In the present case after going through the evidence on record, I do not find any such improbability feature which would create doubt in the prosecution version. There was no reason for a minor girl to implicate the appellant falsely in the crime and there was also no reason for her family members to level false accusation against the appellant which would ultimately risk the future of the victim. The evidence of the victim has got enough corroboration from the statements of other witnesses before whom she disclosed about the occurrence, her conduct after the occurrence and medical evidence. From the evaluation of the prosecution materials discussed above, it is abundantly clear that the evidence brought on record contains positive proof, credible sequence of events and factual truth linking the appellant with the kidnapping of the victim on the fateful night in his motor cycle, commission of rape on her in an isolated place and criminal intimidation to her. The learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion regarding kidnapping of the victim, rape on her as well as criminal intimidation committed by the appellant. Therefore, I find that the prosecution has successfully established the case against the appellant for commission of offences under sections 376/366/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion regarding kidnapping of the victim, rape on her as well as criminal intimidation committed by the appellant. Therefore, I find that the prosecution has successfully established the case against the appellant for commission of offences under sections 376/366/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court imposed the substantive sentence of R.I. for ten years for offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code which is the minimum sentence prescribed for such offence. Since I have held that the offence will come under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, I reduce the sentence to R.I. for seven years which is the minimum punishment for such offence. Similarly the learned trial Court imposed substantive sentence of R.I. for ten years for the offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. In the factual scenario, I am of the view that the punishment should be reduced to R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 366 Indian Penal Code. So far as the offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the sentence awarded by the learned trial court is quite justified. Therefore, the substantive sentence which now I have imposed on the appellant for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and section 366 of the Indian Penal Code along with the punishment which has already been imposed by the learned trial Court for offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code shall run concurrently. It is made clear that the appellant is also liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo for R.I. for six months in addition to the substantive sentence of R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant is also liable to pay similar fine amount and defaulting sentence in addition to the substantive sentence of R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Subject to the modification of sentence, the Criminal appeal stands dismissed. 13. The appellant is also liable to pay similar fine amount and defaulting sentence in addition to the substantive sentence of R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Subject to the modification of sentence, the Criminal appeal stands dismissed. 13. In view of the enactment of the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, keeping in view the age of the victim at the time of occurrence and the nature and gravity of the offence committed and the family background of the victim, I feel it necessary to recommend the case of the victim to District Legal Services Authority, Puri to examine the case of the victim after conducting the necessary enquiry in accordance with law for grant of compensation. Let a copy of the order be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, Puri for compliance. Lower Court's record with a copy of this judgment be communicated to the learned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.