JUDGMENT : T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA, J. The State has challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.01.2019 passed in Special Case No.110/2016 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (‘Trial Court’ for short), acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’ for short) and Section 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in the Trial Court. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that, PW-1 and PW-5 are the husband and wife and the residents of Sandur Taluk, Ballari District. PW-4 is the victim and daughter of PWs-1 and 5. They belong to Scheduled Caste. The victim is a minor aged 11 years studying in 5th standard. Accused is the neighbour of PWs-1 and 5. On 26.06.2016 at 10.00 a.m., the victim was playing near the water tank situated near their house. The accused offered chocolate and took the victim to his house, removed her clothes, so also his clothes and committed sexual assault against her. The accused knowing fully well that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste, did commit sexual assault against her, who is a minor. The victim since raised hue and cry, the accused left her free and she went home. On the very night at about 9.00 p.m. she complained to her mother that she is having some discomfort in her genital. Her mother pacified her that she might have been suffering from excess of heat and it will be rectified on its own. On 27.06.2016, the victim went to the school, returned with mild Fever and she was tired. On 28.06.2016, inspite of discomfort, the victim went to school. On that day, at about 1.00 p.m. PW-5/father of victim had gone to the school to pay fees and noticed that the victim was suffering from Fever. Hence, he returned home and took his wife to school. By informing the teacher, they took the victim to Akshaya Clinic at Sandur. On 29.06.2016 at about 8.30 p.m., the victim again complained of some irritation in her genital. For this reason, the parents took the victim to PW-7/Dr.Chandrappa, who resides nearby, for treatment. Hence, he returned home and took his wife to school. By informing the teacher, they took the victim to Akshaya Clinic at Sandur. On 29.06.2016 at about 8.30 p.m., the victim again complained of some irritation in her genital. For this reason, the parents took the victim to PW-7/Dr.Chandrappa, who resides nearby, for treatment. On examination, the victim revealed to the said Doctor about the incident that had taken place on 26.06.2016 in the house of the accused at his hands. Hence, the Doctor revealed the said fact to the parents of the victim. On the very day, PW-1 visited the Police Station and set the law into motion by presenting the complaint/Ex.P1 to the Police in Crime No.118/2016. The investigation was held and charge sheet was filed. During investigation, on 02.07.2016 the accused was arrested and subjected to judicial custody till the judgment of acquittal was pronounced by the trial court. 4. On receipt of the final report, a case has been registered in Special Case No.110/2016 by the Trial Court. Before the Trial Court, accused pleaded not guilty of the charges. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PWs1 to 17, relied on 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13 and 18 material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 18 in order to establish its case. The learned Special Judge after completion of the trial, questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after considering the arguments addressed and the material placed before it, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and acquitted the accused of all the charges. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State is before this court. 5. The victim as well as the accused were served with notice of this appeal. They remained absent. Hence, Amicus Curiae were appointed for both of them. 6. We have heard the arguments of Sri V.M.Banakar, learned Addl. SPP for the State and Smt.Anuradha Deshpande, learned Amicus Curiae for PW-1/complainant and Sri.Girish Yadwad, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent/accused. We have perused the Trial Court records and the impugned judgment carefully. 7. It is the contention of the learned Addl. SPP that the trial court has utterly failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. The trial court has totally ignored the testimonies of PWs-1, 4 and 5. We have perused the Trial Court records and the impugned judgment carefully. 7. It is the contention of the learned Addl. SPP that the trial court has utterly failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. The trial court has totally ignored the testimonies of PWs-1, 4 and 5. PW-1 is the mother of victim, PW-4 is the victim herself and PW-5 is her father. Inspite of testimonies of all these three witnesses being consistent and trustworthy, the trial court has wrongly held that the evidence is contrary; not inspiring the confidence and the entire prosecution case becomes unbelievable. This wrong finding given by the trial court requires to be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offences. 8. Supporting the arguments addressed by the learned Addl.SPP, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for PW-1/complainant submitted that the victim was aged 11 years, she innocently complained to the mother about the irritation in the genital which the mother innocently pacified her as an excess of heat, but on the next day since the pain was persistent, she was taken to PW-6/Dr.Chethana, who is a BAMS Doctor. She gave some treatment and even before her, the victim did not tell anything. On 28.06.2016, when the child went to school inspite of the Fever, she was brought back by the parents and taken her to PW-7/Dr.Chandrappa, to whom the victim divulged the act committed by the accused. The assault on the victim though has been established, the trial court is more particular about the contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of the victim as regards the assault was against the genital or anus and came to a wrong conclusion that the testimony of the victim cannot be relied upon. Even if the medical evidence is kept aside, the evidence of PW-1 is appreciated, the accused after taking the victim to his house, derobed the victim and himself, made her to see him and he has handled her physically are sufficient to explain the ingredients of Section 7 of the POCSO Act and therefore, the minor contradictions cannot be made as a major contradiction. The trial court has insensitively pronounced the judgment and she sought for reversal of the said judgment. 9. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused submitted that the incident took place on 26.06.2016, till 29.06.2016 it was not made known to anybody. The trial court has insensitively pronounced the judgment and she sought for reversal of the said judgment. 9. Per contra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the accused submitted that the incident took place on 26.06.2016, till 29.06.2016 it was not made known to anybody. If really such an incident had taken place, the victim ought to have informed it to her mother, but the prosecution proposes that the victim informed the history to PW-7, who is the neighbour doctor and at whose instance, PW-1 went to the Police Station on 29.06.2016 and set the law into motion. The victim stated that assault on the anus whereas the examination and treatment was given to genital of the victim wherein there was no assault. Neither the parents nor the medical officers observe any injury on the anus. Hence, the testimony of PW-4 is not inspiring the confidence, there are no witnesses, who saw the accused carrying PW-4 to his house. The trial court has rightly observed that the evidence of the prosecution is unreliable and arrived at a just conclusion and supported the impugned judgment. 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and perused the original records. 11. The trial court has recorded its findings that the case of the prosecution is that sexual assault was against the genital. However, Ex.P6/medical report points out that the accused has manipulated with his hand over the external genitalia of the victim and it discloses that there is no penetration and organs are normal including anus and hymen, there is no injury on the body of the victim. The materials placed before the court would not corroborate the version of PWs-1, 4 and 5. The FSL report does not support the prosecution case. There are contradictions in the statements of the victim before the Doctor and also the Magistrate. There are lot of contradictions, their evidence could not be considered as trustworthy. The evidence is not sufficient to prove the factum of penetrative sexual assault or aggravated penetrative sexual assault or sexual harassment by the accused on the victim. The material relied upon by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offence and no evidence is placed to explain that the accused was knowing the caste of the victim prior to the alleged incident. The material relied upon by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offence and no evidence is placed to explain that the accused was knowing the caste of the victim prior to the alleged incident. Hence, the provisions of Section 3 of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 is not applicable and extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. 12. At the outset, we may observe here that the finding recorded by the trial court was pre-determined, that there is no proper appreciation of the evidence on record. We have perused the evidence. The testimony of PW-4/victim shows that on the alleged date of incident at about 10.00 a.m., she was playing near the water tank besides her house. The accused came, offered her chocolate and carried her to his house. He removed her undergarments and put his penis on the anus, she felt discomfort. On the same day afternoon, her mother had gone to Daroji to meet her elder sister Basamma and returned home in the night. Since the victim was suffering from Fever, she did not attend the school on the next day i.e., on Monday, 27.06.2016 and on Tuesday, 28.06.2016, inspite of she suffering from Fever, she went to school. She met father, who came to school to pay fees, informed him that she is suffering from Fever. Hence, her father took her to a lady Doctor. The Doctor gave her ointment for application. On the very night, the parents took her to PW-7/Chanddrappa to whom she divulged that she is suffering from pain because of accused did love on her. Hence, the Doctor informed her parents to report the said fact to the Police. For this reason, her mother went to Police Station and reported it. Police took the victim to the Ballari Hospital where she was examined by the Doctor and collected her clothes M.Os.7 to 9. She was also taken before the Magistrate where she gave her statement as per Ex.P3. She shown the house of the accused where the Police have taken the photographs as per M.Os.1 and 2. She identifies her clothes at M.Os.7 to 9. She identifies the accused as the culprit. She was also taken before the Magistrate where she gave her statement as per Ex.P3. She shown the house of the accused where the Police have taken the photographs as per M.Os.1 and 2. She identifies her clothes at M.Os.7 to 9. She identifies the accused as the culprit. It can also be seen from her evidence that she did not divulge the act of the accused to the mother and she never informed to anybody till she was taken to PW-7. 13. PWs-1 and 5 are the parents of the victim. Their testimony shows that on the date of alleged incident, the child complained of her discomfort in the genital. On the next day, since the pain persisted, she was taken to PW-6/Dr.Chethana, who noticed redness in the genital. Even to her, the victim did not divulge anything. On Monday, the victim did not go to school and on Tuesday, she attended the school inspite of fever, when her father came to school to pay fee, she met her father and told him that she is suffering from fever. Thereafter she was taken to the house of PW-7/Dr.Chandrappa, who resides nearby, in the night. On examination, PW-7 noticed pinkness in the genital of the victim, where she divulged to him that the accused did the sexual act of assault. Hence, he gave treatment, referred her to the Taluka Hospital and told the parents to report it to Police. 14. The testimony of PW-7 shows that on 29.06.2016 at 8.30 p.m., the victim was brought to his house. He has examined her and found pinkness in her genital and on enquiry, the victim revealed that the accused taking her to his house and doing some act of assault. Hence, he referred the victim to Taluka Hospital. 15. PW-6/Dr.Chethana is a BAMS Doctor at Sandur. Her testimony shows that on 28.06.2016 at 2.00 p.m., the victim was brought to her clinic by PW-1. On examination she found redness on the genital of the victim and she gave treatment. 16. From the above evidence, it is pertinent to note that the version of PW-4/victim supports the statement made by PWs-1 and 5, the parents and also the evidence of PWs-6 and 7 point out that the victim was brought to them as she was feeling discomfort in her private parts. In this background, let us appreciate the evidence of the prosecution. 17. In this background, let us appreciate the evidence of the prosecution. 17. PW-15/Smt.B.B.Marem is the ASI of Sandur Police Station at the relevant point of time. Her testimony shows that at 11.00 p.m., on 29.06.2016 she has received Ex.P1/complaint form PW-1. On its basis has registered an FIR under Ex.P4 and forwarded it to the superior officers and to Court. 18. PW-8/Roshan Zameer is the Police Constable of Sandur Police Station. His testimony shows that on 29.06.2016 at 11.30 p.m., he has collected Ex.P4/FIR from PW-15 and carried it to the Special Judge and delivered at 01.30 p.m. on 30.06.2016. His evidence points out that the delay of 14 hours in transmission of the FIR of did not find any explanation for such delay. 19. PW-16/Rudragouda Patil is the Dy.S.P., who is the Investigating Officer. His testimony points out that on 30.06.2016 he took up further investigation from PW-15. On the very day, visited the spot and inspected the house of the accused. Mahazar under Ex.P2 was drawn by taking the photographs at M.Os.1 and 2. He also recorded the statement of the victim as other witnesses. He has arrested the accused, recorded his voluntary statement and sent him for medical examination. He has made a request to the Panchayat officers to issue the Utaar extract of the house of the accused and the victim. Also requested the PWD Engineer to prepare the spot sketch. He has seized M.Os.3 to 18 brought from the hospital in respect of accused as well as the victim, under Ex.P12/mahazar. He has also collected the medical examination report of the accused and the victim under Exs.P6 and P9. 20. The testimony of PW-9/Smt.Saraswathi, WPC shows that she has escorted the victim to the District Hospital, Ballari on 30.06.2016 for medical examination. Again on 06.07.2016, she brought M.Os.3 to 8 pertain to the victim from the hospital. 21. The testimony of PW-11/Bhupathi N., Junior Engineer of PWD shows that he received the request from the Police for preparation of spot sketch, he was taken and shown the place by the Police, inspected the spot and drawn Ex.P7/sketch and handed over to the Police. 22. PW-12/Govinda Poojar, Chief Officer of Sandur Municipality. He received request from the Investigating Officer for khata extract pertains to the houses of the victim as well as the accused. 22. PW-12/Govinda Poojar, Chief Officer of Sandur Municipality. He received request from the Investigating Officer for khata extract pertains to the houses of the victim as well as the accused. Since there are no property stands either in the name of the accused or the parents of the victim, he issued a certificate as per Ex.P9 accordingly. 23. PW-14/Manjunath G.K., In-charge Head Master of Vivekananda Primary School. His testimony shows that as per the request of the Police, he has issued Ex.P10/certificate and also Ex.P11/extract of the Admission Register pertains to the victim. 24. The testimony of PW-13/Dr.R.Chaithanya, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, VIMS, Ballari, shows that on 02.07.2016, the accused was brought before him for examination. He has conducted the medical examination and issued Ex.P9/report that the accused is fit to do the sexual activity and he has also sampled M.os.10 to 18 from the accused and handed over them to Police. 25. PW-2/Ramesh is another panch witness regarding seizure of M.os.3 to 18, which were brought and produced from the hospital by the Police Constable and they were seized in the Sandur Police Station. 26. PW-17/D.S.Savishankar Naik, the Dy.S.P., whose testimony shows that having taken the investigation from PW-16, he has collected Ex.P8/panchayat report regarding non-existence of khata in the name of either PW-5 or the accused. He has collected Ex.P10/date of birth certificate from the School where the victim was studying, Ex.P5/caste certificates of the victim as well as accused and Ex.P7/sketch from the PW-11 and Ex.P13/FSL report and filed the charge sheet. 27. PWs-2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are formal in nature and nothing brought out from their cross-examination, they are all procedural witnesses. 28. The important witnesses, as we referred to above are, PW-4/victim, PW-1/mother and PW-5/father of the victim, from whom we can cull out that on 26.06.2016, PW-4 has been taken to the house of the accused, he has committed certain act against the victim, she complained to her mother regarding discomfort in the genital without furnishing history of the alleged incident. The important witnesses, as we referred to above are, PW-4/victim, PW-1/mother and PW-5/father of the victim, from whom we can cull out that on 26.06.2016, PW-4 has been taken to the house of the accused, he has committed certain act against the victim, she complained to her mother regarding discomfort in the genital without furnishing history of the alleged incident. She has been pacified in the house but as the discomfort persisted, she was taken to PW-6/Dr.Chethana on 28.06.2016 at 2.00 p.m., the doctor noticed redness in the genital, even to the said Doctor, PW-4 did not tell the history and since the victim went to School inspite of the discomfort, she was sent back with parents and thereafter she was taken to PW-7/Dr.Chandrappa, who is residing nearby the house of the victim, before whom the victim revealed the act committed by the accused on her body. PW-7 has noticed pinkness in the genital of the victim, which has been turned from redness on account of assault. From PW-7, the parents of PW-4 came to know about the accused committing such act and thereupon they set the law into motion by filing the complaint. 29. It is also pertinent to note that the victim was examined by PW-10/Dr.Sharada on 30.06.2016 at 3.00 p.m. at VIMS, Ballari. She has noticed no external injury, no forcible sexual assault on the victim and hymen of the victim was intact. To that extent, she has issued her report as per Ex.P6. This evidence shows that there was no sexual assault on the victim. Since the victim was examined on 30.06.2016 by PW-10, i.e., four days after the incident, having regard to the background of the case, it is too much to expect that the evidence be intact and therefore, naturally PW-10 has given Ex.P6 by observing that there was no sexual assault on the victim. 30. We have also very consciously considered the evidence of PW-6/Dr.Chethana R.K. before whom the victim did not tell anything. Even the victim did not tell anything to her parents or to the teachers in the school. As seen from the records, the victim suffered Fever, restless, discomfort, she avoided one day school, thereafter she attended the school and she was brought back home for medical aid. Only on examination by PW-7 on 29.06.2016 at 8.30 p.m., the victim revealed the reason for the discomfort. As seen from the records, the victim suffered Fever, restless, discomfort, she avoided one day school, thereafter she attended the school and she was brought back home for medical aid. Only on examination by PW-7 on 29.06.2016 at 8.30 p.m., the victim revealed the reason for the discomfort. The victim is 11 years old, it is too much to expect from the child to divulge even a minute aspect of the case. When parents themselves were not aware of the alleged incident, it is too much to comment upon the delay in filing the FIR. 31. As we have carefully analyzed the evidence, there is a clear-cut contradiction. As we noticed from the evidence of PW-4, when the assault was against her anus part and not on her genital, contrarily we can find that PWs-6 and 7 have examined the victim on her genital and noted redness and pinkness, which in the cross-examination demonstrated that even the skin infection will cause redness and pinkness in the genital. 32. If that is taken into consideration, whether there was any sexual assault on the victim in the hands of the accused or not, is the point for consideration before us. 33. If the evidence of the victim, her parents and the medical evidence are taken into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that there was no sexual assault against the victim either on her genital or on the anus. But the evidence speaks that on 26.06.2016, the accused took the victim to his house offering chocolate and he removed the clothes of the victim and also removed his clothes and he has touched the body of the victim and also he came in contact with her body. 34. As we have observed above, there was no sexual assault. Whether the conduct of the accused in doing so would attract any offence or the trial court is correct in giving the complete benefit of doubt in favour of the accused has to be examined. 35. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which reads as follows: “7. Whether the conduct of the accused in doing so would attract any offence or the trial court is correct in giving the complete benefit of doubt in favour of the accused has to be examined. 35. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which reads as follows: “7. Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.” The intention of the legislation in bringing out a special Act to protect the interest of the child from sexual assault is very clear that the interest of the child should be paramount and the child should not be mishandled by anybody in the context of sexual assault. As defined by Section 7, even touching the child with sexual intent is sufficient to attract Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 8 of the said Act. 36. As we have evaluated the evidence of PW-4, we do not find any unnaturality in it, in fact, the victim has given a clear evidence, but when the victim was taken to the doctor, the information so furnished by her was misinterpreted and this has caused the miscarriage of justice. The court cannot appreciate the evidence on sentimental values, but it should separate the chop from the grain and to appreciate the weight of the grain that is placed before the court. As we noticed from the testimony of PW-4, there is anything to discard her testimony. Even though the prosecution failed to demonstrate the sexual assault on the victim, the evidence explains the accused removing the clothes of the victim, he himself removing his clothes and coming in contact with her explains his sexual intent. 37. Now, another point for consideration is, whether the child was a major or not. In this regard, the evidence of PW-14, the in-charge Head Master of the School points out that the child was studying in 5th standard at Vivekananda Higher Primary School, Sandur taluk, in the year 2016-17 and she was born on 04.05.2006. Ex.P11 is the extract of the register wherein the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 04.05.2006. In this regard, the evidence of PW-14, the in-charge Head Master of the School points out that the child was studying in 5th standard at Vivekananda Higher Primary School, Sandur taluk, in the year 2016-17 and she was born on 04.05.2006. Ex.P11 is the extract of the register wherein the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 04.05.2006. There is no cross-examination of PW-14 to doubt his veracity. Nothing has brought out to explain the correctness of the recitals in Exs.P10 and P11. When the victim was examined before the Special Court, she was aged 12 years and the trial court has observed the age of the child and for this reason, treating the victim as a child witness, exempted her from administering oath. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the child was minor on the date of alleged incident. 38. We have perused the impugned judgment. Inspite of the trial court recording that the victim was a minor, has given more importance to the omissions, contradictions found in the testimony of PWs-1, 4 and 5 and also the medical evidence. There is a clear contradiction that whether the victim was subjected to sexual assault on her genital or on anus. While keeping this in mind, the trial court has wrongly carried away that the offence charged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act has not been established. Section 7 of the POCSO Act is a minor offence of Section 6 of the POCSO Act and for this reason, the trial court ought to have considered, whether the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act has been established or not. As we noticed from the impugned judgment, there is no reference that the trial court recorded any reason that the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act has been established or not. 39. The charge was under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(xii) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. But the impugned judgment is silent as to Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the finding recorded by the trial court is erroneous. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. But the impugned judgment is silent as to Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the finding recorded by the trial court is erroneous. Hence, as we discussed above, the ingredients of Section 7 of the POCSO Act is clearly forthcoming in the prosecution evidence and therefore, the accused ought to have been convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has committed an error in not recording any finding for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the impugned judgment calls for our interference. 40. While considering the totality of the evidence, the finding recorded by the trial court that there is no ingredients to attract offence under Section 376 of IPC, is proper. There is no evidence placed to the extent that the accused was aware of the caste of the victim and knowing fully well that she belongs to Scheduled Caste, he has committed the act of sexual assault, which attracts Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act. There is no evidence explaining the penetrative sexual assault as defined under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Hence, the finding recorded by the trial court for acquitting the accused for the offences under Section 376 of IPC, Section 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, is proper. 41. In view of our above findings, the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is established and to the above extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 41. In view of our above findings, the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is established and to the above extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following; ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the State is partly allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment of the trial court is hereby modified; (iii) The respondent/accused is held guilty of the offence under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act; (iv) The judgment of the trial court in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is confirmed; (v) The respondent/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The entire fine amount shall be paid to PW-1 as compensation; (vi) Under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., the accused is entitled to set off for the period he has undergone in judicial custody; (vii) Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with records to the Trial Court to comply the directions of this Court. We appreciate the valuable assistance given by the learned Amicus Curiae for the victim and respondent. We fix their remuneration at Rs.5,000/-(five thousand rupees) each to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee.