JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2019 in S.C. No. 62 of 2017 passed by the Special Court for the Trial of Offences against Children (Additional Sessions Court- I), Manjeri. In the aforesaid case, he was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (f), (i), 506 (ii) of the IPC and Sections 5(l), (m), (n) r/w. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . By the impugned judgment, he was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)(i)(n) of the IPC, Section 6 (l) (m) (n) of the POCSO Act, as per Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 376(2) of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a default clause. The above finding of guilt, conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal. Brief Statement of Facts 2. The appellant is the father of the survivor child, who was aged about 12 years at the time of registering the crime on 02.08.2016. PW2 is the wife of the appellant. She had a minor son from her marriage with the appellant. One day prior to the registration of the crime, the child was taken to the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, where PW1, an Ayurvedic Physician, was working. Upon hearing the complaint, the doctor sensed that something was amiss and informed the Childline authorities and members of the Child Welfare Committee. A member of Childline then alerted the police. The statement of the child was recorded on 02.08.2016 by PW10, a Woman Police Constable, and based on the same, Ext. P9 FIR was registered. The FIS was then transmitted to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Changramkulam. On the basis of Ext. P1, Ext. P9 FIR was registered. 3. The investigation was initially conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Changramkulam Police Station (PW12). Thereafter, the same was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnani (PW13), on 03.08.2016. He prepared Ext.P8 Scene Mahazar, as per which he seized MOs 1 and 2 clothes worn by the survivor. Samples were taken for the purpose of Forensic analysis and the same was forwarded as per Ext.P11 Forwarding Note. Thereafter, the same was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ponnani (PW13), on 03.08.2016. He prepared Ext.P8 Scene Mahazar, as per which he seized MOs 1 and 2 clothes worn by the survivor. Samples were taken for the purpose of Forensic analysis and the same was forwarded as per Ext.P11 Forwarding Note. Since, from the statement of the child, it was revealed that the initial incident had taken place at Kumaranalloor, in an unnumbered house near to house bearing No. 15/399 situated within the limits of Kakkur Grama Panchayat and prepared Ext.P12 Scene Mahazar. Thereafter, the accused was arrested at Cheruvallur at 01.00 p.m. Ext.P13 arrest memo and Ext. P14 inspection memo evidences the same. The accused was then produced before the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Ponnani and Ext.P3 Potency Certificate was obtained. Ext.P15 report was submitted before the court, incorporating the name of the accused and he was remanded on production before the Court. Steps were taken to get the scene plans prepared and also to record the statement of the child by the learned Magistrate in terms of section 25 of the POCSO Act. He also took measures to obtain Exhibit P7 School Admission Register from the l Darussalam English Medium Schoo , where the child was pursuing her education. After completion of the investigation, the PW15, the Circle Inspector of Police Ponnani, laid the final report before the court. Evidence Tendered 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as PWs 1 to 15, and through them Exts.P1 to P17 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 3 were produced and identified. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C . He denied the circumstances and maintained that he was innocent. As there was no scope for acquitting the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C ., he was asked to let in defence evidence. No evidence was adduced by the defence. Contentions of the appellant: 5. Sri Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in arriving at the finding of guilt, as there was no legal evidence linking the accused to the crime. He further contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the child in accordance with law. Contentions of the appellant: 5. Sri Johnson, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in arriving at the finding of guilt, as there was no legal evidence linking the accused to the crime. He further contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the age of the child in accordance with law. He argued that the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge be overturned by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor 6. Smt. Bindu O.V., the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused is none other than the father of the minor child, who was just 10 years of age when she was subjected to brutal acts of sexual abuse. It is submitted that the appellant has not challenged the evidence of the School Principal, who produced the certificate showing her age and the positive assertion by the mother. It is submitted that the medical examination report of the child who had not attained puberty reveals that she has been subjected to penetrative sexual abuse as her hymen was absent. There is no reason to doubt the sterling version of the survivor and her mother, which stands corroborated by the other evidence. It is urged that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt as against the appellant. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have carefully gone through the records. The evidence let in: 8. PW1 is the Medical Officer attached to the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Nannammukku. He stated that the Dispensary is situated in a place called Thengil. According to him, PW3 Raihanath, the mother of the survivor, had approached him and at about 1:30 p.m along with PW2, the survivor, who was found to be aged about 10 years of age. He was told that the child was suffering from urinary incontinence and that she was studying in an orphanage. When he asked the mother whether the child could be permitted to stay in her parental home, the mother told him that the child had developed some bad habits. She stated to the doctor that the child used to commit certain bad acts with her father. When he asked the mother whether the child could be permitted to stay in her parental home, the mother told him that the child had developed some bad habits. She stated to the doctor that the child used to commit certain bad acts with her father. He then proceeded to ask the child, and the child is alleged to have stated that her father used to force her to do certain bad things. However, the child did not clearly specify what those bad things were. The doctor informed the mother that the child would require a detailed evaluation and that her urine needed to be tested. He immediately contacted the Childline authorities and informed them about the incident. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not examined the body or conducted any physical examination. 9. PW2 is the survivor herself. The learned Session Judge conducted a voir dire examination to assess the intelligence and her capacity to rationally answer the questions put to her. The child gave rational answers to the questions, and the court concluded that she is competent to testify. In chief-examination, she stated that she had a younger brother by name Raihan, who is 2 years of age. She stated that she used to stay in the Darussalam Orphanage while she was studying in the VI Std. Her mother was not employed then. She stated that her father, mother, herself and a younger brother used to stay at a place called Kumaranalloor. She also stated that her father used to abuse her while they stayed at Kumaranalloor, and during that period, she was studying in the IV Std. They started living in a place called Thengil when she was studying in the VI Standard. According to her, her father used to stay in a separate room. She, along with her mother and younger brother, used to stay in another room. She stated that after her mother slept, her father used to pick her up and take her to his room, and thereafter, he used to subject her to sexual abuse. She specifically stated that he used to lick her genitals and thereafter put his penis into her vagina. She stated that she used to feel pain, and when she cried, her father used to silence her by gagging her mouth. She specifically stated that he used to lick her genitals and thereafter put his penis into her vagina. She stated that she used to feel pain, and when she cried, her father used to silence her by gagging her mouth. She stated that she was threatened that if she were to divulge the incident to any person, she would be done away with. She stated that her father used to commit the aforesaid act very regularly. She stated that her mother came to know about the incident while giving bath to her. She told her mother that she was having pain in her private parts. When her mother asked as to how she suffered the injury, she told her about the incident. She stated that she was taken to the Thengil Hospital by her mother. Her mother disclosed the incident to the doctor, and from there she was taken to the Mahila Mandiram, Tavannur and to the Police Station. She stated that she had given the FI statement to the police and identified the same. Thereafter, she stated that she was taken to the Ponnani Hospital and the lady doctor examined her. The police were present when she was examined. She stated that she has given a Statement to the Magistrate. She identified the clothes which were shown to her as MOs 1 to 3. In cross-examination, she stated that she had gone to Bangalore and she had occasion to witness her father beating her mother. She stated that her father used to drink alcohol and that he used to beat her and her mother as well. She stated that she had not disclosed the incident to the Usthad at the Darussalam Orphanage. She denied that she was stating a falsehood at the instance of her mother. 10. The mother of PW2 was examined as PW3. She also stated that they used to stay in a Quarters at Thengil, and prior to the same, they used to stay at Kumaranalloor. According to her, she identified the survivor as well as the accused who was standing on the dock. She stated that she has another child in her marriage with the appellant and that he was just 2 years of age. According to her, the date of birth of the survivor is on 05.11.2005. According to her, she identified the survivor as well as the accused who was standing on the dock. She stated that she has another child in her marriage with the appellant and that he was just 2 years of age. According to her, the date of birth of the survivor is on 05.11.2005. She stated that she came to know about the molestation of her child by her husband while they were residing at Thengil. She also stated that it was while bathing the child that the child disclosed the abuse she had been subjected to by her father. She added that she asked her husband about the molestation and that he physically assaulted her. In cross-examination, she stated that at the time of marriage with the appellant, they had resided in a place called ‘Changaramkulam’. She also admitted that she had stayed with her husband in Bangalore for 4-5 years. Nothing was brought out in cross-examination by the appellant. 11. PW4 is the landlord of the house at Thengilapalli, where the appellant and his family stayed on a rent of ?2,000 per mensum. He stated that they had only stayed there for 6 months. 12. PW5 is Dr. Ansar, who had examined the appellant and issued Ext. P3 Potency Certificate. He stated that there is nothing to show that he is incapable of performing the sexual act. 13. PW6 is one K.K. Rajan, who is the Secretary of the Nannammukku Gramapanchayat, and he had issued Ext.P4 Ownership Certificate. 14. PW7 is the Village Officer of Nannammukku, who prepared Ext. P5 sketch. 15. PW8 is Jojo Sathyadas, the Village Officer of Kappoor, who prepared Ext.P6 sketch of the Kumaranalloor property. 16. PW9 is the Principal of the Darussalam English Medium School. He stated that, as per the Register maintained in the school, the date of birth of the child is 05.11.2005, and the same was marked as Ext.P7. There was no challenge by the accused with respect to Ext P7. 17. PW10 is Elamma George, the Woman Police Constable of the Changaramkulam Police Station, who recorded the statement of the child, which was marked as Ext.P1. 18. PW11 is Vishwanathan, who was an attestor to Ext. P8 Scene Mahazar. 19. PW12 is Baby K.G., the Station House Officer of the Changaramkulam Police Station, who registered Ext.P9 FIR. 20. PW14 is Dr. PW10 is Elamma George, the Woman Police Constable of the Changaramkulam Police Station, who recorded the statement of the child, which was marked as Ext.P1. 18. PW11 is Vishwanathan, who was an attestor to Ext. P8 Scene Mahazar. 19. PW12 is Baby K.G., the Station House Officer of the Changaramkulam Police Station, who registered Ext.P9 FIR. 20. PW14 is Dr. Sajida P.K., the Casualty Medical Officer of the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Ponnani. She stated that she had examined the child when she was brought as per the requisition of the Sub Inspector of Police, Changaramkulam Police Station. The child had told her that she was threatened by her father, closed her mouth and penetrated his penis into her vagina. She stated that she had pain during urination. She also added that the hymen of the child was partially torn at 6 o'clock position and the hymen was healing. Her opinion was that the finding was consistent with the history of sexual assault, and there was evidence of past vaginal penetration. The accused did not care to cross-examine the doctor. Analysis of evidence 21. The first question is whether PW2 is a child below 12 years as on the date of the alleged occurrence. She stated that she was studying in the IV Standard when she was first abused and this was continued till she was in the VI standard. PW3, the mother of the child stated that the date of birth of her daughter is 5.11.2005 and that only late in November of the said year that she would turn 12 years of age. This was not challenged by the appellant, who is the father of the child. The Principal of the School who was examined as PW9 produced the admission register and he stated that the date of birth of the child is 5.11.2005. He was not cross examined by the appellant. This was not challenged by the appellant, who is the father of the child. The Principal of the School who was examined as PW9 produced the admission register and he stated that the date of birth of the child is 5.11.2005. He was not cross examined by the appellant. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana , [( 2013) 7 SCC 263] the Apex Court has held that even though the rules framed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, apply strictly only for determination of the age of a child in conflict with law, the statutory provisions therein can certainly be the basis for determining the age of even a child who is a victim of crime, for there is hardly any difference insofar as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law and a child who is a victim of a crime. In view of the law laid down above and in the light of the evidence let in, it can safely be held that the date of birth of the child is 5.11.2005 and that she would have turned 12 years of age only on 5.11.2017. 22. The next question is whether there is any reason to doubt the version of the survivor. She has stated in graphic detail the serious nature of abuse that she was subjected to by her father. Nothing was brought out by the defence to doubt her version with regard to the acts perpetrated on her by her own father.Of course there is some delay in setting the law in motion. However, it needs to be borne in mind that the survivor was just under 10 years of age and she was threatened and intimidated by the person who was bound to protect her. As held by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh , [ 1996 (2) SCC 384 ] the evidence of the victim of sexual assault is enough for conviction and it does not require any corroboration unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The court may look for some assurances of her statement to satisfy judicial conscience. The statement of the prosecutrix is more reliable than that of an injured witness as she is not an accomplice. The Court further held that the delay in filing FIR for sexual offence may not be even properly explained, but if found natural, the accused cannot be given any benefit thereof. We find that the evidence of the mother has corroborated the evidence of PW2 in material particulars. 23. The next piece of evidence which was relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is the medical examination report of the survivor. PW14, after examining the child stated that the hymen of the child was partially torn at 6 o'clock position and the hymen was healing. Her opinion was that the finding was consistent with the history of sexual assault, and there was evidence of past vaginal penetration. The accused did not even care to cross-examine the doctor. Conclusion 24. Having carefully evaluated the evidence of PW2 in the light of the medical evidence, we find the same to be credible, trustworthy and reliable. We hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied on the evidence tendered by the prosecution to arrive at the finding of guilt. The contentions fervently raised by the learned counsel to assail the finding of guilt are meritless and hence rejected. We dismiss this appeal, confirming the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Before parting, we note that under Section 33 (8) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , the Special Court, in addition to the punishment, is to order compensation to the child for any physical or mental trauma or for immediate rehabilitation of such child. In the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge has not chosen to do so. Under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C , the Victim Compensation Scheme is required to be formulated for the purpose of disbursal of compensation. Under Section 357A (2) of the Cr.P.C ., the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority is required to determine the quantum. We are of the view that this is a fit case where victim compensation is to be granted to the victim child. Under Section 357A (2) of the Cr.P.C ., the District Legal Services Authority or the State Legal Services Authority is required to determine the quantum. We are of the view that this is a fit case where victim compensation is to be granted to the victim child. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to initiate appropriate steps and determine the compensation to which the victim child is entitled to. A decision shall be taken, at any rate, within a period of two months from today as mandated under Section 357(5) of the Cr.PC., and the amount disbursed to the child within a further period of one month.