JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2007 and sentence dated 24.05.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2006 by Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, then learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Seven (07) years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for Two (02) years. However, the learned Trial Court has further directed that both the sentences will run consecutively and the fine, if so recovered, will be paid to the minor prosecutrix, i.e. the Victim Girl ‘X’ for her welfare and need. It was further directed that the period undergone by the Convict in course of investigation and trial will be deducted from the main sentence. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 23.12.2005, while the prosecutrix [(Name not mentioned in this judgment in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India and others ” reported in (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703 and Notification No. 23/2023/R&S/JHC dated 20.12.2023 of the Jharkhand High Court, was going to her new house from her old house for sleeping. At that time Azan of 8 P.M. was being held and at the same time appellant-Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal was hiding himself standing near Jack Fruit tree (Kathal Tree) from before and as soon as prosecutrix was crossing the Kathal Tree, then Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal asked the prosecutrix to sleep with him. On this prosecutrix refused and then appellant-Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal lured that she will become his wife, thereupon again prosecutrix refused and went to her new house and slept there and left the door open, as her old grandmother was to arrive and Dhibri’’ was burning in the room. In the meantime she felt that someone slept beside her. The prosecutrix woke up and saw in the light of Dhibri that the accused was sleeping beside her. In the meantime she felt that someone slept beside her. The prosecutrix woke up and saw in the light of Dhibri that the accused was sleeping beside her. She tried to force him to go out, but Ramnandan Gaderi dragged her and thrashed her on the Cot and by threatening to kill, the accused Ramnandan Gaderi forcibly removed all her clothes from her body, and when she wanted to raise Hulla then he threatened her and thereafter, he forcibly committed rape upon her, due to which semen and blood oozed out from her private parts. When she tried to cry due to pain, then the accused-appellant Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal told her to remain silent and induced her to give sweets, clothes etc. and further threatened her not to tell anything to anybody otherwise he will kill her and due to which she kept silence. It is further alleged that on the next day she washed her clothes due to fear that somebody might knew. On 27.12.2005, as usual in the night again she came to her new house to sleep, then the accused Ramnandan Gaderi again entered into her house and again induced and threatened her and removed her pant and Ramnandan Gaderi also removed his full- pant and thereafter raped her. In the meantime, her grandmother arrived there and seeing her, Ramnandan Gaderi, after dashing her, fled away. Thereafter, she narrated the story of earlier rape and subsequent rape to her grand-mother and then grandmother informed the same to the mother of accused Ramnandan Gaderi. Thereafter, Ramnandan Gaderi again threatened to kill them as her father had gone outside along with lamb for grazing. Thereafter, she informed the village Chowkidar who informed the police and accordingly, at village Chandlaso Kuru Police took her fard-bayan. 3. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned A.P.P for the State. 4. It is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the Informant due to village politics. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the Informant due to village politics. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. It is submitted that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of rape committed upon the victim girl. It is submitted that the informant is a minor girl and she has implicated the accused- appellant at the instance of her grand-mother. It is submitted that P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.7, namely Chhedi Gaderi @ Pal, Binod Bhagat Pal, Smt. Meena Devi and Sambhu Nath Singh Vir respectively are interested witnesses. It is submitted that P.W.6 is the Doctor, Dr. Smriti, who had found no external or internal injury on the person of the victim girl. It is submitted that P.W.7, namely Shambhu Nath Singh Vir is the Investigating Officer (i.e. the I.O.) of this case, who has wrongly submitted the chargesheet against the appellant. It is submitted that P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, namely Chhedi Gaderi @ Pal, Binod Bhagat Pal and Smt. Meena Devi respectively are hear- say witnesses. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not considered the evidence of the defence witnesses, namely Ram Briksha Gaderi, Litu Sao and Mahodar Baitha, who were examined as D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 respectively before the learned Court below. It is submitted that the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below are on mere surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that the learned Court below has not appreciated the genesis and manner of the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that in view of the above, judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2007 and sentence dated 24.05.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 2006 by Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, then learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga may be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the accused-appellant happens to be the grand-father of the victim girl, who had committed rape upon her. It is submitted that the victim girl was a minor, aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that the accused-appellant happens to be the grand-father of the victim girl, who had committed rape upon her. It is submitted that the victim girl was a minor, aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence. It is submitted that P.W.2 is the prosecutrix-victim girl and she had fully supported the prosecution case regarding the commission of rape upon her by this appellant on two different occasions. It is submitted that P.W.1 is the grand-mother of the victim girl and she had also seen the appellant fleeing away from the room of the victim girl and thus, P.W.1 has supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that the P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, namely Chhedi Gaderi @ Pal, Binod Bhagat Pal and Smt. Meena Devi have also supported and corroborated the prosecution case. It is submitted that P.W.6 is the Doctor, who although did not find any injury on the person of the victim girl, but the evidence of the Doctor is not sufficient to acquit the appellant as due to time gap between the incident and the medical examination of the victim girl by the Doctor, i.e. P.W. 6, injury on her private parts could not be found by the Doctor on account of delay. It is submitted that the conviction can be made on the sole testimony of the victim girl if her evidence inspires confidence. It is submitted that P.W.7, Shambhu Nath Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of this case has also supported and corroborated the prosecution case. It is submitted that D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 are the interested witnesses and therefore their evidence can not be relied upon. It is submitted that on the basis of the above, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 610 of 2007 may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Record and considered the submission of both the sides. 7. It transpires that the F.I.R. was lodged by the victim girl [(Name not disclosed in view of “Nipun Saxena and another v. Union of India and others” reported in (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 703 )] on 29.12.2005 against the accused-appellant, namely Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal for committing rape upon her on 23.12.2005, at around 8.00 p.m. in the night and he also committed rape upon her on 27.12.2005 under coercion and inducement. 8. 8. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused has thrashed her on the cot and had committed rape upon her by removing her entire clothes on 23.12.2005 and out of fear she had washed her clothes, which was stained with blood. It is alleged that on 27.12.2005, while the accused was committing rape upon her, then her grand-mother arrived there and raised alarm and thereafter, the appellant pushed her and fled away and then she had narrated the entire occurrence to her grand-mother. However, F.I.R. was lodged on 29.12.2005 as her grand mother was waiting for returning of her father who was out of station for some reason and thereafter, she informed the Chowkidar and thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged. 9. It transpires that the Police, after completion of investigation, had submitted chargesheet against the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. on 31.01.2006 before the learned C.J.M., Lohardaga. Thereafter, learned C.J.M., Lohardaga took cognizance under Section 376 I.P.C. against the appellant on 31.01.2006. 10. After supplying police papers to the accused - appellant charge was framed against the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. on 15.07.2006 by Shri N.K. Srivastav, then learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. The prosecution, in support of its case, had got examined Seven (07) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W. 1 is Smt. Daho Devi (grand-mother of the victim girl) (ii) P.W.2 is the Victim Girl ‘X’ (iii) P.W.3 is Chedi Ganderi @ Pal (iv) P.W. 4 is Binod Bhagat Pal (v) P.W. 5 is Smt. Meena Devi ( i.e. Aunt of the victim girl) (vi) P.W.6 is Dr. Smriti, i.e. the Doctor, (vii) P.W.7 is Shambhu Nath Singh Bir, i.e. the I.O. of the case. 12. The prosecution, in support of its case, got marked following documents as the exhibits, which are as follows:- (i) Ext.1 is the signature of Binod Ganderi on Fardbayan, (ii) Ext. 2 is the Medical Report of the Victim Girl, (iii) Ext. 3 is the report of the Civil Surgeon-cum-C.M.O., Lohardaga regarding the age of the Victim Girl dated 21.01.2006 (iv) Ext. 4 is the Fardbayan, (v) Ext. 5 is the formal F.I.R., and (vi) Ext. 6 is the requisition for Medical Examination of the Victim Girl 13. 2 is the Medical Report of the Victim Girl, (iii) Ext. 3 is the report of the Civil Surgeon-cum-C.M.O., Lohardaga regarding the age of the Victim Girl dated 21.01.2006 (iv) Ext. 4 is the Fardbayan, (v) Ext. 5 is the formal F.I.R., and (vi) Ext. 6 is the requisition for Medical Examination of the Victim Girl 13. After Closure of the prosecution witnesses the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.12.2006 by the learned Sessions Judge to which he denied the circumstances put forth before him. 14. The Defence in support of its case got examined Three (03) witnesses, who are as follows: (i) D.W. 1 is Ram Briksh Gaderi (ii) D.W. 2 is Lilu Sao and (iii) D.W.3 is Mahodar Baitha 15. Thereafter, the learned Court below has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for Seven years. 16. Therefore, this Court has to see as to whether the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is proper or not? 17. Before entering into the merits of this case, it is relevant to refer to Order dated 14th June, 2023, passed in this case, vide which this Court has enquired from the learned Secretary, D.L.S.A., Lohardaga and the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA regarding payment of compensation and re- habilitation of the victim girl and thereafter, the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA, vide letter dated 23.06.2023 enquired the same from the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Lohardaga. Then, vide Letter dated 09.8.2023, it was informed that if the victim girl files application for compensation before the D.L.S.A., Lohardaga, then the Victim Compensation Committee may consider her application for compensation. It was also informed that Two (02) years back the victim girl has been provided with Indira Awas for her re-habilitation under Indira Awas Yojna Scheme. It was also informed that the victim girl would be provided with all the Government Scheme/Benefits liaisoning with District Administration for which she is entitled to. 18. So far as prosecution evidence is concerned, P.W.1 is Smt. Daho Devi, who is the Grand-Mother of the victim girl and she stated during her evidence that on the date of occurrence she had gone to her residence at around 8.00 P.M. after taking the meal and had sent earlier the victim girl in her house. 18. So far as prosecution evidence is concerned, P.W.1 is Smt. Daho Devi, who is the Grand-Mother of the victim girl and she stated during her evidence that on the date of occurrence she had gone to her residence at around 8.00 P.M. after taking the meal and had sent earlier the victim girl in her house. However, when she arrived at her new house, then she found the Lamp off and upon which she called her Natni, i.e. the victim girl for putting off the lamp, then her Natni started weeping and upon which she entered into the room and then the accused- appellant Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal pushed her and fled away outside. On enquiry, the victim girl disclosed that after taking meal when she had earlier left for the new house then the accused, who was hiding behind the jackfruit tree suddenly entered into the room and forcibly committed rape upon her. The victim girl also disclosed that earlier on Friday, while she had gone for Cattle grazing, then the accused had arrived there and had committed rape upon her on the point of knife. Thereafter, she narrated the occurrence to the mother of the appellant, but her mother refused to accept her version. She further asserted that Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal had also gone to jail earlier for committing rape of the wife of Bigu Mahto and thereafter, she informed the matter to the Chowkidar of the village and went to the Police Station with her Natni. 19. During cross-examination, she stated that distance of her new house and old house is approximately 100 steps. No one lives in her old house apart from her grand-daughter, i.e. the victim girl. The house of Chabi Gaderi is situated between her old house and new house. She admitted that the Angan of the house of the accused is situated nearby her house and it opens in the north side from her house, whereas house of the accused opens in the East side. She stated that the accused happens to be her Nati. She stated that her husband or any male person was not present on the dated of occurrence and no person had arrived on the alarm raised by her and it was a dark night. She stated that the accused happens to be her Nati. She stated that her husband or any male person was not present on the dated of occurrence and no person had arrived on the alarm raised by her and it was a dark night. Her husband and her son Binod had gone to Police Station on the next day of occurrence, as there was no male person present in the house. The police had recorded the statement of her Natni, which was disclosed by her and the police had also recorded her statement in the police station. She further disclosed that she has informed the occurrence to the villagers, but she could not tell the name of all the persons and she had also not disclosed before the Mukhiya and Sarpanch. There was no blood in the clothes of the victim girl or on the bed. She could not disclose the boundary of her new house. She denied the suggestion for implicating the appellant due to previous enmity and land dispute. She admitted that Manoj is her son and his wife is one Meena Devi, however, there was no quarrel between wife of appellant- Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal and Meena. 20. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.1, it is evident that she is the grand mother of the victim girl and she is a chance witness and eye witness of the occurrence when the appellant was fleeing away after committing rape upon her Natni, i.e. the victim girl in her new house. The Defence has tried to take contradiction in her evidence on the point of previous enmity, but defence has failed to disclose any land dispute or any pending case between the parties prior to the occurrence, rather the witness has pointed out that appellant is a habitual offender and he had earlier gone to jail for committing rape upon the wife of one Bigu Mahato. Thus, P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution case. 21. P.W. 2 is the victim girl, who was a minor on the date of occurrence and she stated during her evidence that the occurrence took place Eight (08) months ago at around 8.00 P.M. in the night and on that day she was going to her new house from her old house after taking the meal and the appellant Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand was concealing/hiding near the Jackfruit Tree. She went to her new house and slept and had got opened the door as her grand-mother was to arrive after taking her meal. 22. The Court below had further observed that this witness-i.e. the victim girl is a minor, illiterate and villager by observing the demeanor of the witness. She further stated that the appellant Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand committed wrong work with her and she wanted to raise alarm but the accused threatened her and then she became silent due to fear of her life. Thereafter, her Grand mother came and slept there. She further stated that after around Eight (08) days the accused Ram Nandan again arrived at her home and committed wrong work with her then her grand mother came and then the accused fled away by pushing away her grand-mother. Thereafter, she narrated the earlier occurrence and the instant occurrence to her grand mother and thereafter, her Bayan was recorded by the Darogaji of Kuru Thana. 23. During further cross-examination she stated that the distance between her old house and new house is about half kilometer and there is house of Chabi Mahato in between them. It was a dark night on the date of occurrence. She further asserted that the appellant Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand was seen first time near the Jackfruit tree and prior to this occurrence, he had earlier committed wrong work with her twice. First time, while she had gone to Jungle Eight (08) days ago for grazing the cattle and second time in the new house and even prior to this occurrence, he had committed offence two days earlier also. She further stated that in the jungle the accused had committed rape upon her. She had resisted and had sustained scratch on her hands and legs. She further stated that Panchayati was held between both the families in presence of the villagers but the accused had not attended the Panchayati and she is not aware of the decision of the Panchayati. 24. It further transpires that the victim girl was unnecessarily cross-examined by the defence counsel regarding the manner of the occurrence in detail even after the observation of the learned Presiding Officer that the victim is a villager and a rustic girl. 25. 24. It further transpires that the victim girl was unnecessarily cross-examined by the defence counsel regarding the manner of the occurrence in detail even after the observation of the learned Presiding Officer that the victim is a villager and a rustic girl. 25. On being further cross-examined she stated that the accused had not committed wrong work with her in Anganbari, however, a case was instituted in the police station for committing wrong work with her in the jungle. She had gone to police station with her grand mother and had instituted a case in the police station two days after the occurrence in the Jungle. She stated that the accused happens to be the grand father in relation and his house is adjacent to her old house. She again stated that after arrival in the house the appellant arrived there and had committed dirty work with her. Her grand mother came after three hours and then the accused fled away. She instituted the case in the Police Station after Two (02) days of the occurrence. She had shown ignorance as to what was written in her Fardbayan. She further stated that Manoj Gandheri is her uncle and Meena Devi is his wife and said Meena had never kept her in her house. She denied the suggestion of implicating the accused at the instance of Meena Devi. 26. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.2 it would appear that she is the victim girl and she has narrated the entire incident before the Court and has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that the accused has committed rape upon her twice. Although, there is some infirmity/contradiction in her evidence on the point of place of occurrence but the same appears to be minor in nature as she is a minor girl and was aged about 13-14 years on the date of occurrence and hence such minor contradiction may occur naturally. She has fully stood the test of cross-examination and her evidence is intact and she has fully supported the prosecution case and even if there is some inconsistency on the point of place of occurrence, she is intact on the point of commission of rape upon her. 27. P.W.3 is Chhedi Gaderi @ Pal, who has also supported the prosecution case and stated that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim girl by putting her under fear. 27. P.W.3 is Chhedi Gaderi @ Pal, who has also supported the prosecution case and stated that the appellant had committed rape upon the victim girl by putting her under fear. He also stated that when the grand-mother of the victim girl arrived, then the appellant fled away by pushing her. 28. During cross-examination, he stated that the accused happens to be Nati in relation to him, but he has no personal relation. He stated that their houses are adjacent to each other. He also stated that there is the place near the house empty and desolate and it was a dark night at the time of rape. He stated that Daho Devi is his wife, who is aged around 50 years and cannot sit properly as she is suffering from illness for six years. 29. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.3, it appears that he is a hear-say witness and happens to be the grand-father of the victim girl. However, he has supported the prosecution case. 30. P.W.4 is Binod Bhagat Pal, who is uncle of the victim girl and had supported the prosecution case. He stated that his mother Daho Devi went to new house from old house, then she had seen the appellant Ram Nandan committing rape upon her niece, i.e. the victim girl and Ram Nandan had fled away by pushing his mother. Thereafter, they went to Police Station and Darogaji had recorded the statement of the victim and her niece had put her thumb impression and she also identified his signature on the Fardbayan marked as Ext.1. 31. However, during cross-examination he stated that he is not aware of the contents of the Fardbayan. The Police recorded the statement of his niece and thereafter, he had put his signature and his niece had put her thumb impression. He had not inquired about the names of the villagers, who had assembled on the date of occurrence from his mother and niece. He denied the suggestion for falsely implicating the accused. 32. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 4, it is evident that he is also a hear-say witness, but he has put his thumb impression on the Fardbayan. Thus, P.W. 4 also supports and corroborates the prosecution case as a hear-say witness. 33. He denied the suggestion for falsely implicating the accused. 32. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 4, it is evident that he is also a hear-say witness, but he has put his thumb impression on the Fardbayan. Thus, P.W. 4 also supports and corroborates the prosecution case as a hear-say witness. 33. P.W.5 is Meena Devi and she stated during her evidence that on the alarm raised by her mother in law Daho Devi she had gone to her new house and then Daho Devi, i.e. the P.W.1 and the victim girl, i.e. P.W.2 disclosed that while the victim girl was sleeping at her new house and then the appellant Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal came and committed rape upon her. When the grand mother saw then the accused fled away by pushing her. 34. During cross-examination she stated that the accused Ram Nandan is like a son and Gotiya and their houses are adjacent to each other and there is a distance of only 3-4 steps between her house and that of the house of the accused. Even the house of the accused is at a distance of 3-4 steps from the house of Daho Devi. She stated that there are houses of 6 to 7 persons near new house. She further stated that on the alarm raised by Daho Devi she and one Savita arrived but no nearby persons arrived due to the fact that it was night. She also stated that police had not recorded her statement and she is giving her evidence for the first time in the Court. Thus, it is evident that P.W.5 is also a hear-say witness. 35. P.W. 6 is Dr. Smriti, who had examined the victim girl on 30.12.2005 and had found the following:- “Marks of violence:- No marks of violence present. No injury present in any part of the body excluding private part-No matted hair, no foreign hair present in the private part. “Injury present in private part- (1) abrasion over labia minora left side, size-1 inch X 1 inch and skin removed over that area/nature-simple, Age-2 days before. (2) Abrasion over labia minora Right side, Size- ‰ inch X 1 inch and skin removed over that area, nature-simple, Age-2 days before. All the injuries might be caused by hard and blunt object. Hymen-old tear present. Vaginal Orifice- admit two fingers easily, External os-slit like. (2) Abrasion over labia minora Right side, Size- ‰ inch X 1 inch and skin removed over that area, nature-simple, Age-2 days before. All the injuries might be caused by hard and blunt object. Hymen-old tear present. Vaginal Orifice- admit two fingers easily, External os-slit like. Vaginal swabs taken and sent for microscopical examination-spermatozoa not found. For Age determination victim girl was sent to Medical Board. OPINION – According to the above findings, I have to say that there is medical evidence present in favour of vaginal penetration by some hard and blunt object.” She has proved the injury report of the victim girl marked as Ext. 2. She further proved the report of the age determination prepared by the Medical Board and signed by the C.M.O. (Civil Surgeon). The said report was marked as Ext.3. She has stated that as per Ext. 3 the Board has assessed the age of the victim girl between 15 to 16 years. 36. During cross-examination, she has admitted for not mentioning the time of examination of the victim girl and not mentioning the total time taken by her in examination of the victim. She further stated that she had not taken the signature of the lady Chowkidar. She further stated that the aforesaid injuries are possible when the informant or any person enter her own thumb into her vagina and move it in or out. She further stated that she had not seen earlier the age report of the Board, i.e. Ext.3. She denied the suggestion that she in collusion with police and the minor victim has not given the actual report and as a matter of fact the victim is major. 37. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.6, i.e. the Doctor, it is evident that she had found certain injuries on the private parts of the victim girl. She also specifically stated that there is medical evidence present in favour of vaginal penetration by some hand & blunt object. Thus, the medical evidence supports the commission of rape. The Doctor, i.e. P.W.6 had proved the age of the victim girl as 15 to 16 years, which was assessed by the Medical Board by report of the Medical Board marked as Ext.3. 38. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer of this case and who stated that he had recorded the Fardbayan of the victim girl and started investigation himself. The Doctor, i.e. P.W.6 had proved the age of the victim girl as 15 to 16 years, which was assessed by the Medical Board by report of the Medical Board marked as Ext.3. 38. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer of this case and who stated that he had recorded the Fardbayan of the victim girl and started investigation himself. He proved the Fardbayan of the victim girl marked as Ext. 4 and the formal F.I.R. marked as Ext.5. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses and subsequent statements of the informant. He had arrested the appellant and recorded his defence statement. He also proved the requisition report of sending the victim girl to Sadar Hospital, which was marked as Ext.6. He stated that he has got assessed the age of the victim girl as 15-16 years as per report of the Medical Board. He also stated that accused Ram was also accused earlier in another case instituted under Section 364 I.P.C. and in that case also he had submitted chargesheet against him. 39. During cross-examination, he stated and admitted that date of occurrence is mentioned as 23.12.2005 in the formal F.I.R., whereas the case diary shows that the occurrence took place on 23.12.2005 and 27.12.2005. He had also investigated both the occurrence on 29.12.2005 and the place of occurrence of both the occurrence is one. He denied the suggestion that the statement of the victim girl was recorded in Kuru Police Station. He had recorded the statement of Daho Devi at the Police Station. He further stated that earlier also the accused was chagesheeted in Kuru P.S. No. 70 of 1990 under Section 376 I.P.C., but he is not aware of the said case. The Investigating Officer also stated during cross-examination that he has not recorded the statement of Chowkidar Sheik Jabbar and Hawaldar Rajender Kumar and Lady Constable 3/10 Balo Khatun. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Daho Devi, i.e. the Grand-Mother at the Police Station, which is in Para-5 of his case diary. However, Daho Devi had not stated in her statement that on Tuesday night at around 8 p.m. when she arrived at her house, then she had seen that the lamp was not burning. He stated that he had recorded the statement of Daho Devi, i.e. the Grand-Mother at the Police Station, which is in Para-5 of his case diary. However, Daho Devi had not stated in her statement that on Tuesday night at around 8 p.m. when she arrived at her house, then she had seen that the lamp was not burning. Then she gave a call to the victim girl for not lighting the lamp and then her Natin started weeping and then she entered into the room and thereafter, the accused Ram Nandan pushed her and had fled away. He also stated that the victim girl had also not stated before the police that when she left from her old house after taking meal then the accused was hiding behind the jackfruit tree and then the accused forcibly entered into the room and forcibly committed rape upon her (It appears that the learned Presiding Officer has wrongly recorded the evidence by mentioning the commission of rape upon the Grand Mother instead of the victim girl by the appellant). The Investigating Officer further stated that Daho Devi had not stated before him that when the victim girl had gone for cattle grazing on last Friday, then the accused had committed rape upon her grand daughter at the point of knife and had threatened her at the point of knife to kill her if she told anybody. He further stated to have recorded the statement of Chedi Gaderi at Chandlaso village, but Chedi had not stated during his statement that his wife had not informed him for having seen the accused committing rape upon the victim girl. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of witness Mina Devi and Usha Devi in Para-12 of his Case Diary. He had also recorded the statement of independent witnesses, apart from the statement of Daho Devi and the victim girl. It further appears that the appellant, i.e. the defence side had not brought on record the result of Kuru P.S. Case No. 70 of 1990 instituted against the appellant earlier in rebuttal for his defence. The Investigating Officer has described the place of occurrence, which is the house of Chhedi Pal having two rooms and one courtyard which is surrounded by the mud wall from four sides. The Investigating Officer has described the place of occurrence, which is the house of Chhedi Pal having two rooms and one courtyard which is surrounded by the mud wall from four sides. There is a temple of Lord Shiva adjacent to house in the East direction and at a distance of 20 yards the village road, house of Chedi Gaderi in the west direction, Jackfruit tree at a distance of 20 Yards in the north direction and Parthitanr land of Niranjan Prasad in the southern side. He also stated that old house of the Prosecutrix is at a distance of 50 Yards from the house of place of occurrence in the North West Direction. It transpires that the prosecution has examined the Investigating Officer on recall and then he had described about the place of occurrence. However, during cross-examination he stated and admitted for visiting the place of occurrence on 29.12.2005, at around 5.45 p.m. in the evening. He had also not found any material or cloth from the place of occurrence. 40. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.7, it is evident that he is the Investigating Officer of this case and he has supported and corroborated the prosecution case. 41. D.W.1 is Ram Briksha Gaderi, who has stated that Chhedi Pal is own Grand Father of the victim girl and Binod Gaderi is own Uncle of the victim girl, whereas Meena Devi is her own Aunt. He stated that he had never heard of the rape committed by Ranandand Gaderi upon the Victim Girl. D.W. 1 also stated that Kuru Police never visited village Chandlaso with regard to the occurrence of rape. He also stated that the house of the appellant and the house of the victim girl are adjacent to each other, however, there is seepage from the house of the accused-appellant to the wall of the house of the victim girl and for which there was a dispute between both the sides. 42. During cross-examination, he admitted that he has been brought by the mother of accused Ram Nandan, however, he had denied the suggestion of obtaining the cost of transportation from the mother of the accused-appellant. He also stated that he had arrived earlier on three dates for giving her evidence, but he had returned and today his evidence has been recorded. However, police has not recorded his statement with regard to the occurrence. He also stated that he had arrived earlier on three dates for giving her evidence, but he had returned and today his evidence has been recorded. However, police has not recorded his statement with regard to the occurrence. He had denied the suggestion of the prosecution for having stated before the police that on 29.12.2005, i.e. on Tuesday, the accused Ramnandan has committed rape upon the victim girl in her new house where the prosecutrix had gone to sleep and when the grand mother of the victim girl arrived at her new house for sleeping then she had seen that the accused Ramnandan Gaderi was doing wrong work with the prosecutrix. Her grand-mother tried to catch hold of him and then he pushed Daho Devi and fled away. Prior to this also accused Ramnandan had committed rape upon the victim girl on 23.12.2005. He had denied the suggestion that the accused Ramnandan Gaderi had gone to jail in a previous case of rape. However, he admitted during his cross- examination at Para-20 that earlier a case was instituted against the accused Ramnandan for committing rape and in the said case accused was acquitted on the basis of compromise. 43. D.W.2 is Lilu Sao, who had denied the offence of rape committed by the appellant upon the victim girl. However, he stated that there was dispute between both the sides due to seepage of water from the side of Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal on the wall of the house of the victim girl. During cross-examination, he stated that his house is situated at a distance of 300 ft. from the house of Chedi Pal. Thus, D.W. 2 is a formal witness, who has denied the commission of rape. 44. D.W.3 is Mahodar Baitha, who has also stated that the accused Ramnandan never committed rape of the victim girl. He has also stated that there is dispute between the family of accused Ramnandan and the family Chedi Paul, i.e. Informant side with regard to ‘Orri’ seepage. During cross-examination, he stated that there was no Panchayati regarding the above dispute. No case was instituted between both the sides before any Police Station, Panchayaty or Court. He denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. During cross-examination, he stated that there was no Panchayati regarding the above dispute. No case was instituted between both the sides before any Police Station, Panchayaty or Court. He denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. However, D.W.3 cannot be relied upon in view of evidence of P.W.2, i.e. the Victim Girl ‘X’ and P.W.1, namely Smt. Daho Devi, i.e. Grand mother of the victim girl. 45. It further transpires from the defence statement of the accused appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the learned Court below that he has pointed out the dispute between the parties by stating that his house and the house of the victim girl in the village which are adjacent to each other and water from the roof of his wall falls on the walls of the house of the victim girl and for this dispute and also at the instance of some villagers the victim girl and her family members have instituted the false police case against him. 46. It is evident that Grand Mother of the Victim is a chance witness, who has reached the place of occurrence just at the time of the occurrence and she has fully supported the prosecution case. 47. It transpires from the order dated 21.07.2009 passed by this Court (Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Jaya Roy, as then Her Lordship was) that the appellant was in jail custody from 30.12.2005 till 21.07.2009, i.e. for more than 3 ‰ years and the appellant was granted bail vide order 21.07.2009 passed by this Court. 48. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Selvamani Versus State Rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 837 , in Para No. 8, 9, 10 and 13 as follows: “Para 8: - No doubt that the prosecutrix and her mother and aunt in their cross-examination, which was recorded three and a half months after the recording of the examination-in- Chief, have turned around and not supported the prosecution case. Para 9: - A 3-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, relying on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, Sri Rabindra Kuamr Dey v. State of Orissa, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka, has held that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. Para 10: -This Court, in the case of C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, has observed thus: “81. It is settled legal proposition that : (Khujji Case, SCC p. 635, para 6) ‘6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.’ 82. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, (1996) 10 SCC 360 ] this Court held that (at SCC p. 363, para 7) evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 13 SCC 516], Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450 ], Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, (2007) 13 SCC 360 ] and Subbu Singh v. State, (2009) 6 SCC 462 . 83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. 84. 83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. 84. In the instant case, some of the material witnesses i.e. B. Kamal (PW 86) and R. Maruthu (PW 51) turned hostile. Their evidence has been taken into consideration by the courts below strictly in accordance with law. Some Omissions, improvements in the evidence of the PWs have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, but we find them to be very trivial in nature. 85. It is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies, the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to s3eparate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discretancies which do not got to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witness. As the mental abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. Vide Sohrab v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 751 , State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505 , Bharwada Bhoginbhai HirjiBhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217 , State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash, (2007) 12 SCC 381 , Prithu v. State of H.P., (2009) 11 SCC 588 , State of U.P. v. Santosh Kumar, (2009) 9 SCC 626 and State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 587” Para 13: - In the present case also, it appears that, on account of a long gap between the examination-in-Chief and cross examination, the witnesses were won over by the accused and they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination-in-chief which fully incriminates the accused. However, when the evidence of the victim as well as her mother (PW-2) and aunt (PW-3) is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the evidence of the medical Expert (PW-8), we find that there is sufficient corroboration to the version given by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief.” 49. On perusal of the First Information Report, it is evident that the appellant forcibly committed rape upon the victim girl ‘X’, i.e. P.W.2, firstly on 23.12.2005 and for the second time on 27.12.2005. 50. This Court finds that non-examination of the Village Chowkidar is not fatal to the prosecution case because it is the Chowkidar, who had informed about the incident to the Police and then the Police arrived at the village to record the Fardbayan of the Prosecutrix. 51. It is further evident that the evidence of P.W.2, i.e. the Victim Girl is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. 52. P.W.6 is the Doctor, Dr. Smriti, who had examined the victim girl on 30.12.2005 and had found injuries on her private parts and she has opined that there is medical evidence of vaginal penetration by some hard and blunt object. Thus, the medical report of the victim girl, marked as Ext.2 and which was proved by Dr. Smriti, i.e. P.W.6, fully supports the prosecution case. 53. It further transpires that P.W.1, who is the Grand-mother of the victim girl, has also supported and corroborated the prosecution case and she is a chance witness because she had just arrived at the place of occurrence on the date of commission of rape for the second time on 27.12.2005 in the night when the appellant Ramnandan Gaderi had forcibly committed rape upon her. It is evident from her evidence that after the occurrence she had just entered into the room, i.e. the place of occurrence and then the victim girl had started weeping and thereafter, the appellant suddenly shoved him and fled away and thereafter, the victim girl had narrated the incident of rape to her grand mother. Then the victim girl narrated the occurrence of rape on 27.12.2005 and also narrated the first incident of rape on 23.12.2005. Then the victim girl narrated the occurrence of rape on 27.12.2005 and also narrated the first incident of rape on 23.12.2005. Thus, the P.W. 1, namely Daho Devi, who is the grand mother and chance witness has fully supported the prosecution case as she had seen the appellant fleeing away after dashing/shoving her from the room where he had committed rape upon the victim girl. Her evidence is natural as she has admitted during her evidence that the distance between his old house and new house is 100 yards and no one lives in the house. She had also explained the reason of delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R. as her husband, i.e. P.W.1 and her son Binod Bhagat Pal, i.e. P.W.4 had gone outside. 54. P.W.1 has also stated that appellant had gone to jail earlier also for committing rape upon the wife of one Bigu Mahto. 55. From scrutinising the evidence of P.W.2, it would appear that apart from the incident of committing rape twice upon her by the appellant, he had also committed rape upon her two days earlier also. No doubt the Victim Girl, being a minor, was not aware of technicalities of questions put to her by the seasoned lawyers and there are some contradictions in her evidence. From going through the same, this Court finds that though there are some infirmity and contradiction in the evidence of the victim girl, but the same are minor in nature and the evidence of the victim girl is fully intact of commission of rape by the appellant upon the victim girl. Even her cross examination reveals that after committing rape upon her the appellant remained there for around three hours and only upon arrival of her grand mother, i.e. Daho Devi, he had fled away. Thus, the evidence of victim girl inspires confidence and she has stood the test of cross-examination. 56. Further, the P.W.6, i.e. the Doctor has also assessed the age of the victim girl as between 15 years to 16 years on the date of occurrence. Thus, the victim girl was minor and below the age of 16 years on the date of occurrence and there is no rebuttal on behalf of the defence regarding the age of the victim assessed between 15 to 16 years. 57. Thus, the victim girl was minor and below the age of 16 years on the date of occurrence and there is no rebuttal on behalf of the defence regarding the age of the victim assessed between 15 to 16 years. 57. The defence has put question in cross examination from the doctor only on the point of sexual assault and the Doctor has opined that there is medical evidence present in favour of vaginal penetration with some hard and blunt object. Thus, the evidence of the Doctor fully supports that prosecution case. 58. Although the I.O. had not obtained the F.S.L. report of the clothes of the victim girl as well as the accused-appellant, but even if the same was not done by the Investigating Officer, it does not affect the merits of the prosecution case as due to latches on the part of the I.O. the prosecution cannot be disbelieved and to acquit the appellant on that ground alone would be adding insult to injury. 59 . It is well settled law that in case of direct ocular evidence, commission of rape is proved, even if, it is in conflict with the medical report. 60. It is well settled that due to lacunae on the part of the prosecution, the victim should not suffer and the prosecution case should not fail. 61. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. , reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 , Para 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 as follows :- “ Para 4:- We have very carefully scrutinized the evidence having regard to the fact that (PW 6) the investigating officer had not taken the care expected of him. He did not record the statements of the two witnesses nor did he refer to the attachment of the ‘chaddi’ in his oral evidence. That was a very vital piece of evidence to which little or no attention was paid. If the seizure of that article was properly proved, the article with semen stains would have lent strong corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no doubt that the investigation was casual and defective. But despite these deficiencies both the courts below have recorded a conviction. The question is : are they right? If the seizure of that article was properly proved, the article with semen stains would have lent strong corroboration to the evidence of the prosecutrix. There is no doubt that the investigation was casual and defective. But despite these deficiencies both the courts below have recorded a conviction. The question is : are they right? Para 5:- Notwithstanding our unhappiness regarding the nature of investigation, we have to consider whether the evidence on record, even on strict scrutiny, establishes the guilt. In cases of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence but it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. Any investigating officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused, would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the ‘chaddi’. That is the reason why we have said that the investigation was slipshod and defective. Para 6:- We must admit that the defective investigation gave us some anxious moments and we were at first blush inclined to think that the accused was prejudiced. But on closer scrutiny we have reason to think that the loopholes in the investigation were left to help the accused at the cost of the poor prosecutrix, a labourer. To acquit solely on that ground would be adding insult to injury. Para 8:- This is what this Court said in paragraph 16 of the judgment in the aforementioned case: (SCC p. 559) “A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.” Applying the above test to the facts of the present case we are satisfied beyond any manner of doubt that the prosecutrix, a victim of the crime, had absolutely no reason whatsoever to falsely involve the appellant nor did her husband have any reason to do so or tutor his wife to involve the appellant. No such suggestion was made to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination nor is there any evidence on record in that behalf. The prosecutrix is a poor labourer who was toiling to earn her livelihood to augment the family income. No such suggestion was made to the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination nor is there any evidence on record in that behalf. The prosecutrix is a poor labourer who was toiling to earn her livelihood to augment the family income. She was working in the factory since the last few days only and the appellant and his companion, taking advantage of the situation, drove away Charan by asking him to fetch tea and after he left the appellant violated her person. The find of semen stains on the petticoat and in the vagina lend assurance to the story narrated by the prosecutrix. The submission that there was delay in lodging the complaint has to be stated to be rejected for the simple reason that immediately after the incident she had to go in search of her husband who was a rickshaw-puller, narrate to him the incident, go down to the police station and then lodge the complaint. She has explained the absence of injuries by stating that she was laid on minute sand which was lying on the floor and, therefore, there were no marks of injury. The only explanation is by way of suggestion in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was falsely implicating the appellant in order to grab money. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter we are satisfied that it is safe to place reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Both the courts below relied on her evidence and we see no reason to take a different view.” 62. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Muniappan and Others Versus State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567 at Para 55 as follows :- “ Para-55:- There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of the investigation. (Vide Chandrakant Luxman v. State of Maharashtra [ (1974) 3 SCC 626 :1974 SCC (Cri) 116 : AIR 1974 SC 220 ], Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. [ (1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri.) 977], Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [ (1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1085 : AIR 1998 SC 1850 ], Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [ (1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 104], State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy [ (1999) 8 SCC 715 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 61 : AIR 2000 SC 185 ], Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh [ (2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641], Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [ (2002) 3 SCC 57 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 519] and Ram Bali v. State of U.P.”. 63. It is well settled from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Criminal Appeal is in continuation of trial and this has also been observed also in the case of Deepak Rai v State of Bihar reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 64. 63. It is well settled from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Criminal Appeal is in continuation of trial and this has also been observed also in the case of Deepak Rai v State of Bihar reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 64. It has been held in the case of Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar , reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 at Paragraph-35 and 36 as follows:- “Para-35:-More so, it is settled law that an appeal by special leave under Article 136 is a continuation of the original proceedings. In Moran M. Baselios Marthoma Mathews (2) v. State of Kerala [ (2007) 6 SCC 517 ], this Court categorically observed as follows: (SCC p. 523, para 13) “13.We, therefore, are of the opinion that despite the fact that the appellants had insisted upon before the High Court for issuance of a writ or in the nature of mandamus upon the State or its officers for the purpose of grant of police protection as this Court has exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it can and should go into that question as well viz. as to whether the writ petition itself could have been entertained or not, particularly, when the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied) Para-36:- Further, this Court in Netai Bag v. State of W.B.[ (2000) 8 SCC 262 ], while observing that the scope of an appeal under Article 136 and 226 cannot be wider than the earlier proceedings, has noticed that the appeals under the said provisions are continuation of the original proceedings.” 65. Thus, this Court finds that no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court by convicting the appellant-Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of seven (7) years. 66. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the judgment of conviction dated 18.05.2007 and sentence dated 24.05.2007, passed by Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, then learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 36 of 2006, arising out of G.R. Case No. 617 of 2005, corresponding to Kuru P.S. Case No. 137 of 2005, is hereby upheld and this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 610 of 2007 is dismissed. 67. Consequently, the bail of the appellant is, hereby, cancelled and appellant-Ramnandan Gaderi @ Ramanand Pal is directed to surrender in the learned Court below within Four (04) weeks from today to serve the remaining sentence and the period during which, the appellant remained in jail, shall be set-off from his period of custody. 68. During pendency of this appeal, it is informed by the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi vide Letter dated 09.08.2023 and also by the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Lohardaga vide Letter No. 1922 dated 09.08.2023 that two years back the Victim Girl has been provided for her rehabilitation ‘Ïndira Awas’ under the Índira Awas Yojna’ Scheme in the light of order dated 14.06.2023 of this Court and she would be provided all the Government scheme benefits in liaisoning with the District Administration for which she is entitled to. 69. This Court further finds that the Prosecutrix- Victim was a minor girl, aged about 15-16 years on the date of occurrence and she had suffered a lot of humiliation and mental agony and her image in the society was maligned due to the commission of rape upon her and therefore, this Court directs the State Authorities of the Home Department/ Competent Authorities of the State to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) to the prosecutrix-victim girl under amended provisions of Section 357 A of Cr.P.C., who had undergone the mental agony of rape, through the Deputy Commissioner/ Superintendent of Police, Lohardaga and learned Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to make necessary steps in assistance with D.L.S.A., Lohardaga for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh) to the Victim Girl, which may be paid to her by informing her through D.L.S.A., Lohardaga by the process of learned Court below and payment of such compensation is to be informed before this Court. 70. With the above observation and direction, the Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 610 of 2007 is hereby dismissed. 71. Let the Original Trial Court Records be sent to the learned Trial Court at once. 72. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA and D.L.S.A., Lohardaga and be also handed over to the learned A.P.P. for the needful.