JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

This Jail Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant from Jail assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “I.P.C.”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”) by the learned Sessions-cum-Special Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in G.R. Case No. 246 of 2013/T.C. No. 48 of 2013 sentencing him to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for a period of six months more on each count for the offence under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

2. The unfolded story of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.2.2013 at about 8.00 pm, while the daughter of the informant had gone to forest to bring wood, the appellant caught hold her and forcibly ravished her against her consent. When she did not return, the informant went to search her daughter and found her inside the jungle and she informed that she has been raped by the appellant. Thereafter, the informant brought his daughter and got her treated at the hospital. Then, he came to the police station and lodged FIR. Police registered the case and started investigation. During investigation, police received the medical examination report of the victim and the appellant, examined the witnesses including the victim girl, seized the wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant and sent the same for chemical examination. During investigation, police also recorded the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, police visited the spot, made inquest over the dead body of the deceased persons and sent the same for post-mortem examination, examined the witnesses, seized the weapon of offence and wearing apparels of the deceased and after completion of the investigation, submitted charge sheet.

3. The plea of the appellant is quite denial of the charges levelled against him.

4. The prosecution, in order to bring the charge against the appellant, has examined as many as 11 witnesses and has defence examined none. Learned Trial Court, after scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found the appellant guilty and passed the judgment of conviction and sentence, as above. Not only this but also the learned Trial Court recommended the case to the District Legal Services Authority, Mayurbhanj, Baripada for grant of compensation under the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012.

5. Mr. A.K. Jena, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed error by not reading the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) who examined the victim girl and found no superficial deep injury on the external part of her body or breast. According to him, the appellant has been foisted in this case as he being a labour, demanded the wages from the father of the victim.

6. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the victim girl is not a minor but a major girl according to the FIR for which the offence under the POCSO Act will not be attracted. Apart from this, the chemical examination report of the wearing apparels of the victim and the appellant have not indicated matching of blood group. Also the vaginal swab of the victim does not disclose about presence of any semen. According to him, the learned Trial Court has not discussed all these features in his judgment for which the same is bad in law. Hence, he prays to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

7. Miss. S. Ratho, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix is enough to prove the occurrence and rape committed upon her by the present appellant. She also drew the attention of the Court to the evidence of the doctor who has examined the victim and the appellant. According to her, there was ample bleeding injury on the