The sole testimony of a minor victim can suffice for a conviction in rape cases if it is credible and corroborated by other evidence, despite minor discrepancies.

JUDGMENT :

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J

1. The appellant/accused Shaikh Fakruddin Shaikh Maulna Saab, resident of Degloor, District Nanded, has challenged his conviction in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1999 at the hands of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli (hereinafter referred to as “ the trial Court”) for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , under the judgment and order dated 25.07.2003. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer R.I for seven days.

2. The prosecution case as reflected from the report Exh.16 dated 14.02.1999 lodged by one Yusufabegum i.e. mother of the victim, is that the victim at the time of incident was aged about four years. She was residing with her parents, brothers and sister at Anand Nagar, Degloor, District Nanded. Her father was working in Degloor College. On the day of incident i.e. on 13.02.1999, it was 2nd Saturday and, as usual father of the victim had gone to Hanegaon. Mother of the victim was taking rest after finishing the usual household works. At about 2.30 p.m. victim told her that she intended to go to the house of her friend Reshma for playing. Reshma was the daughter of the appellant/accused. Accordingly, victim went to the house of Reshma at the relevant time. However, at about 4.00 p.m. on the same day she rushed back to her house and started crying by embracing her mother. When the complainant-mother asked her as to what happened, victim told her that the appellant/accused, who was wearing Lungi gave her sweet by name ‘Banaras’ and thereafter he made her to lie on the cot, and then sat on her abdomen. According to the victim, the appellant/accused inserted his private part in her place of urine. When the mother of the victim saw the private part of the victim, she found that it was swollen and there were sticky stains on her knicker. Since the father of the victim was not at home, her mother called neighbours, namely Auyubai, Sultana, Kayyum bhai and Shabhana and told them about the incident. Father of the victim did not return on that day. The victim was crying whole night due to pains. On the next day early in the morning, the people from the community had come for namaz in the nearby mosque. The mother of the victim told one Ajimbhai about the incident. At that time Ajimbhai advised her to lodge a report. She disclosed the incident to her neighbour Mirza Sardar Beg and along with him, she lodged the report of the incident against the appellant/accused in Degloor Police Station.

3. On the basis of aforesaid report (Exh.16), Degloor Police Station registered crime No. 15 of 1999 against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (f) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . During the investigation, P.S.I. Kulkarni visited the place of the incident, recorded spot panchnama and made necessary seizures. He arrested the appellant/accused and referred the victim for medical examination to Nanded. He recorded the statements of witnesses and also sent the seized muddemal for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offence. The learned trial Court, after conducting trial, convicted the appellant/accused as mentioned above and hence this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. According to him, mother of the victim i.e. P.W.1 Yusufabegum had lodged the F.I.R (Exh.16) merely on the say of the victim, who was unable to tell the details of the incident. He pointed out that the victim did not sta