ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.:

In this appeal the appellant Rabi Dalui @ Rabin Dalui has challenged his conviction under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine and default clause passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 12th Court, Alipore in Sessions Trial No. 02 (02) 2007.

2. The prosecution case according to the FIR goes like this;

On 24th January 2006 sometime in the afternoon the PW/2 Manu Dalui found her daughter, PW/3 aged about 6 years was bleeding from vagina. At once she was taken to Vidyasagar Hospital but as she could not be admitted there she was removed to M.R. Bangur Hospital where on the same day she was admitted under Dr. Subodh Kumar Bera (PW/9). Thereafter on 30th January 2006 while PW/3 was undergoing a surgical incision, on being asked by her attending doctor in presence of her mother, the victim girl disclosed that on last Saturday in the afternoon the appellant Rabi Dalui, the cousin brother of her father took her inside his room and raped.

3. During the trial prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, while defence examined one.

4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended before us that he is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case out of family feud. He vehemently urged that there has been a delay of six days in reporting the incident to the police without any reason which makes the prosecution case highly suspicious. He further pointed out that according to the doctor (PW/8), who treated the victim girl the injuries found in her private parts may also be caused by accidental fall which completely belies the prosecution case.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the victim girl as nothing could have been brought out from her lengthy cross-examination which may raise doubt as to the guilt of the appellant. He with reference to the evidence of the doctor further contended that the injuries sustained by the victim in her private parts clearly shows that she was raped.

4. Heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions. Perused the impugned judgement, deposition of the witnesses and other materials on record.

5(a). The PW/1, Badal Dolui is the father of the victim girl. According to him, he was told by his daughter (PW/3) that she fell and sustained injury and from his cross it reveals that on their way to hospital his daughter told him as to how he sustained injury. Thereafter he came to learn from his wife at hospital that she was raped by the appellant and due to that she suffered bleeding injury in her vagina. In his cross the witness admitted that he did not hear anything directly from his daughter about this incident and the appellant Rabi Dalui and his parents’ live in a single room.

(b) The PW/2 Manu Dolui, the mother of the victim stated in her evidence that initially her daughter told she sustained injury by fall but on the way to Bangur Hospital her daughter disclosed that accused Rabi Dolui raped her. In her cross the witness admitted that she made no statement to the police with regard to this incident and the police was informed on the very day when she came to know about the real incident from her daughter.

(c). The PW/3 is the victim girl, the said witness in her deposition stated that when she was taken to hospital she told her mother about the incident. On the point of identification of the appellant by the victim girl (PW/3) in the trial, following observations have been noted by the Trial Court in the deposition sheet;

“On being asked to identity him the witness lowers down her face, again raises it and try to see the persons in court but again lowers down her eyes.”

“Being asked whether she can identify her jyatha and being asked to identify him by her hand the witness looks at one of the two persons on dock but does not raise her hand or finger to identify the