The judgment establishes the reliability of a child witness's testimony and the admissibility of the sole testimony of the victim in a rape case, emphasizing that delay in lodging the FIR and absence of certain evidence may not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case.

1. In the words of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Mishra as observed in Shyam Narain vs. The State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 7 SCC 77, the wanton lust, vicious appetite, depravity of senses, mortgage of mind to the inferior endowments of nature, the servility to the loathsome beast of passion and absolutely unchained carnal desire have driven the appellant to commit a crime which can bring in a 'tsunami' of shock in the mind of the collective, send a chill in the spine of the society, destroy the civilized stems of the milieu and comatose the marrows of sensitive polity.

2. This is a case of brutal rape of a 9 year old girl. The learned Trial Judge after recording conviction u/s 376 (2) (f) of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) had taken note of the brutality meted out to the child and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

3. The horrid episode as unfurled by prosecution is that on 19th March, 2009, a 9 years old child, daughter of Sanjay Sahni was sleeping in her room. The appellant had come from his village in search of a job and used to live in the house of Sanjay Sahni. When the family members were sleeping, accused Sanjeet Sahni came to her, removed her undergarments and also removed his pant and thereafter committed rape upon her. The accused put his hand on her mouth and when he removed his hand, she raised alarm on which the accused ran away. Her father woke up and chased the accused but could not apprehend him. Sanjay Sahni tried to search the accused whole day but could not trace him out. The victim was taken to BJRM Hospital where she was medically examined. Police was also informed which swung into action. SI Mukesh Devi after recording the statement of the victim made endorsement upon the same and got the FIR registered. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested from Bihar. After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted against him.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish the charge levelled against the accused, examined 13 witnesses including the child ‘A’, her father, the doctors and other formal witnesses.

5. The accused, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of prosecution and alleged his false implication in this case. According to him, he was residing at Village Barola, Azadpur, Delhi in the house of one Kale and never stayed with Sanjay Sahni. He had borrowed some money from Sanjay Sahni which he could not return to him. Therefore, he implicated him in this false case. The defence, however, chose not to adduce any evidence.

6. Learned Trial Court considering the entire evidence on record and the contentions raised on behalf of the accused came to quote that the version of the prosecution could be relied upon in entirety and by no stretch of imagination it could be said that she was a tutored witness; the delay in lodging the FIR was at all not fatal to the case of prosecution as the victim and her father are illiterate persons and were not acquainted with the technicalities of law; that the factum of rape has been clearly proven from the medical evidence and the testimony of doctors which have remained unimpeachable despite roving cross-examination; that plea of any hostility and animosity has not been proved and the forensic evidence also substantiates the case of the prosecution. Considering the entire evidence in detail, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offence u/s 376 (2) (f) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as has been stated hereinbefore.

7. In appeal Ms. Aishwarya Rao, Advocate from Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, representing the appellant challenged the findings of the learned Trial Court, inter alia, on the ground that:-

(i) Prosecution has not examined Smt. Rekha Sahni, bhabhi of the appellant who is the material witness as she was present after the incident and as per the statement of father of t