1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of rape of a minor child “Baby X” aged about ten years on the date of the incident.

2. The alleged facts which can be gleaned from the Complaint (Ex. PW-2/A/12/A) are that on 27.08.2008, when the prosecutrix was alone at her elder sister’s house, at about 1:00 PM in the afternoon, the present respondent Jai Hind (hereafter “the accused”), who lived in a room in the same premises, entered her room and bolted the door. He removed her underclothes. When she protested, he threatened to kill her, her sister and her brother-in-law. He then raped her (there was penal vaginal penetration). When she started weeping from the pain, he ran away. At about 8.00 PM, that evening, Rakhi, PW-1 the prosecutrix’s cousin, (who lived downstairs), returned from work. Baby X told her that her abdomen was hurting. The next day, i.e., on 28.08.2008, she was again alone at home, and at about 2.00 PM, the accused, again went inside the room, bolted it from inside and raped her. While leaving, he threatened to kill her if she told anyone about this. That evening, again, PW-1 Rakhi, came to her house at around 8.00 PM, and `X’ again told her about the pain in the abdomen. At 10:00 PM, her older sister Rekha PW-3 came back, and `X’ told her too about the abdominal pain. Later in the night, she narrated the incident to her sister. She was taken to the Police Post by PW-1 and PW-3 and the complaint was lodged.

3. The prosecutrix X was then taken to AIIMS where she was medically examined and an MLC (Ex. PW-4/A) was recorded where she named the accused. The accused was arrested and examined at AIIMS through MLC Ex. PW-6/A. Material evidence such as the underclothes of the victim, blood in a gauze, pubic swab and slide were collected and sent for analysis to the CFSL. The accused pointed out the place of incident (Ex. PW-1/B). The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 02.09.2008 (Ex. PW-5/C). The accused was charged under Sections 376/506 IPC on 04.02.2009. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The Court examined 13 witnesses including the victim and the examining doctors; it also recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and examined the physical evidence brought on record. The Trial Court, in the impugned judgment, however, found the evidence on record lacking with respect to proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him. Consequently, the State has appealed by leave.

5. The Trial Court was of the opinion that to base a conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, was unsafe, given the circumstances of the case. It held that the prosecutrix had visited a doctor on the first occasion, and yet not disclosed the sexual assault; similarly, she did not mention about this to one of the witnesses who was always at home. The reporting of the incident, pursuant to the alleged disclosure of the crime to the prosecutrix’s sister, late on the second night, casts grave doubts about the story. It was held that in the absence of corroboration, through other evidence, it would be unsafe to conclude that the accused’s guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The learned APP relied on the testimony of PW-4, the examining doctor; she had deposed that on local examination, the child’s hymen was found to have been ruptured. It was submitted that the accused, in cross examination of this witness, could not elicit anything worthwhile to contradict the prosecution version about a rape. In fact, PW-4 denied the suggestion that no rape was committed on 27/28.08.2008, and she further denied a suggestion that she had not conducted any medical examination on the prosecutrix. Similarly, argued the APP, the doctor who examined the accused, showed that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. His blood, penile swab and underwear were collected, sealed and given to the Po