JUDGMENT

S.P. Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Present appeal has been filed by Janak (hereinafter `the appellant') to impugn a judgment dated 25.02.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.89/2012 arising out of FIR No.176/2012 PS Kanjhawala whereby he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. By an order dated 03.03.2014, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine Rs.10,000/-; default sentence being SI for six months.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 21.08.2012 at around 05.30 p.m. when PW-4 (Manoj Kumar) was present near House No. G-319, JJ Colony, Sawda, Delhi, he saw a crowd. On enquiry, he came to know that the appellant had committed a wrong act (Galat Kaam) with his daughter `X' (assumed name). He moved the police machinery and made a call at 100 from his mobile No.8860208127. Daily Diary (DD) No.29A (Ex.PW-2/A) came to be recorded at 05.34 p.m. at PS Kanjhawala. The investigation was assigned to ASI Bijay Singh. The Investigating Officer after recording X's statement (Ex.PW-10/A) lodged the FIR. The appellant was arrested. `X' was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the commission of the aforesaid offence. By an amended charge dated 22.02.2014, the appellant was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To bring home appellant's guilt, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses in all and relied upon several exhibits. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. It is not in controversy that the victim is the real daughter of the appellant; she was aged around 10 years on the day of occurrence. PW-1 (Madhu Bala) from Nagar Nigam Prathmik Vidayala, Karkardooma, proved the relevant record whereby victim's date of birth was recorded as 11.07.2002. The relevant documents are Ex.PW-1/A to Ex.PW-1/C.

4. The occurrence took place inside the house where the victim used to stay with her father and other siblings. Her mother had abandoned them a year before. The appellant did not deny his presence in the house at the relevant time.

5. The incident took place on 21.08.2012 at about 05.00 p.m. The matter was reported to the police at the earliest. Rukka (Ex.PW-17/B) was sent on 22.08.2012 at 12.35 a.m. In the complaint (Ex.PW-10/A), `X' gave detailed account as to how and in what manner the appellant -her father had outraged her modesty and committed rape upon her. On her raising alarm, many neighbourers collected and the appellant took her to a doctor for medical examination. In the evening, the police arrived at her house and took them to the police station. Since the appellant was implicated by name in the FIR lodged without inordinate delay, there was least possibility of the complainant/victim to have concocted a false story.

6. In her statement (Ex.PW-6/B) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 22.08.2012 the victim gave graphic detail as to how the appellant -her father had violated her body.

7. In her Court statement as PW-1/A, she fully supported the prosecution on all material facts and proved the version given to the police and the Court without any variation. Before recording her statement, the learned Presiding Officer had put several questions to ascertain if she was capable of understanding the questions and give rationale answers. The Presiding Officer w