The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliability of the testimony of the child prosecutrix, the competency of child witnesses, and the nature and extent of corroboration required for their testimony in cases of sexual offences.

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant from jail against the Judgment and order dated 26-6-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 18/99 (53/99) by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376(2), IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month.

2. Sinceit is a jail appeal and accused-appellant was not being represented by anybody, therefore, this Court vide order dated 18-8-2000 appointed Mr. Vijay Purohit, as Amicus Curiae and he has argued this appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant.

.3. It arises in the following circumstances :-On 1-12-1998 at about 10.15 PM, PW-1 Amra lodged a written report Ex. P/i before PW-13 Lal Singh, ASI, Police Station Parsola District Udaipur stating inter alia that on that day he and his wife PW-2 Rukmani were digging their well in the field and at about 5.00 PM in the evening when they were ready to return to their house, they heard the cries of children from their house, which was near to their field and thus, they rushed towards their house and found PW-4 Harji and PW-3 Veliya, who were neighbours. It was further stated in the report that they saw accused-appellant running from their house and upon this, PW-4 Harji and PW-3 Veliya

.caught hold (ol) accused-appellant, but later on he managed to run away from the scene and also found his daughter Bhulki (hereinafter referred to as the child pro secutrix) aged about 8 years in unconscious state and she was deaf and dumb by birth and she was wearing frock and blood was coming out from her private part. It was further stated in the report that they also saw that accused-appellant was wearing white shirt and underwear and both were stained with blood and, thereafter, many people assembled there. It was further stated in the report that accused-appellant committed rape with the child prosecutrix. On this report, FIR Ex. P/15 at Police Station Parsola District Udaipur was chalked out and investigation was started. During investigation, accused-appellant was arrested on 2-12-1998 through Ex. P/6 and his shirt and underwear were seized through Ex. P13. The frock of the child prosecutrix PW-14 Bhulki was seized through Ex. P/S. The certificate of the doc-tor showing that child prosecutrix PW-14 Bhulki is deaf and dumb, is Ex. Pill. The accused-appellant was got medically examined and his medical examination report is Ex. P113, which shows that he received four simple injuries. The child prosecutrix PW-14 Bhulki was also got medically examined and her medico-legal examination reports are Ex. P/16 and Ex. P/18. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-appellant in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 21-1-1999, the learned Judge, Special Court, SC/ST Cases, Udaipur framed charge for the offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC against the accused-appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 1(5 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused-appeallant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, no evidence was produced by the accuseds-appellant. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur through his Judgment and order dated 26-6-1999 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(, IPC in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376(2)(f), IPC. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order dated 26-6-1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3