The testimony of the victim of sexual assault is vital and more reliable than that of an injured witness. Conviction can be founded on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration.

JUDGMENT

Lalit Batra, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant-convict Rajender, impugning the legality of judgment of conviction dated 21.05.2013 and order on quantum of sentence dated 23.05.2013 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in terms of which, he was held guilty and convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months, in case FIR No.372 dated 14.10.2012 under Sections 323 and 376 IPC, Police Station Surajkund, District Faridabad.

2. As per prosecution version, on 14.10.2012 prosecutrix (name not disclosed in view of law laid down in case " State of Punjab vs. Gurmail Singh" 1996 (1) RCR 533), aged 14 years, student of Class-VII made a complaint (Ex.P/2) against her father (accused), stating that her father has been sexually assaulting her since she was seven (7) years of age and when she brought the above said misdeeds of her father to her mother, latter was given beatings by the accused. She further alleged that as she was subjected to sexual assault by her father regularly, she was made to abort by her father while giving her abortion pills. She further alleged that as and when she tried to narrate her sufferings to someone, she was given beatings by her father and for the said reason, she could not narrate her woes to anybody. She further alleged that on 12.10.2012 at about 1:30 AM (midnight), her father again committed rape upon her and ultimately she brought the matter to the notice of her friend's mother. On the basis of these allegations, FIR (Ex.P/14) was registered. Minor prosecutrix was medico- legally examined, vide Medico Legal Report (Ex.P/7) and her vaginal swabs etc. were taken and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Prosecutrix was radio-logically examined, vide report dated 14.10.2012 (Ex.P/4) for ossification test to ascertain her age, in terms of which, her approximate bone age was opined to be 16 to 18 years with margin of error of six months on either side. Statement of prosecutrix as envisaged under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/19) was recorded. Rough site- plan (Ex.P/16) of place of occurrence was prepared. Accused was arrested on 16.10.2012 and he was medico-legally examined, vide Medico Legal Report (Ex.P/8). Scaled site-plan (Ex.P/10) of place of occurrence was prepared. Certificate dated 05.12.2012 (Ex.P/6) was obtained from Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad, in terms of which, date of birth of prosecutrix as per school record was recorded as 20th May, 1999. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, final report as envisaged under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Challan) was presented against accused in the Court.

3. Finding a prima facie case, accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 312, 323, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 Lady Constable Meena, PW-2 Ms. Sangeeta Rawat, Legal Aid Counsel, PW-3 Ms. Seema, PW-4 Dr. Naveen Aggarwal, Medical Officer, B.K. Hospital, Faridabad, PW-5 Ram Pal Shastri, Sanskrit Teacher, Government Senior Secondary School, Sarai Khawaja, PW-6 Dr. Smriti, Medical Officer, PW-7 Dr. Sadan Prasad, PW-8 Head Constable Rajesh Kumar, PW-9 Anoj Kumar, Draftsman, PW-10 Constable Sandeep Kumar, PW-11 Constable Mam Chand, PW-12 Head Constable Kamal, PW-13 Sub Inspector Ajit Singh, Investigating Officer, PW-13 minor victim/prosecutrix (wrongly numbered as PW-13 by the Trial Court) and PW-14 Ashok Goyal, Reader to JMIC, Faridabad. After giving up remaining witnesses being unnecessary, prosecution evidence was closed by learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of