Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya,J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 28.07.2008, passed by Sri Shushil Kumar Rastogi, A.D.J./F.T.C., Court No. 1, Kanpur Dehat, in Sessions Trial No. 382 of 2007 (State vs. Kanjara), arising out of Case Crime No. 187 of 2007, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Shivali, District Kanpur Dehat, whereby the accused appellant was found guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.

2. According to the prosecution case, the victim has lodged the first information report at Police Station Shivali on 07.08.2007 at 11:20 A.M. stating that she was returning home with her goat. Suddenly, near the grove, the accused dragged her, gagged her mouth and raped her. She is 12 years of age, whereas the accused is 21 years old. When she tried to raise alarm, the accused raised the volume of radio and threatened her, hence she lodged the first information report.

3. On the basis of first information report, PW-4 Constable Maan Singh scribed the chick report which was proved as Exhibit Ka-4. This witness further scribed the G.D. whose copy was proved as Exhibit Ka-4. Investigation of the matter was entrusted to PW-5 S.I. Ramveer Singh. He copied the first information report in the C.D., recorded the statements of the victim, her mother and father. He inspected the spot at the pointing out of the victim and prepared the site plan which was proved as Exhibit Ka-6. Further this witness copied the medical report of the victim and X-ray report and submitted charge sheet against the accused which was proved as Exhibit Ka-7. Dr. R.K. Srivastava, PW-6 has proved the X-ray report as Exhibit Ka-8 and the X-ray plate as material Exhibit-1.

4. The prosecution further examined the victim PW-1, Dr. Anjula Gupta as PW-2 who examined the victim. On internal examination, she found that only one finger can be inserted in the vagina. The hymen was old and torn. The victim told the doctor that her menstrual cycle had not commenced. This witness proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-2. PW-3 is Om Prakash, the father of the victim. The remaining witnesses have been discussed earlier. After examining as many as six witnesses, the prosecution closed its evidence and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he only denied the occurrence. No defence evidence was adduced.

5. After perusal of the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned lower court returned the finding of guilt against the accused appellant. Hence the appellant has convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the original record of the trial court.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report, hence the prosecution case is doubtful.

9. Perusal of the first information report shows that nothing more can be expected from a rustic minor girl who has scribed what has been written in the first information report. It has been mentioned in the first information report that the accused used to threaten the victim not to take any action. Although, it is presumed that everybody knows the law but a heinous offence like this which shatters the personality of a lady cannot be entangled in hyper technicalities.

10. Generally, in cases of rape, the court does not ponder to find corroboration if the statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and no corroboration would be required unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate the court for corroboration of her statement. Corroboration of testimony of the prosecutrix as a condition for judicial reliance is no a requirement of law but a guidance o