The testimony of a child witness, if found natural, consistent, and free from tutoring, is sufficient to support a conviction without mandatory corroboration. Additionally, delay in reporting sexual offences is not fatal if adequately explained by factors such as social stigma or family circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

(1) The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the accused/convict/appellant, Rajendra, assailing the judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No. 485 of 2005; State Versus Rajendra, emanating from Case Crime No. 112 of 2005, under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here-in-after referred to as “I.P.C.”), Police Station Beniganj, district Hardoi, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default in payment of fine, the accused/appellant would undergo one year’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2) The prosecution case, in short, is that complainant, Smt. Rooprani, had submitted a written report at police station Beniganj, district Hardoi on 30.03.2005, alleging therein that she is the resident of village Bargadiya, hamlet of Atiya Majhigawan, police station Beniganj, Hardoi. Yesterday, in the afternoon of 28.03.2005, her husband had gone to his maternal village Akouhara to meet/greet ‘Holi’. She was not well, therefore, she was lying at home. The son of her elder brother in-law, Ravindra son of Ram Prasad, was present with her. At about 06:30 in the evening, upon hearing the cries of her daughter (here-in-after referred to as ‘victim’) aged about 9 years coming from behind her house, she and Ravindra rushed behind the house and saw that her neighbour, Rajendra son of Rameshwar, was trying to commit a wrongful act with her daughter by removing her shorts, who, on seeing them, fled from the place of occurrence. Due to social shame, she remained silent. Today, when her husband returned, she told him everything. She has come to the police station along with her husband and her daughter. Appropriate action may be taken.

(3) On the basis of the aforesaid written report (Ext. Ka.1), F.I.R., bearing Case Crime No. 112 of 2005, under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Beniganj, district Hardoi on 30.03.2005 at 02:30 P.M. against accused Rajendra.

(4) The investigation of the case was conducted by S.I. Raj Bahadur Singh on 03.03.2005. He, after inspecting the place of occurrence on the pointing out of the complainant Rooprani, prepared the site-plan (Ext. Ka.7) and recorded the statement of complainant on 30.03.2005 and on the same day, he arrested the accused/appellant.

(5) The medical examination of the victim was performed on 30.03.2005 at 06:00 P.M. at District Hospital, Hardoi by Dr. Nisha Srivastava (P.W.4), who found that height of the victim was 128 cm; weight was 20 Kg; teeth were 12/12; she was average built; axillary hair not present; breast not developed and there was no mark of injury on any part of the body. On examination of private parts of the victim, doctor noted that pubic hair not present on private parts and P/V Hymen torn at 6 O’clock position margins red and inflammed. Slight oozing vagina admitting 1 finger with pain.

(6) After examining the victim, Dr. Nisha Srivastava took her vaginal smear and sent it to Patholog