The conviction was upheld based on the victim's credible testimony corroborated by other family members, establishing the accused's guilt despite minor inconsistencies and a delay in filing the FIR.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appellant has been convicted under Section 3 76(2)(i) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 read with Sections 3 (a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; and, in default of the fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. The incidents are of July 26 and 27, 2014. The case made out by the prosecution was that when the mother of the 12-year-old girl was away and the victim was sleeping in a room with her younger step-siblings, her step-father came into the room on two consecutive nights and raped her. The victim claimed that the appellant had threatened her with dire consequences if she reported the matter to anyone.

3. The victim made a statement in course of the investigation and a further statement was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The victim also deposed in course of the trial. The version of the victim, particularly the one reflected in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code and the other during her testimony at the trial, remained uniform and there was no anomaly in her assertion that even after her mother returned, she did not narrate the incidents to her mother. According to the victim, she spoke of the matter first to her maternal aunt, who then informed the victim's mother and relatives on the maternal side of the victim.

4. In course of the trial, the prosecution called nine witnesses, including the initial investigating officer, the subsequent investigating officer and a woman police constable who was on duty at or about the time of the complaint. Apart from these formal witnesses and the medical officer who examined the victim after the belated complaint was lodged, the prosecution examined the maker of the first information report, the victim, the victim's mother, the relevant aunt of the victim who was first told of the incidents and another relative whose hearsay evidence does not throw any light on the issues involved.

5. Three perceived anomalies have been pointed out on behalf of the appellant. The appellant maintains that there was no reason for the FIR to be filed only on September 3, 2014, particularly when the FIR-maker claimed that he came to know about the incidents on or about July 28, 2014. The impugned judgment is placed on behalf of the appellant to demonstrate that the delay in lodging of the FIR was glossed over by the trial court. The second ground raised on behalf of the appellant pertains to the obvious anomaly in the testimony of the FIR-maker and such statement not being in consonance with the narration of the incidents and what followed thereafter by the other prosecution witnesses. The third issue raised by the appellant is that the entire matter has been decided on the basis of the report of the medical examination conducted on the victim that found the victim's hymen not to be intact, though it is quite possible for the hymen to tear in course of various activities other than sexual intercourse.

6. The trial court recorded the contents of the FIR, noticed the statements of the victim and the oral evidence of the other witnesses to come to the conclusion that the victim's description of the incidents appeared to be lucid and not laboured and the other relatives of the victim had substantially corroborated what transpired thereupon, particularly the