The conviction for rape of a minor was upheld based on credible eyewitness accounts and consistency with medical evidence, affirming the trial court's judgment.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No.796 of 2006, arising out of Crime No.50 of 2006, under S.376 of Indian Penal Code ,1860 (in short I.P.C.), Police Station Machhrehta, District Sitapur passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur whereby the convict / appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under S.376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. The trial court also directed the convict / appellant to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the victim.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, shorn of unnecessary details are as under: -
(i) A First Information Report (in short FIR) was registered at Case Crime No.50 of 2006, under S.376/452 of I.P.C. at Police Station Machhrehta District Sitapur on the basis of written report presented by the complainant Shyamlal. It was narrated in the written report that on 19.03.2006 at about 12:30 PM his daughter (x) aged about one year was playing on the platform situated in front of his house. Shrawan Kumar Maurya, resident of the village of complainant picked up her on the pretext of giving her toffee. He (convict) took the victim in his thatched house and committed rape on her. Upon hearing the cry of the girl Sharadendu Dixit, resident of the same village, Suman wife of the complainant and Ram Kishore, brother - in - law of the complainant reached on the spot, then the convict / appellant ran away. The condition of his daughter was serious.
(ii) The FIR was registered on 19.03.2006 on the date of incident at about 3:15 PM. Investigation started, the girl was medically examined on the same day at about 6:30 PM at Dufrin Hospital, Sitapur. After investigation a charge sheet under S.376 of I.P.C. was submitted against the convict / appellant in the Court of Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate concerned took cognizance and committed the case for trial to the Court of sessions. The Court of Sessions framed charge under S.376 of I.P.C. against the convict / appellant. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
(iii) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined nine witnesses in toto, which are as under: -
1. P.W.1 Shyamlal, complainant and father of the victim girl.
2. P.W.2 Smt. Suman, an eyewitness and the mother of the victim girl.
3. P.W.3 Sharadendu Dixit an eyewitness.
4. P.W.4 Head Moharrir Dinesh Bahadur Singh, who registered FIR and has proved the chick FIR and concerned G.D.
5. P.W.5 Sub-Inspector, Babau Upadhyaya, who is the 3rd Investigation Officer (in short I.O.) who finally submitted the chargesheet against the convict / appellant.
6. P.W.6 Dr. Suman Mishra, who medically examined the victim on the date of incident itself.
7. P.W.7 Sub-Inspector Abdul Haleem who initially investigated the case.
8. P.W.8 Inspector Harilal Kardam, who is the second I.O. of the case.
9. P.W.9 Dr. Ashish Wakhlu who performed surgery on the victim girl.
(iv) Apart from oral evidence, the relevant documents have also been proved by the prosecution which are as under: -
a. Exhibit Ka - 1 written report.
b. Exhibit Ka - 2 Chick FIR.
c. Exhibit Ka - 3 Carbon copy of the concerned G.D.
d. Exhibit Ka - 4 Charge sheet.
e. Exhibit Ka - 5 Medico Legal report of the victim girl.
f. Exhibit Ka - 6 Site plan of the place of occurrence.
g. Exhibit Ka - 7 Surgical report of the victim girl.
h. Exhibit Ka - 8 Letter to Superintendent Gandhi Memorial and Associate Hospital, Lucknow.
(v) After completion of prosecution evidence statement of the convict / appellant was recorded under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.), wher