The sole testimony of a child victim can suffice for conviction in rape cases if credible, with no requirement of corroboration unless substantial doubts arise.

1The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16th April, 1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 94/1998. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant was convicted of an offence punishable under S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to the IPC) for raping a minor girl of 10 years of age. On 19th April, 1999, the appellant was heard on the question of sentence and thereafter by an order passed on the same day, he was punished with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.

2. Allegations against the appellant are that on 23rd August, 1997, at about 11.00 p.m. he had taken his step - daughter, a girl aged about 10 years, to a park near Sanjay Jhee Trilok Puri, Delhi. It is alleged that over there, he raped her. At about 2.00 a.m. he was spotted crossing the road with her, by one Mohd. Farukh. According to Mohd. Farukh, the girl looked terrified and the appellant took her to a tap in the vicinity and gave her a bath. Mohd. Farukh noticed blood - stains on the salwar of the girl and, therefore, he informed her mother (wife of the appellant) and the girl's maternal uncle at Ali). The police was also called and a report was lodged in which the appellant was accused of rape.

3. After investigation were complete, the police filed a charge - sheet under S.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) and on 11th February, 1998, a charge under S. 376, I.P.C. was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and the appellant declined to produce any evidence in his defence. The statement of the appellant was recorded under S. 313 of the Cr. P.C. on 13th November, 1998.

5. Of course, it is extremely unlikely to find an eye - witness to rape, particularly an offence such as the one that we are concerned with. For this reason, the learned trial Judge mainly relied upon the evidence of the prosecutrix P.W. 9 and also certain circumstances that appeared from the testimony of other witnesses.

6. From the evidence of P.W. 4 Ajay, it appears that on the fateful night, he was taking dinner in his house in Aditya Apartments and his guests were present. The elder sister of the prosecutrix used to work in his house and, perhaps to help her, the prosecutrix had also been brought along to the house. At about 11.00 p.m. he noticed both the sisters talking in whispers and on inquiry he was told that their father had come in an auto. Thereafter, the prosecutrix went away. P.W. 4 admitted that he had not seen the father of the prosecutrix at the time. The next day he came to know of the incident. From this it does appear to be quite clear that the prosecutrix went away with somebody at about 11.00 p.m. on the fateful night.

7. P.W. 12 Mohd. Farukh stated that at about 12.30 a.m. he closed his betel shop and had a meal in the buggi of one Jahangir and thereafter at about 2.00 a.m. he came back to his shop. At that time he saw the appellant and the prosecutrix crossing the road. The prosecutrix looked terrified and he saw the appellant take her to a nearby water tap and given her a bath. The witness saw bloodstains on the salwar of the prosecutrix and got suspicious. He then went to her mother Saira Begum and her uncle Inayat Ali and called them. When they reached the water tap, they