The court established that the credibility of the victim's testimony, supported by medical evidence, can sustain a conviction for rape despite delays and minor inconsistencies in witness accounts.

ORDER

Revision petitioner faced trial for offence punishable under Section

376 of the Indian Penal Code . Charge is that on 21.12.1995 at about 5 p.m. he committed rape on PW1 who was then aged five years. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- Appeal preferred by the revision petitioner ended in confirmation of conviction and sentence. Hence this revision.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the courts below went wrong in accepting the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. According to the learned counsel, there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 which caused suspicion regarding the truth of their version. It is also argued by learned counsel that though the alleged incident occurred on 21.12.1995, first information regarding the incident was given to the police only after eight days. According to learned counsel, delay in lodging first information in this case is fatal and placed reliance on the decision inRamdas and others v. State of Maharashtra ( (2007) 2 SCC 170 ). Public Prosecutor contended that the case is proved beyond doubt and no interference is required.

4. Ext.P1 is the first information given by PW2, father of the victim (PW1) on 28.12.1995 at about 4 p.m. while the victim was undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Cherthala, As per that version, the incident occurred on 21.12.1995 at about 5 p.m.. PW1, the victim was studying in the third standard at the time of her examination in the trial court. She identified revision petitioner and claimed that revision petitioner committed rape on her. She claimed that after the incident, revision petitioner threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to her mother. The same day evening when her father (PW2) returned after work, she told PW2 about what had happened. Thereon, she was taken to the hospital. PW2 stated that he returned home after work on the day of incident by about 5 p.m. and then, PW1 told him about the incident. PW3, mother of PW1 stated that on the day of incident while she was cooking tea at her house, PW1 came there weeping and when she asked the reason, PW1 said that there was nothing. When PW2 returned home after work, PW1 told the incident to PW2. PW4, a neighbour did not support the prosecution.

5. PW7 is the Medical Officer of Green Garden Hospital at Cherthala which is also known as Mathilakam Hospital. He issued Ext.P5 and claimed to have examined PW1 in that hospital on 21.12.1995 at about 9.40 p.m.. PW1 was brought by her father with the allegation that 'Makku' (identified by PW1 as revision petitioner) tried to rape her in his house at about 5 p.m. on that day. The duty doctor also examined PW1. There were multiple small lacerations on external genitalia but there was no active bleeding . PW7 went to inform the police over telephone and returned to the casualty ward by about 10 p.m. PWs

1 and 2 could not be seen there. PW8 is the Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Cherthala who issued Ext.P6. PW8 examined PW1 in that hospital on 24.12.1995. History and alleged cause was stated as attempt to rape by 'Makku' on 21.12.1995 at about 4.30 p.m. PW1 told PW8 that 'Makku' attempted to rape her. PW2 claimed that he had taken PW1 to various hospitals and ultimately reached the Government Hospital, Cherthala. According to PW8, at the time of her examination on 24.12.1995 there were no symptoms of attempt to rape but in re-examination he clarified that no symptoms can be seen after four days of the incident. It is also the version of PW8 that PWs 1 and 2 had come to the Government Hospital, Cherthala from Venkiteswara Hospital. PW9 conducted the potency test of the revision petitioner and certified his potency as per Ext.P7.

6. It is contended that evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is not reliable and that there are material contradictions in their version. According