Judgment S.J. Hyder, J. 1. JAN Mohammad son of Asgar was tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 IPC in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut. The trial commenced before Sri S. P. Agrawal who then held the office of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. Sri S P. Agrawal recorded the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses. He was, however, transferred before the trial could conclude and was succeeded in the office by Sri O. P. Jain. A de novo trial was held by Sri O. P. Jain, Assistant Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. After recording the evidence and after bearing the parties, the Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He accordingly recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent on 4-7-1975 and the State feels itself aggrieved by the said judgment and order. It has accordingly preferred this appeal under Sec. 378 Cr. P.C.. 2. The incident giving rise to this appeal took place on February 15, 1974 at village Dehra, P. S. Masoori, district Meerut at about 5 P. M. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Km. Mobim aged about 8 years was looking after the barley fields of his father Bhola. The respondent Jan Mohammad reached the place and after lifting Km. Mobin he forcibly took her to the wheat field of one Tausif. He removed the Shalwar of Km. Mobin and committed rape on the minor girl. On penetration, the girl screamed and the shouts raised by her attracted Mohd. Ali, Ahmad Ali and Kasim, who were working in the fields nearby. They immediately rushed towards the place of the occurrence and found that the respondent was covering Km. Mobin and was committing rape on her. On the arrival of these persons, the respondent picked up his Lungi and took to his heels. The witness named above chased the respondent but could not succeed in apprehending him. They found Km. Mobin lying in an unconscious state. They took her to her house where the mother of Km. Mobin, namely, Smt. Khanam, was present. They narrated the incident to her. Bhola, father of Km. Mobin, was not. present in the village and had gone to village Chandrapur where his son-in-law lived. They found Km. Mobin lying in an unconscious state. They took her to her house where the mother of Km. Mobin, namely, Smt. Khanam, was present. They narrated the incident to her. Bhola, father of Km. Mobin, was not. present in the village and had gone to village Chandrapur where his son-in-law lived. Irshad, who is a cousin of Mobin, was despatched to village Chandrapur to inform Bhola about the occurrence. Bhola arrived at village Dehra on the next morning and he was apprised as to what had happened tec Km. Mobin. He made enquiries from Mohammad Ali, Kasim and others. Thereafter Bhola accompanied by Km. Mobin, Smt. Khanam, Altaf and Shamshu went to police station Mosoori and lodged a first information report of the incident on 16-2-74 at 10 A.M. The distance of the police station from village Dehra is four miles. The bloodstained Shalwar and Orhni of Km. Mobin was also handed over to the police by Bhola. The investigation of the case was taken up by S. I. Ram Saran Lal (PW 9). He sent Km. Mobin for medical examination to the Hospital at Ghaziabad. Km. Mobin was also X-rayed with a view to determine her age. The investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan. He recorded the statement of witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr. P.C.. After the completion of the investigations a charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent. He was committed to the court of Sessions to stand his trial. 3. IN order to prove its case against the respondent the prosecution examined Ahmad Ali (PW 1), Smt. Khanam (PW 2), Irshad (PW 3), Altaf (PW 4), Bhola (PW 5), Km. Mobin (PW 6), Kasim (PW 7) and Tausif (PW 10) as witnesses of fact. Raj Kumar (PW 8) is the Head constable who prepared the chik report. Dr. J. K. Sharma (PW 11) and Dr. R. Chandra (PW 12) gave medical evidence in the case. The Investigating Officer Ram Saran Lal Sharma was produced by the prosecution as PW 9. 4. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. He stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He has filed a written statement in which it was, inter-alia, stated that he was married and was a person of good character. He further disclosed that he had three minor children. 4. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge. He stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He has filed a written statement in which it was, inter-alia, stated that he was married and was a person of good character. He further disclosed that he had three minor children. He also stated in his statement under Sec. 342 Cr. P.C. that he was not present in the village on the date of the alleged occurrence. The first question which requires determination is as to whether rape was committed on Km. Mobin. Dr. Chandra (PW 12) examined Km. Mobin on 16-2-1974 at 12 P. M. at Ghaziabad. She has stated that the sexual character in the girl had not developed. Her vagina admitted one finger with difficulty. He found the hymen raptured with bleeding edges and on touch the tear extended upto rectum. She also noted an external injury on the person of Km. Mobin which was a multiple abrasion 5-1/2"x 1/3" on the right side of the neck at upper side, which was covered by scab. The vaginal smear was taken but it did not disclose any spermatozoa. She was of the opinion that rape had been committed on Km. Mobin. 5. SMT. Khanam (PW 2), mother of Km. Mobin, has also stated that when Km. Mobin was brought to her house, she was bleeding from her vagina. Km. Mobin (PW 6) has also stated that; rape was committed on her. The medical evidence coupled with the testimony of SMT. Khanam and Km. Mobin leaves no room for doubt that the latter was a victim of rape on the date and time alleged by the prosecution. The trial court has also believed this part of the prosecution case and we are in agreement with the view taken by it. 6. ON behalf of the respondent, it was, however, urged before the trial court and has been reiterated before us that it has come in the prosecution evidence that there was a date tree in the field of Bhola, father of Km. Mobin, and that Km. Mobin used to look after the field of his father after climbing the said tree. It was quite probable that the injury was sustained by Km. Mobin on account of a fall from the said tree. Mobin, and that Km. Mobin used to look after the field of his father after climbing the said tree. It was quite probable that the injury was sustained by Km. Mobin on account of a fall from the said tree. In support of this argument, reliance isplaced on the testimony of Bhola recorded by Sri S. P. Agrawal when the trial commenced before him. In that statement Bhola had stated that Km. Mobin used to scare away birds from the date tree which came to prey on his field. The trial court has not believed this part of the testimony of Bhola. Be that as it may, the nature of the injuries found on the person of Km. Mobin rules out any such possibility. In case she had sustained any fall from the tree, it is highly unlikely that her vagina would have been injured in the manner stated above. At all events, the medical examination would have revealed some other external marks of injury which were inevitable if Km. Mobin had fallen from the tree. The submission made on behalf of the respondent cannot, therefore, be accepted. The next question which requires our consideration is whether the respondent committed rape on Km. Mobin. The eye witnesses of the occurrence Ahmad Ali, Kasim and Tausif turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. They were allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. In these circumstances, the trial court did mot place any reliance on their evidence and, in our opinion, it was right in doing so. 7. KM. Mobin (PW 6) has [graphically stated about the incident. She is categorical in her averment that it was the respondent who committed the offence of rape with her on the date, time and place alleged by the prosecution. Smt. Khanam, mother of the girl, has disclosed in her evidence that KM. Mobin was brought to her house by Ahmad Ali and others and she was bleeding from her vagina. She has also stated that KM. Mobin narrated to her the entire incident and stated that it was the respondent who committed the offence. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that it is not disputed that the age of KM. Mobin at the time of the: incident was 8 years. She gave out her age at the time of deposition which was recorded on April 29, 1974 as 9 years. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that it is not disputed that the age of KM. Mobin at the time of the: incident was 8 years. She gave out her age at the time of deposition which was recorded on April 29, 1974 as 9 years. The trial court took the necessary precaution and put preliminary questions to KM. Mobin to ascertain that she understood the duty of speaking the truth in a court of law. Also appended a certificate before commencing her examination on the facts relevant to the case, in accordance with the proviso to Sec. 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873. 8. The trial court felt itself impressed by the fact that all the eye witnesses of the occurrence had turned hostile and that the only evidence left on the record was the testimony of Km. Mobin. In this situation, the trial court observed:- "It would not be safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of this witness who happened to be a child unless there is corroborative evidence on record." It was in this view of the matter that the trial court recorded an order of acquittal against the respondent. En our opinion, the approach of the trial court in the matter was not right and its judgment cannot be sustained. In the case of Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54 , Bose, J. speaking for the Supreme Court, observed :- "In my opinion, the true rule is that in every case of this type, the rule about the advisibility of corroboration should be present to the mind of the Judge. In a jury case he must tell the jury of it and in a non-jury case he must show that it is present to his mind by indicating that in his judgment. But he should also point out that corroboration can be dispensed with if, in the particular circumstances of the case before him, either the jury, or, when there is no jury, he himself, is satisfied that it is safe to do so. But he should also point out that corroboration can be dispensed with if, in the particular circumstances of the case before him, either the jury, or, when there is no jury, he himself, is satisfied that it is safe to do so. The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, exceiat where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the Judge, and in jury cases, must find place in the charge, before a conviction without corroboration can be sustained. The tender years of the child, coupled with other circumstances appearing in the case, such, for example as its demeanour, unlikely hood of tutoring and so forth, may render corroboration unnecessary but that is a question of fact in every case. The only rule of law is that this rule of prudence must be present to the mind of the judge or the jury as the case may be and be understood and appreciated by him or them. There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand." 9. The dictum referred to above makes it clear that the only requirement of law is that before basing a conviction on the sole testimony of a child witness, the rule of caution that it is unsafe to relly on such testimony unless corroborated by other evidence should be present in the mind of the court. The rule of law is not to the effect that the testimony of a child witness cannot be believed in any circumstance unless it is corroborated by other evidence. The judgment convicting a person on the sole testimony of a child witness should only indicate that the rule of caution referred to above was present in the mind of the court before it accepted the testimony of the child witness. 10. NOW the trial court has not recorded any finding that there was any thing in the demanour of Km. Mobin from which it could be reasonably inferred that she was not speaking the truth. It has also nor, come to a definite conclusion that Km. Mobin had been tutored. 10. NOW the trial court has not recorded any finding that there was any thing in the demanour of Km. Mobin from which it could be reasonably inferred that she was not speaking the truth. It has also nor, come to a definite conclusion that Km. Mobin had been tutored. Apart from this the testimony of Smt. Khanam is corroborative of the fact that the respondent was named as the offender by Km. Mobin immediately after she was brought to her parental home. The trial court has commented adversely on the fact that the first information report was lodged with delay. It has come in the evidence of Irshad (P.W. 3) that Bhola was not present in the village at the time of the occurrence and had gone to village Chandrapur. He stated that he went to Chandrapur at about 10 in the night and reached the place at midnight. He has further disclosed that he accompanied by Bhola started for their own village next day in the morning. The testimony of Irshad is corroborated by Bhola (P.W. 5) and other witnesses. The offence committed against the minor daughter of Bhola was of a delicate nature. It involved family honour. Some time must have elapsed in making enquiries about the course of action to be taken. It was then that Bhola proceeded along with the persons already named above to police station Masoori to lodge a first information report. In these circumstances, no adverse inference could have been drawn against the prosecution on account of the delay in lodging the first information report. No action about moving the police could be taken by other relations of the victim before the arrival of her father. 11. The trial court has next commented adversely against the prosecution on the ground that the statement of Km. Mobin was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 11-3-1974 i. e. after 14 days of the making of the report. It is significant that no question was put to the Investigating Officer during the course of the examination to explain this delay. Km. Mobin remained for 7 days in the hospital. She was at the time of the incident a young girl of only 8 years. It is significant that no question was put to the Investigating Officer during the course of the examination to explain this delay. Km. Mobin remained for 7 days in the hospital. She was at the time of the incident a young girl of only 8 years. May be that the Investigating Officer was busy with some other work and could not go to Ghaziabad to take down her statement or could not proceed to village Dehra before 11-3-1974. The delay in interrogating Km. Mobin cannot be said to be unreasonable particularly because the Investigating Officer had. clearly stated that the girl was feeling afraid even on the date on which her statement was taken down. 12. IT is significant that the respondent stated that he was not present in the village on the date of the occurrence. He has, however, led no evidence to substantiate this allegation. In his written statement, he has stated a number of grounds including enmity against Bhola and others. The allegation of enmity has not been proved by the cross-examination of the witnesses or by any other evidence. The trial court has surmised that the name of the respondent may have been inserted in the first information report after deliberation. There is no evidence on record to support this surmise. On and over all consideration of the evidence on record, we are definitely of the opinion that the trial court approached the case from an incorrect legal stand point and that its conclusions on questions of fact are also unreasonable which cannot be accepted by a ration able mind. 13. The result is that this appeal succeeds. The order of acquittal recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut at Ghaziabad on 4-7-1975 in Sessions Trial No. 478 of 1974 is hereby set aside. The respondent is found guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec. 376 IPC. He is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 7 years. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him by this court. Appeal allowed.