JUDGMENT SUR1NDER SARUP, J.—This appeal by the State has been filed against the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Court of Shri Surjit Singh, Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti Districts, Camp at Kullu dated 20-02-1990, whereby he has acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 376/511 I.PC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 18-09-1989, at about 11.00 a.m., the respondent was present in his house in Village Kuthachi. Radha, aged about 6 years and her companion Indira, aged about 9 years were playing adjacent to his house at that time. He called Radha inside on the pretext of giving her an apple. When she went inside, he made her lie down on his bed, removed her Salwar and took off his own clothes and then mounted on her. A lady by the name of Sumitra, aged about 18 years, who was washing clothes at the water tap installed in front of the house of the respondent, noticed the respondent committing the act through the window. She informed one Man Singh, who also saw the respondent committing the alleged offence. When he realised that the had been noticed by these two persons, he brought the girl outside and asked Sumitra to take her to the own house. Sumitra asked Indira to take Radha to her house. When she reached there, she narrated the incident to her step-mother Guli Devi (PW-4), who immediately called her husband, who had gone to work in the fields. When he came there, she told him the details of the incident, as given to her by Radha. He went to the Pradhan of the Panchayat on the same day The Pradhan tried to call the respondent lo answer to the charge but when he did not appear for so many days, he advised Pune Ram, the father of the victim to lodge a report with the police, Thus on 25-09-1989, Pune Ram in the company of his wife and daughter Radha lodged a report which was recorded in the daily diary kept at the Police Station. On the basis of that report, a case was registered vide FIR No 60 of 1989. 3. During investigation, the girl was medically examined and it was noticed that she had marks of healed up abrasions and swelling of her vagina which indicated that she had been sexually assaulted. On the basis of that report, a case was registered vide FIR No 60 of 1989. 3. During investigation, the girl was medically examined and it was noticed that she had marks of healed up abrasions and swelling of her vagina which indicated that she had been sexually assaulted. The respondent was also got medically examined whereby it was found that he was physically fit to perform sexual act. The police took into possession the Salwar of the girl, bed sheet, the shirt and trouser and a pillow cover and sent them to the Chemical Examiner for his report. As per his report, the pillow cover and the trouser of the respondent and the Payjama of the girl had spermatozoa on them, and bed sheet, shirt and pillow cover of the respondent and the Payjama of the girl had blood stains. 4. On completion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was drawn up and filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. The said Court supplied the copies of the report and other documents filed therewith to the respondent and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. After going through the record, the Court of Sessions felt satisfied that a prima facie case under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. was made out against the respondent. A charge was framed against him. He pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. 6. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the prosecutrix (PW-1), her playmate Indira (PW-2), her step-mother Guli Devi (PW-4), her father Pune Ram (PW-7). The two alleged eye-witnesses, namely, Sumitra (PW-3) and Man Singh (PW- 8) were also examined. Two doctors Rajiv Ranjan (PW-5) and Dr. Viney Ram Sharma (PW-6) were also examined. They had examined the prosecutrix and the respondent, respectively. The Investigating Officer Kishan Chand, ASI was examined as PW-11. 7. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the respondent pleaded false implication at the instance of one Chander Ballabh, a Congress (I) leader, who otherwise was on inimical terms with him as he had complained against him for an alleged act of corruption. 8. The learned trial court, after examining the evidence recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal which, in our opinion, is wrong and perverse and deserves to be set aside for the reasons to follow hereinafter. 9. 8. The learned trial court, after examining the evidence recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal which, in our opinion, is wrong and perverse and deserves to be set aside for the reasons to follow hereinafter. 9. The testimony of Radha, i.e., the prosecutrix has been discarded on the ground that she did not understand the sanctity of oath. Therefore, it was thought proper to record her statement without oath. In her statement, it has clearly been mentioned that she was called inside the room by the respondent and was made to lie down on the bed. Then the respondent mounted on her. However, this testimony has been discarged in view of the discrepancies in her statement. Those discrepancies have been detailed in the impunged judgment. 10. It needs to be stressed that the prosecutix was a girl of the innocent age of six years. It was too much to expect her to remember the detail of all the clothes, if at all any, the respondent was wearing at the relevant time. It appears that the learned trial Court has assessed her evidence in the manner one would assess the evidence of a normal adult person. This approach of the learned trial Court is absolute uncalled for. 11. Similarly, the testimony of Indira (PW-2), the playmate of the girl Radha has been discarded as child witness and she was also examined without oath because the answer to the preliminary questions put to her by the court indicated that she did not understand the importance and sanctity of oath. Here again, the trial Court has fallen into grave error because it is not expected of a child of 9 years to understand the sanctity of oath. It all depends on the family background and the environment in which the child is brought up and the economic status of the family from which she comes. Her testimony has been discarded on the ground that probably she was not present on the spot. This probability is purely based on surmises and conjectures. She has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that when both of these girls were playing outside the respondents house, he had called Radha on the pretext of giving her an apple. Her testimony has been discarded on the ground that probably she was not present on the spot. This probability is purely based on surmises and conjectures. She has categorically stated in her examination-in-chief that when both of these girls were playing outside the respondents house, he had called Radha on the pretext of giving her an apple. Much has been made of the fact by the learned trial Court that in cross examination, this girl Indira (PW-2) estated that she did not see the victim entering or coming out of the house of the respondent. Here again, it needs to be stressed that the evidence of this child witness should have been judged as a whole and not in a compartmentalised form, as has been done in the impugned judgment. A margin should be kept for exaggeration in the testimony of a child witness, who has a natural propensity to exeggerate, imagine or even fantasize the original facets of life. 12. Though it is not specifically mentioned in the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial Court has also been weighed by the fact that the two alleged eye-witnesses, namely, PW-3 Sumitra and PVV 8 Man Singh have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. 13. The testimony of the two child witnesses referred to above, has been corroborated by the statement of Guli Devi FW-4, the step-mother of the prosecutirx. Her testimony has been discarded on the ground of certain contradictions and Inherent infirmities in her statement. To our mind, these contradictions are not that material or important so as to discard her testimony as a whole. 14. As regards the testimony of PW-7 Pune Ram, the father of the prosecutrix, the same has been discarded on the ground that it is unbelievable that when a man is Informed by a small girl of 8/9 years that his infant daughter aged about 6 years has been raped by a person, he would not ask his daughter about the incident with a view to confirm whether the allegations are true or not This again is a circumstance, which depends on the mental makeup of a person, as in the present case the family background and economic status of Pune Ram suggests that he belonged to the economically weaker section of the society and, therefore, was governed by conservatism and blind faith. In such a setup, it is but natural for him not to ask about the details of alleged assault committed by a human beast, because only a beast in the form of a human body would commit the child rape, as has been done in the instant case 15. The trial Court has also highlighted the admitted delay of 7 days in lodging the FIR in the present case. The delay has been explained by Pune Ram, the father of the prosecutrix that he had immediately reported the matter in writing to the Pradhan for redressal, and after waiting for some time on the assurance of the Pradhan that appropriate action would be taken on his application against the f respondent and finding no such thing having been done, he reported the matter to the police. To our mind, this explanation was sufficient to explain the delay and there is no falsehood about it, as wrongly held by the trial Court. 16. The ocular evidence, as discussed is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows that there were marks of healed up abrasions and swelling of vagina on the prosecutirx Radha. This, in turn, indicated sexual assault having been committed on her. The reason given by the trial Court in discarding this piece of medical evidence are, to say the least, untenable. 17. As a result of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the respondent beyond any reasonable doubt. He has thus been erroneously acquitted by the trial Court. 18. For the reasons recorded above, we set aside the acquittal of the respondent vide impugned judgment. We accordingly convict him for the offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent Sh. B.B. Vaid, Advocate, on the quantum of sentence. In the totality of facts and circumstances more specifically, the gravity and nature of the offence and particularly the fact that the victim of the beastly lust of the respondent was a hapless child of six years, we are of the considered view that nothing less than a deterrent sentence will meet the ends of justice. We accordingly sentence the respondent to a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- which if paid, shall be given to the parents/guardian of the prosecutrix as compensation. We accordingly sentence the respondent to a period of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- which if paid, shall be given to the parents/guardian of the prosecutrix as compensation. In case of default of payment of fine, the respondent shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Set aside the acquittal of respondent