S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petitioner, who is the accused in S. C. No. 381 of 1998 on the file of the principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool, tried for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 (2) (f) 1pc in respect of committing rape over a young girl of ten years on 20-7-1997 at about 12. 30 p. m. The plea raised by the accused is one of innocence. After the trial, the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions judge, Kurnool, recorded the finding of guilt in S. C. No. 381 of 1998 and awarded the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine, Simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner carried the matter in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1999 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, kurnool. The learned Additional Sessions judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Assistant Sessions judge, Kurnool. Aggrieved by the same, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the accused in this revision. ( 2 ) IT is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that there is a delay in giving report to the police, which resulted in distorted version being given. It is also contended that the identity of person was not noticed by the medical Officer at the time of examination. Hence, the medical examination is doubtful. It is further contended that the neighbours have not supported the version and hence it cannot be believed. It is also contended that there is no corroboration forthcoming with regard to the prosecution version. ( 3 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that both the courts below have considered the delay aspect as well as the non-recording of identifying features by the doctor and gave concurrent finding and there is no need to interfere with the same. ( 4 ) ADVERTING to the same, it is a classic case where both the courts below have failed to record that the proceedings are being conducted in camera or not. It is the duty of the court to make a note while recording the depositions or on the notes paper that the trial of rape cases are being conducted in camera. It is the duty of the court to make a note while recording the depositions or on the notes paper that the trial of rape cases are being conducted in camera. This appears to be not done be the stamps affixed on the depositions show that the evidence has been recorded in open court and not in camera. Time and again, this court has stated and circulars have been issued to all the subordinate courts in the state that rape cases have to be tried in camera and not in open court. I hope and trust that the said direction will be followed in future and the said observations are absolutely necessary for guidance of the appellate court or the court. In this case, the victim girl is aged about 10 years and her evidence is being recorded. Whenever the victim is of tender years, there is a particular procedure to be followed for recording the evidence. The court has to put questions and elicit answers to verify whether the witness is capable of understanding the implications of oath and also capable of giving rational answers. When the witness is not capable of giving rational answers and not capable of knowing the implications of oath, the court has to record a finding beneath the questions and if it is administered such questions have to be recorded its own finding. This is absolutely necessary. This procedure has to be followed. This has been totally ignored by the Assistant Sessions Judge as well as the lower appellate court. All the courts shall follow the said procedure hereinafter. It is absolutely necessary to know whether the witness is capable of giving rational answers, when witness is a child witness. Moreover, concurrent findings have been recorded and both the courts below have believed the evidence of prosecutrix regarding the commission of rape. On a close perusal of the preliminary report, Ex. P-6 discloses that the doctor examined only M. Ramadevi aged about 10 years. Hence, it is clear that the doctor examined the only girl of 10 years and not some other person. She has recorded the name of the person. There is no possibility of putting proxy or giving a false report for a person who is working in the capacity as assistant Professor in the Medical College. Hence, it is clear that the doctor examined the only girl of 10 years and not some other person. She has recorded the name of the person. There is no possibility of putting proxy or giving a false report for a person who is working in the capacity as assistant Professor in the Medical College. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the non-recording of physical features of the prosecutrix belies the medical evidence. No doubt there is delay of three days in giving a report. There is an explanation given by the prosecutrix and her mother, P. W. 2. It is stated that at the beginning she did not reveal about the intercourse and only informed that an iron rod was pierced into the buttocks. It is only subsequently when she was having pain in the private part and also swelling and she was unable to walk, she disclosed about the rape. This explanation is found favour by both the courts below. There is no reason to suspect the same. The medical evidence clearly discloses that she was running with temperature and on the third day she was examined. Exhibit P-6 is the preliminary report given by P. W. 9. She noticed the following:"per abdomen - Rigidity present. Local examination of External genitalia.- Vulva bruised, vaginal mucosa reddish and aedematous - Crusted abrasions present over the left and right labia majora - Multiple abrasions present on the medial aspect of both things - Dried up secreations were seen over the labia majora and thighs - medial aspect. " ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of orissa and contends that the revision petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt when there is delay in giving first information report to the police. The relevant portion at paras 7, 8 and 9 reads as follows:"7. That apart, there is no valid explanation offered by Ms. X to travel all the way from her place of residence. Ms. X being an educated woman would have naturally foreseen the impropriety of travelling along with other males in a jeep for such a long distance during night. It is true, people act differently to same situations. That apart, there is no valid explanation offered by Ms. X to travel all the way from her place of residence. Ms. X being an educated woman would have naturally foreseen the impropriety of travelling along with other males in a jeep for such a long distance during night. It is true, people act differently to same situations. There are persons who are unduly timorous and imagine every path beset with lions and there are others of more of robust temperament who fail to foresee or non-challantly disregard even the most obvious dangers. Ms. X, an unmarried woman traveled in a jeep for long distance in night and her conduct appears to be unusual and there is no rational explanation as to what urgent official work could have been there to undertake this nocturnal journey to meet her superior officer. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the appellant and the Malaria Officer were known to Ms. X. Two days prior to 2-3-1987, i. e. , 28-2-1987, there was a circle meeting where Ms. X was required in her capacity as lady supervisor. The place of that meeting i was 35 kms. , away from her residence. Ms. X admitted in her evidence that on the same day the appellant came to her house and enquired why she had not attended the circle meeting and the appellant offered help for her treatment. She also deposed that the appellant noted his address in her diary. This shows the previous acquaintance of ms. X with the appellant. It is also significant to note that on the next day at about 7. 30 a. m. , the Junior Engineer and one driver came and enquired about Ms. X. How these two persons came to know of the presence of Ms. X. in the house of the appellant, also is not known. 9. It is true that the evidence of the prosecutrix in a rape case is to be given due weight. The sexual violence is a dehumanizing act and it is an unlawful encroachment into the right to privacy and sanctity of woman. The courts also should be strict and vigilant to protect the society from such evils. It is in the interest of the society that serious crimes like rape should be effectively investigated. It is equally important that there must be fairness to all sides. The courts also should be strict and vigilant to protect the society from such evils. It is in the interest of the society that serious crimes like rape should be effectively investigated. It is equally important that there must be fairness to all sides. In a criminal case, the court has to consider the triangulation of interests. It involves taking into account the position of the accused, the victim and his or her family and the public. The purpose of criminal law is to permit every one to go about their daily lives without fear of harm to person or property. " ( 6 ) IN para 18 of the above judgment, it is also observed by the Supreme Court that in rape cases the conviction can be solely based on the evidence of the victim, provided such evidence inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. The victim is not treated as accomplice, but only be characterized as injured witness. It is also reasonable to assume that no woman would falsely implicate a person in sexual offence as the honour and prestige of that woman also would be at stake. However, the evidence of the prosecution shall be cogent and convincing and if there is any supporting material likely to be available, then the rule of prudence requires that evidence of the victim may be supported by such corroborative material. ( 7 ) KEEPING in view of the above principles, i now proceed to deal with this case. The supreme Court dealt with the case where injuries were not found on the body and there was a delay in giving first information to the police. After laying down the principles that governing in the case gave benefit of doubt to the accused. In the present case, there are injuries found on the private parts and her evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence supported by the evidence of prosecutrix mother. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the testimony of the prosecutrix has to be disbelieved. More over, the accused is said to have laid her on the trunk box, lifted her langa and put his penis into her vulva. This has been spoken to by the prosecutrix. The non-production of the clothes of the victim does not in any way mean that it is a brought up case. More over, the accused is said to have laid her on the trunk box, lifted her langa and put his penis into her vulva. This has been spoken to by the prosecutrix. The non-production of the clothes of the victim does not in any way mean that it is a brought up case. More over, there is no enemity between the accused and the victim girl. The explanation given for the non-production of clothes have been considered by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court and gave concurrent finding of fact relating to the commission of offence. There is no perversity in the judgments of both the courts below. It cannot be said that there was no proper appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate court. The entire discussion of the lower appellate court is based on the evidence of the trial court. Before parting with the case, I state that it has become a habit for the prosecuting agency or investing agency not to seize the clothes of the victim and produce before the court. Time and again, it is reiterated that it is absolutely necessary to produce the clothes of the victim girl or the victim in any criminal case before the courts since every fact which has got link in the chain of events, and which led to the crime, has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I hope and trust that the prosecuting agency will keep in mind about the necessity of producing the clothes found on the victim before the court, so that the court can appreciate and arrive at the correctness of the event that is alleged to have taken place. I also find that the delay has been sufficiently explained by the prosecutrix as well as her mother. There is no need to doubt the happening of the event. In that view of the matter, there is no need to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below. The victim is a minor girl with tender years. The lower court has given the minimum punishment prescribed. Hence, there is no illegality in the finding of fact and also in arriving at the conclusions in imposing of penalty. Hence, the revision is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.