JUDGMENT : R.B. Misra, J. The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal, under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2000, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala (H.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 16-N/97, whereby respondent-accused has been acquitted for the offences, under Sections 451/363/376/323 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. The prosecution case is that respondent-accused Sat Pal, a major, on the night intervening 11th/12th, October, 1996, alleged to have kidnapped victim/prosecutrix, PW-5 (name not given), a minor girl, about six years, from the house of her father Shri Mohinder Paul at village Kursan, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra and she was subjected to sexual assault in an orange orchard and causing simple injuries on her person. On investigation, respondent-accused was charged for the offences, above mentioned and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as eighteen prosecution witnesses, whereas, the respondent-accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and examined one witness in defence. 4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent-accused for the aforesaid offences, on two grounds that :-i) There was delay of lodging FIR by 12 hours though Police Station was very near to the hospital, where the victim/prosecutrix was medically examined, and ii) There was enmity in the family of respondent-accused and the parents of the victim/prosecutrix, which was the cause of falsely implicating the respondent-accused in the offences in question. 5. Now, we have to go through the testimony of prosecution witnesses, as in the present case the sexual assault has been made by major respondent-accused on victim/prosecutrix, who is a minor. Victim/prosecutrix has appeared as PW-5 and was found capable of understanding things and was not aware about the meaning of oath. In her testimony, Pw-5 victim/prosecutrix, has stated that when she was sleeping in the house of her father during night in village Kursain, respondent-accused Sat Pal, (to whom she knew), a resident to her village, picked her and took her to the field of orange and untied her Salwar, and gave bite on her cheeks and did dirty work with her. The respondent-accused put his male organ into her private part. The respondent-accused put his male organ into her private part. The respondent-accused had put off his Pazama and did dirty work with her. The respondent-accused lit a matchbox carrying with him in order to look her private part. The respondent-accused also throttled her, and also put his hand on her mouth. Blood started oozing from her private part. She was in pains also, due to dirty work. The responedent-accused then tied her Salwar on her waist, thereafter, she came to the house of her ‘Taya’ and told her mother, from there she was taken to the hospital. The police came in the hospital, in the morning, before whom she had stated everything. In cross-examination, she stated that her two brothers were also sleeping with her. She did not know as to how many Charpais were placed in that room, in which she was sleeping. She had gone to sleep, after viewing the television for a short time. When she was viewing the television, her ‘Bua’/ Sandhya, her ‘Taya’ and his sons were also present. Her other ‘Taya’ Bhutto alias Gurdesh, was neither present there nor his sons were there. Sufi was viewing the film. While asleep she was unaware when she was lifted by the respondent-accused. When she was asleep and lifted, she did not know as to who had lifted her. She woke up only in the orange field, when respondent-accused threw her on the muddy ground. She cried out but he shut her mouth. She identified the respondent-accused only when he lit the match stick. The respondent-accused had untied her Salwar before he lit the match stick. She continued crying, Her throat was throttled by the respondent-accused with his hands. The respondent-accused committed dirty work with her with his organ of his urine (PESHAV KARNE WALI NALI DE NAL KITA). As per her version, there was dark around. She denied the suggestion that she did not identify the person in the darkness. The place in the field was nearby the house of her ‘Taya’. After doing bad act, the respondent-accused released her. The respondent-accused had also asked her to come again the next day, and he would pay her some money. She had stated before the police in the hospital about the respondent-accused having asked her to come next day again and he would pay her money. After doing bad act, the respondent-accused released her. The respondent-accused had also asked her to come again the next day, and he would pay her some money. She had stated before the police in the hospital about the respondent-accused having asked her to come next day again and he would pay her money. When she returned to the house of her Taya, she told everything to her mother, in the presence of all others. She denied the suggestion that her mother had asked her to name the respondent-accused and that the respondent-accused had neither picked her up nor committed rape on her. According to PW-5, when she was sitting outside the Court, the police-wala was tutoring her to depose as she have stated today. When she was admitted in the hospital, the police had asked her as to what had happened with her, and she told the police as to what had actually happened with her, thereafter, she signed the paper. At that time, her mother was also present in the ward of her room in the hospital. It is correct that when the police was asking her in the hospital ward, her mother was also talking to the police. When the police recorded her statement, her mother did not dictate the same to the police. PW-5 further stated that it is incorrect to suggest that her mother in fact dictated to the police Ext.PE, and she did not identify the person who committed rape upon her and the respondent-accused neither lifted her from the room nor committed rape on her. PW-5 has accepted that they are not in talking terms with the respondent-accused and his family members. PW-5 has further stated that it is incorrect that the respondent-accused did not commit rape on her, and somebody else had committed rape upon her, and that the respondent-accused has been falsely implicated. 6. PW-1, Dr. B.M. Gupta, examined the victim/prosecutrix, on 12.10.1996, at 9.00 A.M. and noted following aspects and accordingly gave opinion as below:-General Physical examination Breasts, axillary hairs and pubic hair were not developed. 1. Abrasion injury one cm in size was present 1 cm above the angle of mouth. It was red in colour. 2. An abrasion injury 2cm in size was present on the right side of the face, 3 cm below the right eye wall. 3. 1. Abrasion injury one cm in size was present 1 cm above the angle of mouth. It was red in colour. 2. An abrasion injury 2cm in size was present on the right side of the face, 3 cm below the right eye wall. 3. A contusion injury about 4x3 cm in size, was present on both the cheeks. They were reddish blue in colour and was tender on touch. 4. Lower lip was swollen. 5. An abrasion injury 5x3 cm in size was present on the right side of the neck. It was brownish in colour. The discharge was present on the injury It was irregular in shape. 6. An irregular abrasion injury was present on the left side of the neck. It was brown in colour. 7. Child was complaining of pain over neck on movement. 8. Multiple abrasion injuries were present on the back in the centre. They were brown in colour. Local Examination Blood and seminal stains were present on both the thighs and on buttock region. Twigs and grass were attached with the dried stains, which were cleaned with seab and preserved and sent for chemical examination. Labia majora was swollen and red in colour. The child was complaining of pain on separation of legs. A leniar tear, irregular was present over the labia minora and fresh blood was coming out on touching the injury site. No further examination was possible. The child was referred to Gynecologist and Forensic expert for further opinion and check up and also for Radiological opinion, if need. The following were handed over to the police: 1. Medicolegal Certificate No. 1183/96 in two pages. 2. Parcel of clothes. 3. Bottle containing swabs. 4. Forwarding letter to the Chemical Examiner. All the injuries were simple in nature. The probable duration of injuries was within 12 to 24 hours. The patient was actually brought to PW-1 on 12.10.1996 at about 2.00 A.M. night but the child could not be examined at that time because natural light was not available at that time. The colour of injuries could not be examined in electric light and therefore, she was examined on the next morning at 9.00 A.M. 7. The patient was actually brought to PW-1 on 12.10.1996 at about 2.00 A.M. night but the child could not be examined at that time because natural light was not available at that time. The colour of injuries could not be examined in electric light and therefore, she was examined on the next morning at 9.00 A.M. 7. On 12.10.1996, at 3.00 P.M., PW-1 also examined Shri Sat Pal, aged about 23 years, son of Shri Kartar Chand, r/o village Kursain, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, who was brought by constable Suresh Kumar No. 515 and Tilak Raj No. 546, Police Station, Indora. On his examination, it was observed that the person examined was in capable of performing sexual intercourse. PW-1 also noted down the identification mark of the person examined and with the help of the same, he could identify him in the Court. PW-1 recognized respondent-accused Sat Pal, present in the Court, as he is the same person, who was examined by PW-1. From the opinion of PW-1, the sexual act was committed upon victim/prosecutrix (PW-5). The internal injury and position of hymen inside the orifice since could not be looked into as the injuries were so painful that it was impossible to examine the internal injury at that time and when PW-1 touched the injuries, it started bleeding. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that “from his findings, he can state that there could be possibility of sexual intercourse with the victim/prosecutrix, but he cannot say about rape. It is correct that injury No. 3 was not crescent. If the intercourse is complete then discharge is must. If there is discharge, it is not necessary the semen must fall on the body or clothes of the victim/prosecutrix. In this case, there should have been blood on the male organ of the respondent-accused. It is not necessary, in this case, that injury should have caused on the penis of the respondent-accused”. 8. PW-2, Dr. Veena Chaudhary, also made medical examination of victim/prosecutrix on 12.10.1996 and after going through the FSL report and in consultation with Forensic expert she made her opinion to the effect that “History of rape is consistent with clinical findings”. She said opinion on Ext.PA is Ex.PC which was written by her and is also signed by her. Her observations about the examination of the victim/prosecutrix on Ext.PA is Ext.PC/1. She said opinion on Ext.PA is Ex.PC which was written by her and is also signed by her. Her observations about the examination of the victim/prosecutrix on Ext.PA is Ext.PC/1. She came to the conclusion that victim/prosecutrix (PW-5) was raped. 9. PW-3, Dr. Rama Kant Mahajan, Radiologist, makes radiological assessment of victim/prosecutrix on 14.10.1996 and assessed the age of victim less than ten years. PW-4, P.C. Rana, Technical Officer, who also helped PW-3 Dr. Rama Kant Mahajan, in assessing radiological age has prepared x-ray films Ext.PD/1 to Ext.PD/5. 10. PW-6, Smt. Sushma Devi, the mother of the victim/prosecutrix, has supported the prosecution case by narrating that victim/prosecutrix (PW-5) is her daughter, who has entered now in 7th year of age. She has three more children. Her eldest daughter Sunita is 9 years old, younger to her, is victim/prosecutrix Roopa Devi (PW-5), younger to Roopa, is her son Ajay Kumar who has completed five years and running in 6th year. Her youngest son is Arjun Kumar, who is four years of age. She was married about ten years back. Her husband remains on night duty at Kandrori. On 12.10.1996, at about 10.00 P.M., her daughter Roopa, alias Shabu, along with her other two sons, was sleeping in one of the rooms, belonging to her Jaith, namely Parshotam. In the adjoining room, herself, and her daughter Sunita Devi and family of her Jaith was watching the television. Her Nanad/Bimla Devi and Jaithani, again stated her Jaithani Bimla Devi and Nanad Sandhya Devi were also watching the television. The children of her Jaith and of her Nanad were also watching the Television. When it struck 10.00 P.M., her daughter (PW-5) came weeping to her and told her that respondent-accused Sat Pal had picked her up and taken to orange field and after un-tying her Salwar, committed rape on her. She also told her that the respondent-accused had given her tooth bite on her cheeks and also throttled her. She also told her that the respondent-accused had lit a match stick, in order to look into her private part and then she asked him saying “SATPAL BROTHER LEAVE ME”. After committing rape, the respondent-accused had tied her Salwar again and told her that she should come again on the next day and he would pay her money. The victim/prosecutrix at that time was wearing clothes, which were of red colour (Gajri colour). After committing rape, the respondent-accused had tied her Salwar again and told her that she should come again on the next day and he would pay her money. The victim/prosecutrix at that time was wearing clothes, which were of red colour (Gajri colour). Salwar, Ext.P-1 was not torn from any side. There were no holes on her salwar at that time. After arrival of the victim/prosecutrix, she had checked her salwar Ext.P-1 and found it blood stained. There were no cut patches on Salwar Ext.P-1. Immediately, she and her jaithani Bimla Devi went to the house of Hari Ram, who was Ex-Pardhan. The victim/prosecutrix was also taken by them to him and he told them that the victim/prosecutrix was not in good condition therefore, she should be taken to the New Pardhan. Om Parkash was Pardhan of their area at the relevant time and they went to his house on the same night in village Chauharpur. While going to Chuharpur, she fainted on the way and, therefore, they returned home. After some time, Nek Ram (Sarpanch) came to their house. Om Parkash, Up-Pradhan, also came to their house along with Panchayat Member Tarsem Lal. Nek Ram then took PW-6 and victim/prosecutrix on a scooter to Indora hospital, where the victim/prosecutrix was admitted where the nurses told that the victim/prosecutrix will be examined on the next day. The doctor also came and prescribed some medicines for the victim/prosecutrix. Next day, the victim/prosecutrix was examined by the doctor and the police also came to the hospital and the police recorded statement of the victim/prosecutrix in the hospital in her presence. The victim/prosecutrix remained admitted in the hospital for five days. During cross-examination, she stated that she has two jaiths, namely, Purshotam and Gurdesh. Volunteered, Gurdesh was not present. His eldest son is 24 years of age, namely, Dalip Kumar. Younger to him, is Surjit Kumar aged 22 years. Younger to him, is a daughter, who is married. Gurdesh has two wives. The first wife had died, from whom he had two sons. Their names are Jagdish and Sufi, who are about 23 years and 16 years of age, respectively. She cannot deny that the age of Sufi may be 21 years. The second wife of Gurdesh is having a son of about 12 years. The two sons of Gurdesh, from the first wife, do the work of labourers. Their names are Jagdish and Sufi, who are about 23 years and 16 years of age, respectively. She cannot deny that the age of Sufi may be 21 years. The second wife of Gurdesh is having a son of about 12 years. The two sons of Gurdesh, from the first wife, do the work of labourers. Sufi does not reside there but lives with his maternal uncle in different village. It is correct that said Sufi, during the relevant night was present in the house of her Jaith and was watching the television. The age of the son of her Nanad is about 24 years. They were about ten persons in the room watching the television. PW-2 further stated that in both those two rooms there were no doors provided. The house of the respondent-accused is also near the compound of their house. However, the back of his house is towards their compound and the entry to the house of the respondent-accused earlier was through their compound and their family and the family of the respondent-accused had not been on visiting terms with each other for the last 5-7 years. The house of her Nanad, namely, Sandhya adjoins the compound of the house of the respondent-accused, and where they were watching the television, is at the entrance and thereafter, comes the adjoining room. The room, where the television was kept, could accommodate four Charpai (Cots). That night, there was no Charpai in the room of the television. In the adjoining room, where the victim/prosecutrix was sleeping, there were about five Charpais at that time. Her jaith, Parshotam, was present in the room, where they were watching the television. They earn their livelihood by doing work in the fields of others. Volunteered they themselves prepare bamboo baskets etc. Denied that they used to do the work in the fields of Ex-Pardhan Hari Ram. He had come with them to the Court. She did not know whether the accused-respondent or his family does not work in the house of fields of Hari Ram, Ex-Pardhan. It is correct that the respondent-accused is barber by profession. She does not know whether the relations between the respondent-accused and Hari Ram were strained, however, denied that there has often been dispute between them and the respondent-accused regarding their boundary. 11. PW-7 is Satish Kumar, to whom Rukka was handed over. It is correct that the respondent-accused is barber by profession. She does not know whether the relations between the respondent-accused and Hari Ram were strained, however, denied that there has often been dispute between them and the respondent-accused regarding their boundary. 11. PW-7 is Satish Kumar, to whom Rukka was handed over. Rukka Ext.PF was written and signed by Dr. B.M. Gupta (PW-1). 12. PW-8, Smt. Sandhya Devi, is related to victim/prosecutrix and is Bua of victim/prosecutrix and victim/prosecutrix is niece of Parshotam Ram, brother of Sandhya Devi. She has stated that during the night of 12.10.1996 when members of the family were viewing television victim/prosecutrix also viewed television and then went to sleep along with her two brothers and at about 10.00 P.M., victim/prosecutrix came weeping, on which her mother Smt. Sushma Devi (PW-6) asked her as to what had happened. On this, victim/prosecutrix told that she had been taken away by respondent-accused in orange orchard and was committed bad thing. As per version of PW-8, victim/prosecutrix disclosed that first the respondent-accused untied her Salwar and thereafter, lit a match stick, upon which, she had identified him. Victim/prosecutrix further told that respondent-accused had penetrated his organ (Penis) into her vagina and has further stated that respondent-accused had throttled her and gave teeth bite on her cheeks, thereafter, PW-6, Sushma took the victim/prosecutrix to the house of Hari Ram and she was accompanied by her Jethani (Bimla). In cross-examination, however, she has stated that the family of victim/prosecutrix and respondent-accused were not on talking terms and has also stated in cross-examination that after the incident many of the persons of the village had also come in the house of Parshotam including Pradhan, Up-Pradhan and one Nek Ram and the incident was narrated by PW-8 to her husband Chhaju Ram by indicating that the victim/prosecutrix named respondent-accused, who had committed sexual assault on her. When victim/prosecutrix came weeping, she observed her clothes soiled with blood and the hands of the victim/prosecutrix were covered with dust and the distance of orange orchard from the house of Parshotam might be about 300 yards. 13. PW-9, Hari Ram, has stated that on 12.10.1996, at about 10.30 P.M., PW-6, Sushma Devi, the mother of the victim/prosecutrix and Bimla brought victim/prosecutrix to his house. 13. PW-9, Hari Ram, has stated that on 12.10.1996, at about 10.30 P.M., PW-6, Sushma Devi, the mother of the victim/prosecutrix and Bimla brought victim/prosecutrix to his house. At that time, the victim/prosecutrix was in critical condition and there was blood on her clothes and on inquiry, victim/prosecutrix disclosed that respondent-accused Satpal had sexual assault upon her and then PW-9 suggested PW-6 Sushma Devi, the mother of victim/prosecutrix, to contact Pardhan and Up-Pradhan and report the matter to the police and thereafter, they left his house and on 15.10.1996, the police associated him in the investigation and accordingly victim/prosecutrix took the police and the witnesses to the place of occurrence in orange orchard. The police took into possession blood stained earth and some earth from other place at some distance and some burnt match sticks from the spot in presence of PW-9. 14. PW-10 is Surinder Kumar, who brought original school register of Govt. Primary School. PW-11, Constable Tilak Raj, took out three parcels and deposited in Police Station, Indora. PW-12, Constable Satish Kumar, No. 196, has stated that MHC handed over to him eight sealed parcels, two sealed envelopes for being taken to FSL, Junga. PW-13, AHC Rachhpal Singh, took victim/prosecutrix for medical examination. PW-14, MHC Bhagirath, has endeavoured to support the prosecution case to the extent the role assigned to him. PW-15, Inspector Jagdish, had lodged the FIR Ex. PJ and supported the prosecution case in view of the narration of the prosecution story and has stated in examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination, that the pieces of burnt Beeri, 5-6 in number, were collected from the spot along with ten burnt pieces of match sticks. PW-16, Baldev Singh, posted as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari Kursan had issued birth certificate of the victim/prosecutrix. PW-17, Dr. D.P. Swami, Forensic Science Expert, opined on examination of MLCs Ext.PA, Ex.PB and Ext.PC in three leaches issued by Dr. B.M. Gupta and Ext.PC/1 issued by Dr. Veena Chaudhary that it cannot be said that the rape has not been committed. 15. PW-17, Dr. D.P. Swami, Forensic Science Expert, opined on examination of MLCs Ext.PA, Ex.PB and Ext.PC in three leaches issued by Dr. B.M. Gupta and Ext.PC/1 issued by Dr. Veena Chaudhary that it cannot be said that the rape has not been committed. 15. In order to acquit and giving benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge in judgment dated 17.2.2000 has referred and relied upon the decision of this High Court in 1996 (2) SLJ 1167 (Gian Chand vs. State of H.P.)., however, such judgment was up-set by the Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 2075 (State of H.P. vs. Gian Chand). 16. Delay in filing of FIR in rape case is not to be taken very seriously, as delay in case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In tradition-bound society prevalent in India, more particularly rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there was some delay in lodging the FIR, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in State of U.P. Versus Manoj Kumar Pandey, 2009 (1) SCC 72 and State of H.P. Versus Prem Singh, 2009 (1) SCC 420. 17. In the present case the victim/prosecutrix being minor, cannot be said to have any animosity against the respondent-accused, nor having any reason to falsely implicate the respondent-accused, nor deposing at the behest of any person, who was inimically deposed towards the respondent-accused, as such, testimony of minor victim/prosecutrix has to be given weight in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Versus Mohamad Sajid Hussain, 2008 (1) SCC 213. 18. The victim/prosecutrix, being a minor, had narrated the incident in a very natural way and her version has consistently been supported by PW-6 Sushma Devi by saying that at about 10.00 P.M., when her daughter came weeping to her that Sat Pal had picked out her and taken to orange field and after un-tying her Salwar committed rape and has also given tooth bite on her cheek and also throttled her and told that respondent-accused had lit a match stick in order to look her private part and then she asked him “SATPAT BROTHER LEAVE ME”. After committing rape, respondent-accused had tied her salwar and told her that she would come on the next day and he would pay her money. PW-8, Sandhya Devi, has also supported the version of victim/prosecutrix on the identical lines, as indicated by PW-6, Smt. Sushma Devi, and about the incident of sexual assault on victim/prosecutrix. The relevant prosecution witnesses PW-5, victim herself, PW-6, Smt. Sushma Devi, PW-8, Sandhya Devi and PW-9, Hari Ram, have consistently supported the prosecution case without any deviation. The prosecution versions have been supported consistently by the testimony of PW-1, Dr. B.M. Gupta and PW-2, Dr. Veena Chaudhary in whose opinion the victim/prosecutrix, a minor girl, has been sexually assaulted. The medical report has been testified by PW-17, Dr. D.P. Swami. In these circumstances, it could be inferred that the testimony of relevant prosecution witnesses including the testimony of PW-5, victim/prosecutrix, are coherent revealing that the victim/prosecutrix was sexually assaulted on the fateful day and being minor, her consent is immaterial and the act of sexual assault has been supported by the medical report. There are no diversions or inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix. 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed in Jarnail vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 3 SCC 391, para-26, that it is no doubt true that conviction can be based on sole testimony of a solitary eye witness but in order to be the basis of conviction, his presence at the place of occurrence has to be natural and his testimony should be strong and reliable and free from any blemish. Similar view has also been taken by the Supreme Court in Jodh Raj Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 15 SCC 294, Tika Ram vs. State of M.P., (2007) 15 SCC 760. 20. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General has referred and relied upon several decisions e.g. Dimple Gupta (Minor) versus Rajiv Gupta, AIR 2008 SC 239, Kulwinder Singh versus State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 2868, Kalegura Padma Rao & Anr. Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 1299, State of Punjab versus Hakam Singh, (2005) 7 SCC 408, Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, Leela Ram versus State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 1299, State of Punjab versus Hakam Singh, (2005) 7 SCC 408, Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, Leela Ram versus State of Haryana & Anr. (1999) 9 SCC 525 and has submitted that since in the facts and circumstances, there is no material discrepancies or contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses, however, prosecution witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some normal, natural or minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations, embellishments etc. 21. In the facts and circumstances, the testimony of victim/prosecutrix, minor, is inspiring confidence, as such, alone is sufficient to conclude that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 22. A child witness is competent to testify u/s 118, Evidence Act. Tutoring cannot be a ground to reject his evidence. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if it has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. Trial Judge may resort to any examination of a child witness to test his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. If on a careful scrutiny, the testimony of a child witness is found truthful, there can be no obstacle in the way of accepting the same, in view of the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Acharaparambath Pradeepan and Another Versus State of Kerala, 2006 (13) SCC 643, Rattan Singh Versus State of Gujrat, 2004 (1) SCC 64, Doryadhan & Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra, 2003 (1) Crimes 174 (SC), Paras Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2001 (3) Crimes 184 (SC), Panchhi and others Versus State of U.P., 1998 (7) SCC 177, Dattu RamRao Sakhare and Others Versus State of Maharashtra, 1997 (5) SCC 341, Rajaram Yadav and others Versus State of Bihar, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1613, Baby Kundayanathil Versus State of Kerala, 1993 Supplementary 3 SCC 667 and Parkash Versus State of M.P., JT 1992 (4) SC 594. 23. Besides this, the testimony of PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 are corroborating the testimony of PW-5 (victim/prosecutrix) supported by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-17. 24. In the facts and circumstances, we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not made a proper appraisal of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence and by over looking the materials on record, has wrongly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused. 24. In the facts and circumstances, we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not made a proper appraisal of the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence and by over looking the materials on record, has wrongly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused. In our considered view, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 16-N/97 is not legally sustainable, therefore, the same is set-aside and in the facts and circumstances, we held the respondent-accused Sat Pal, son of Kartar Chand, guilty of the offences, under Sections 451/363/376/323 IPC. For awarding sentence, for the aforesaid proved offences, against the respondent-accused, he has to be heard in person on the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, the respondent-accused is directed to remain present in the Court before us on 15.11.2010.