Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 975 (JK)

Ashwani Kumar v. State of J&K

2017-10-30

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. 1. Appellant, Ashwani Kumar, (hereinafter to be referred as the accused) has filed this appeal against the Judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2014, whereby the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has convicted him under sections 363 & 376/511 RPC and order of sentence of the even date, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/in proof of offence under section 363 RPC and imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in proof of offence under sections 376/511 RPC. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo further imprisonment of one month and two months respectively. Sentences under both the sections have to run concurrently. Heard Mr. D.S. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused and Mr. Sanjeev Padha, GA appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Prosecution case as it was set out before the learned trial court is that on 29.11.2010 in the evening the victim it seems to be read "prosecutrix"-Editor (prosecutrix), a girl aged five years, had gone with her mother, Pawna Kumari (PW-2), to the house of Om Parkash to attend the marriage ceremony his son, Ravi Kumar, in village, Badyala Chak. The accused had also come there. The accused with criminal intention lured the victim with offer of giving her toffees from the nearby shop and saying that her father was also sitting there. The accused succeed in his design, he lifted the victim in his lap from the marriage function and took her to a dark and secluded area where he committed rape on her. The victim started crying but the accused scared her by saying that ghost will come there and eat her. When the victim was about to turn unconscious, the accused got scared, brought her back to the village and left her near her house after threatening her with dire consequences, in case she will divulge the matter to any person. 3. The prosecution case further is that the incident came to the knowledge of the mother of the victim on the next morning. She lodged written information (Ext. P-1) at Police Station, Akhnoor at 11.20 AM. 3. The prosecution case further is that the incident came to the knowledge of the mother of the victim on the next morning. She lodged written information (Ext. P-1) at Police Station, Akhnoor at 11.20 AM. On this information, police registered offences under sections 363 and 376 RPC as FIR No. 286/2010, dated 30.11.2010 and the SHO of the Police Station, Inspector, Naresh Sharma (PW-9), took up the investigation. On the same day, the Investigating Officer (IO) got the victim medically examined from Dr. Renu Gupta (PW-5) at Sub-District, Hospital, Akhnoor. The IO proceeded to place of occurrence and prepared the sketch map thereof. After completing all the formalities in the investigation, SHO, Police Station, Akhnoor preferred charge-sheet for commission of offences under Sections 363 and 376 RPC against the accused in the committal court. 4. The charge-sheet after committal came up for trial before the court of learned 2nd Additional Judge, Jammu. Learned trial court after examining and according consideration to the record produced by the prosecution framed charges under sections 363 and 376/511 RPC against the accused for having kidnapped the victim and attempted to commit rape on her. Accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. Prosecution produced nine witnesses in the case, namely, Swarn Lal (PW-1), Pawna Kumari (PW-2), Ashok Kumar (PW-3), Mool Raj, Scientific Officer (PW-4), Dr. Renu Gupta (PW-5), the prosecutrix/victim (PW-6), Romesh Chander (PW-7), Mohinder Lal (PW-8) and Naresh Sharma, Inspector/IO (PW-9). The accused was examined by the learned trial court in terms of section 342 Cr.P.C. who in turn produced two witnesses in defence, namely, Ganga Ram and Krishan Dutt. 5. There is no eye witness of the incident other than the victim (PW-6), who was aged around five years as at the time of the occurrence. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the parents of the victim and PW-3 is her uncle. PW-8 is a cousin of the father of the victim. (numbering of the witnesses, as per the impugned judgment). Resume of the evidence of these five witnesses and that of the doctor, PW-5, who examined the victim, is given as under: 6. PW-6, the victim, has stated that she had gone with her parents to the house of her uncle, Ravi Kumar, in connection with his marriage. She was dancing there when the accused, Ashwani Kumar, called her saying that her father was calling her. PW-6, the victim, has stated that she had gone with her parents to the house of her uncle, Ravi Kumar, in connection with his marriage. She was dancing there when the accused, Ashwani Kumar, called her saying that her father was calling her. He lifted her and took her in a 'khad', where he put off her trousers as also his own trousers and put his penis in her private part. She felt pain and started crying and on this the accused told her that in case she will divulge the matter to anyone he will cut her into pieces. After that the accused dropped her in the house of a person, namely, Bharti and himself went to the wedding house. She came to her house but did not narrate the incident to anyone. She had been feeling pain throughout the night and narrated the incidence to her mother at 9.00 in the morning. She was reading in second standard at the time of the occurrence and now she reads in third standard. Her date of birth is 27th but she does not remember the month. Earlier also she had made a statement before a judge. In cross-examination she has stated she was sitting with her mother when the accused had called her. Ashok Kumar is her uncle, who is chowkidar of the village. She has no knowledge of the fact that Ashok Kumar used to take cattle to Srinagar or that the father of the accused has got her father and uncle arrested in some case. It is correct that prior to the occurrence, the accused and his parents were not in talking terms with her uncle, Ashok Kumar. The accused had laid her on the ground and the pebbles had pricked her back and legs though there was no bleeding. She had cried loudly for some time. The accused had inserted his penis deep in her private part. The bleeding had taken place from her private part and the blood had fallen on the ground also. She had slept on her bed alone adjoining the bed of her mother. She had kept her trousers wearing and had not shown the same to her mother. Her mother had enquired from her when she was weeping in the night and she had narrated the entire occurrence to her. Her father was present in the house at that time. She had slept on her bed alone adjoining the bed of her mother. She had kept her trousers wearing and had not shown the same to her mother. Her mother had enquired from her when she was weeping in the night and she had narrated the entire occurrence to her. Her father was present in the house at that time. After that she and her parents had gone to the Police Station where her parents had lodged the report. She was medically examined. Police had come 4/5 days later and she had shown the place of occurrence and also the place where blood had fallen to the ground to the police. 7. PW-1, Swaran Lal, the father of the victim, while giving eye witness like account of the occurrence in his chief examination and stating also that he had come to know about the occurrence in the morning, has made it clear in the cross-examination that he came to know about the occurrence in the evening of the next day on his return from his work place. In the cross-examination he has stated that he had not gone to the wedding house and was sleeping when his wife had returned from the wedding house. His wife did not awake him. He has further stated that he was served food by his wife in the morning and after that he had left for his work. He came to know about the occurrence from his wife and daughter on his return back home in the evening. He has clearly stated that his wife and the chowkidar had already reported the matter to the police. On third day of the occurrence, he along with thirty persons of his village had gone to Police Station. The police had called him one month later when his statement was recorded. He has denied that he has land dispute with parents of the accused or that he is not speaking terms with them and that the accused has been implicated in false case by them due to enmity. 8. PW-2, Pawana Kumari, the mother of the victim, has stated that on 29.11.2010 she had gone to the house of his brother-in-law along with her children at 6/7 PM in connection with a marriage function. 8. PW-2, Pawana Kumari, the mother of the victim, has stated that on 29.11.2010 she had gone to the house of his brother-in-law along with her children at 6/7 PM in connection with a marriage function. The accused lifted the victim, aged about five years, from there telling her that her father was calling her and that he will give her a toffee. She (witness) returned to her house at 10.30 from the wedding house. The victim had been crying due to pain throughout the night but on asking she did not tell anything. In the morning, she undressed the victim for preparing her for her school, when she saw that her trousers were wet in blood and there was swelling also. On her asking, the victim said "he will kill her". She then affectionately took the victim in her lap and inquired from her when she said that accused, Ashwani, had asked her to come with him as he will give her a toffee and had taken her towards the fields. She also said that the accused after putting off her trousers committed wrong act with her and on her weeping he said that there was a ghost in the tree which will eat her and after that had dropped her at her house. She took the victim to the house of chowkidar and narrated the occurrence to him and his wife and other persons present there. The victim was then taken to Police Post where written report was lodged. The witness has proved the report lodged by her as Ext. P-1 and the FIR drawn by the police as Ext. P-1/1. She has further stated that after registration of the FIR, police took the victim to hospital and after that police had come to her house. On asking of the police, the victim had shown the place of occurrence to them. The police had seized the clothes of the victim, which were produced at the Police Post by Ashok Kumar, and had sealed them. The witness has proved seizure memo as Ext. P-1/2 and the superdnama whereby the seal was kept on superdari of Ashok Kumar, as Ext. P-1/3. In cross-examination, she stated that her sister, Banso Devi, had accompanied her and she had also put her thumb impression on the report. The witness has proved seizure memo as Ext. P-1/2 and the superdnama whereby the seal was kept on superdari of Ashok Kumar, as Ext. P-1/3. In cross-examination, she stated that her sister, Banso Devi, had accompanied her and she had also put her thumb impression on the report. She got the knowledge of the occurrence at 9.00 a.m. and went to Police Station at 10.00 a.m. The victim did not divulge the incident to her in the night as she was afraid. The victim was taken to Police Station in the same clothes which were wet in blood. Her husband and 20/25 others had put their signature on the report, which she had produced at the Police Station. Her husband was not present in the house on the day when the report was lodged. The clothes of the victim were produced before the police by Ashok Kumar on the day next after lodging of the FIR. It is not correct that she had handed over the clothes of the victim to the doctor at the time of lodging the report and the doctor had given those clothes to the police. She had stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Ashok Kumar had handed over the clothes of the victim to the police. However, the same is not contained in the said statement. She was also accompanying Ashok Kumar at the time of handing over the clothes. Police had obtained her signatures on 6/7 papers on the next day after lodging of the report but she does not know what was written on those papers. She did not see any injury on the body of the victim though swelling was there. In the wedding house also the victim was crying in pain but she had not seen her clothes at that time. She did not see blood on her clothes in the night also as the colour of the clothes was red. She had lifted the victim to her house from the wedding house and the blood had stucked to her clothes also. She does not remember the colour of clothes worn by her. No blood had stuck to the bed sheet. She has denied defense's suggestion that either she or the victim herself had inflicted scratches with nails and then framed a false case. 9. She does not remember the colour of clothes worn by her. No blood had stuck to the bed sheet. She has denied defense's suggestion that either she or the victim herself had inflicted scratches with nails and then framed a false case. 9. PW-3, Ashok Kumar, has stated that he had gone to attend the marriage function in the house of Om Parkash at about 8.00 p.m. Accused, Ashwani Kumar, was also there, who was carrying the daughter of Swaran Lal. He had returned to his house after that. On the next day, wife of Swaran Lal had brought her daughter to his house and had said that accused has committed wrong act with her daughter. The girl was in a bad shape and was bleeding from her private part. He called the accused and his family members. Accused and his brother came to his house. On asking the girl as to who committed wrong act with her, she pointed towards the accused saying. He then accompanied the mother of the girl to Police Station, Akhnoor where report was lodged against the accused. Clothes of the girl were seized vide seizure memo Ext. P-1/2, which were sealed with a nail and the said nail was kept on his superdnama. In cross-examination, he has denied that he takes cattle to Kashmir. Further he has stated that once the police had arrested him some 3 to 3-1/2 years back and the allegation against him was that he takes cattle (cows and buffalos) to Srinagar for sale. The accused or other villagers had not protested against him. Mother of the victim had come to his house at 7.00 in the morning. Her husband, Swaran Lal, was not accompanying her. There were some blood stains on the trousers of the victim. Numberdar, Jagat Singh, had also accompanied them to Police Station. Police had come to the place of occurrence on the same day at 10 O'clock. The father of the victim had come to his house in the evening on the day next after the occurrence. It is not correct that he and Swaran Lal used to take cattle to Srinagar, which was objected by the accused and other inhabitants of the village and because of that enmity they have got the accused implicated in false case. 10. It is not correct that he and Swaran Lal used to take cattle to Srinagar, which was objected by the accused and other inhabitants of the village and because of that enmity they have got the accused implicated in false case. 10. PW-8, Mohinder Lal, has stated that there was marriage in the house of Om Parkash in their Mohalla on 29.11.2010. The function had started at 8.00 p.m. He had seen the accused roaming there, carrying the daughter of Swaran Lal in his lap. On the next day he was told that accused has committed wrong act with the said girl. There was uproar in the village and he had gone to the house of Swaran Lal. In his presence, the victim had said that the accused has committed wrong act with her after taking her to a lonely place. In cross-examination, he has stated that victim is his niece. He had gone to Police Station on making the statement on the next day. He had gone to the place of occurrence with the police. Swaran Lal is his real co-brother. He and Swaran Lal do not take cattle to Srinagar. It is not correct that accused and other inhabitants of the village raise objection in this regard or that he is making a false statement. 11. PW-PW-5, Dr. Renu Gupta, Gynecologist, has stated that she examine the victim on 13.11.2010 at 12.05 PM. She has proved the certificate issued by her as Ext. P-11. The certificate issued by her would show that the Doctor had noticed dry blood stains on the private parts of the victim and superficial abrasion over the fourchette. No fresh bleeding, however, was noticed and the hymen was found intact. On chemical analysis of the slides taken by the Doctor, presence of spermatozoa, however, was not noticed. The opinion given by the Doctor in the certificate is that "it is possible that an attempt to rape could have been made but histopathologically, there is no evidence to support sexual intercourse". In cross-examination, the Doctor has stated that no injury was seen on back, hip, back side of the leg of the victim or any other private part of her. The Doctor has stated also that "abrasion mentioned in the certificate could be possibly cause by any member of the family of the victim with the nail of fingers". In cross-examination, the Doctor has stated that no injury was seen on back, hip, back side of the leg of the victim or any other private part of her. The Doctor has stated also that "abrasion mentioned in the certificate could be possibly cause by any member of the family of the victim with the nail of fingers". The Doctor also stated that "the injuries on the back, hip or back side of the legs of the victim could be possible in case if the victim lying on the rough ground and in the said situation if the efforts attempt of rape or rape is made upon the victim". 12. The baseline of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused was the plea that the accused has been falsely implicated by the parents of the victim to take revenge and wreak vengeance against him for his having played active role in the protests against the father of the victim (PW-1) and his brother, Ashok Kumar (PW-3) for their involvement in smuggling of cattle to Srinagar for sale and the arrest of PW-3 in this connection. Learned counsel, Mr. D.S. Saini, argued that the evidence of the victim, her parents (P.Ws. 1 & 3) and uncle (PW-3) cannot be relied upon as they had a motive to falsely implicate the accused for their prior enmity with him. Learned Counsel relied upon an Allahabad High Court judgment in Khalid and Anr. v. State of U.P. 2016 (94) All CCC 849 and Puran Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2016, Legal Eagle (Chh) 343. Another argument of the learned counsel was that undue weightage has been given by the trial court to the evidence of the victim, in utter disregard to the principles applicable to appreciation of a child witness. Learned counsel argued also that there are grave and serious contradictions in the entire prosecution evidence in general and the evidence rendered by the victim and her mother on one hand and the medical evidence on the other have been ignored. Learned counsel, Mr. Learned counsel argued also that there are grave and serious contradictions in the entire prosecution evidence in general and the evidence rendered by the victim and her mother on one hand and the medical evidence on the other have been ignored. Learned counsel, Mr. Saini, argued with much vehemence that the statement of the victim is not of the quality, sufficient to inspire the confidence of a person of ordinary prudence, much less of a court of law and is shaken by the opinion of the doctor that there was possibility of injuries on the back side and hips of the victim, had an attempt of rape been made on her but no such injuries were found by her. 13. Per contra, Mr. Sanjeev Padha, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, however, supported the impugned judgment. Mr. Padha submitted that the evidence of the victim on its plain reading is reliable to inspire confidence of a person of ordinary prudence as it does not suffers from any exaggeration and gives natural account of the incident. Mr. Padha argued also that merely taking the plea of enmity is not sufficient and the defence must produce material or show from the prosecution evidence the existence of any enmity between the accused and the material prosecution witnesses. Likewise, Mr. Padha argued that contradictions in peripheral matters, which do not go to the root of main matter cannot demolish the baseline of the prosecution evidence. 14. As said above, there is no eye witness of the incident other than the victim of the offence, PW-6. I have read and analyzed the evidence of the victim both in her chief examination and the cross-examination recorded by the trial court. She has given a simple narrative of the incident, which reflects reality and inspires confidence. There is nothing indicative of any sort of tutoring in her statement or the answers given by her in the cross-examination, aimed at false implication of the accused. She without any confusion has denied knowledge of the fact that Ashok Kumar (PW-3) used to take cattle to Srinagar and that the father of the accused had got her father and uncle arrested in some case. At the same time she has frankly admitted that the accused and his father were not in speaking terms with her uncle, Ashok Kumar. 15. At the same time she has frankly admitted that the accused and his father were not in speaking terms with her uncle, Ashok Kumar. 15. Contention raised on behalf of the accused, however, is that the parents of the victim were nourishing enmity towards the accused and his father and have falsely implicated the accused for the reason that he had been playing active role in the protests against smuggling of cattle to Srinagar by the father and the uncle of the victim, P.Ws. 1 and 3 and arrest of PW-3 on the basis of the report lodged by the father of the accused. Contextually, it is noticed that the foundation of the plea of false implication was initially laid by the defence in the cross-examination of PW-1, however, with a suggestion that he was having land dispute with the accused and his father and because of that dispute false case was lodged against the accused. A similar attempt seems to have been made in the cross-examination of PW-2, the mother of the victim, by suggesting her that she lodged false report against the accused because of the land dispute and a dispute about a pathway with his father. The line of the defence, however, seems to have been changed during cross-examination of PW-3, the uncle of the victim, to whom the suggestion made was that false case was lodged against the accused because his father and other villagers used to raise objection against smuggling of cattle to Srinagar by him and the father of the victim. Plea in tune with the suggestion made to PW-3 in his cross-examination was taken by the accused in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. 16. No reliable material, however, was produced by the defence to show or probablize that the accused or his father had played active role in any protest against smuggling of cattle by P.Ws. 1 and 3. Though in his cross-examination PW-3 has admitted that some three and a half years back he had been arrested by the police of Police Station, Akhnoor alleging that he takes cattle to Srinagar for sale but has clearly stated that neither the accused nor the other villagers had raised any protest in this regard. 17. The two defence witnesses, however, seem to have been produced to prove or probablize the defence plea. 17. The two defence witnesses, however, seem to have been produced to prove or probablize the defence plea. DW-1, Ganga Ram, after stating in his chief examination that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are not in good terms with accused and his father and have implicated the accused falsely for the reason that P.Ws. 1 and 3 along with one Mohd. Shafi used to take cattle to Srinagar in the year, 2010, Tirth Ram, the father of the accused, had informed the police telephonically in this regard and on his information PW-3 and Mohd. Shafi were arrested by the police though PW-1 had managed to abscond, in cross-examination he has stated that he had heard about enmity between accused and PW-1. Similar statement has been made by DW-2. In cross-examination, he has stated also that he too had seen P.Ws. 1 and 3 transporting the cattle during night but had not appeared as witness in the case, which was lodged against P.Ws. 1 and 3 by father of the accused. 18. What is sought to be shown through the evidence of the two defence witnesses is that Tirth Ram, the father of the accused, had lodged a report against P.Ws. 1 and 3 for smuggling of cattle by them to Srinagar and on this report, P.W.3 and one Mohammad Shafi were arrested. It is, however, discernible from their evidence that none of them was associated with that case as in cross-examination, DW-1 has stated that he had heard about the enmity between the accused and the father of the victim and DW-2 has admitted that he did not appear as witness in any such case against P.Ws. 1 and 3. Better material, like a copy of the FIR lodged by the father of the accused, should have been produced by the defence to prove or to show the role played by the father of the accused in the action, if any, against P.Ws. 1 and 3 for their involvement in smuggling of cattle to Srinagar. In absence of any such evidence/material or indication from the prosecution evidence, no inference in regard to any role played by the father of the accused or the accused can be drawn. 1 and 3 for their involvement in smuggling of cattle to Srinagar. In absence of any such evidence/material or indication from the prosecution evidence, no inference in regard to any role played by the father of the accused or the accused can be drawn. Much less, the defence cannot be said to have proved or probablized the role said to have been played by the accused or his father against the father and uncle of the victim and any acrimony between the two families. 19. Even if one presumes that the parents of the victim nourished enmity against the accused or his father, question would arise, whether parents of the victim would have gone to the extent of using and stigmatizing their own child for wreaking vengeance against the accused or his father, the natural consequence whereof is putting at stake the honor and dignity of the whole family in general and the victim in particular. 20. The contention of false implication on the basis of previous enmity rather is liable to be rejected out rightly as it deserves no consideration in view of the evidence that there had been use of force against the private part of the victim inasmuch as there was abrasion over fourchette and bleeding. It is noticed that shockingly the defence has gone to the extent of making a suggestion to the mother of the victim that either she or the victim herself had inflicted scratches with nails to the private part of the victim and then framed a false case. I cannot but say that such a thought is too desperate, perverse and reckless and renders the defence plea wholly unworthy of credit. In no stratum of human society one can think of a mother inflicting injury to the private part of her minor daughter with the intention of framing a false case of rape against a person to wreck vengeance with him. Even otherwise one has to bear in mind that the plea of enmity is a double edged weapon, as observed by the Chhattisgarh High Court also in Puran Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused. It may be a ground for false implication of the accused, it can equally be a motive for committing crime. 21. It may be a ground for false implication of the accused, it can equally be a motive for committing crime. 21. In this case, there is no material to prove or show any enmity between the two families so matter ends there only. Contextually, evidence of the doctor to the effect that there was possibility of injuries on the back of the body of the victim, if the victim was lying on a rough ground and there was attempt to commit rape on her in that position has been noticed. Non existence of any such injury on the person of the victim was urged by learned counsel for the accused as a serious contradiction between the oral and medical evidence sufficient to reject the oral evidence altogether. The observation of the doctor, however, is shocking given the age of the victim and is liable to be rejected. To say precisely, having regard to the age of the victim, the doctor was expected to show a greater sense of responsibility in appreciating and giving her opinion about the non existence of injuries at the back of the body of the victim. 22. Another contention raised on behalf of the accused was that undue weightage has been given to the evidence of the victim in disregard to the principles governing the appreciation of the evidence of a child witness. According to PW-2, who is mother of the victim, the victim was around five as at the time of the occurrence. In her statement recorded before the trial court on 08.04.2013, the victim has stated that at the time of the occurrence she was reading in 1st. standard and now she reads in 3rd. standard. The victim, therefore, can be designated as a child witness in common parlance. 23. It may be pointed out that the Evidence Act, Svt. 1977 (1920 A.D.) does not prescribe any age as a determinative factor to treat a person to be a competent witness nor the Evidence Act contains any term like 'Child Witness'. On the contrary, section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Section 118 on its plain reading would show that the decision on the question, whether a person, be it a child or a person of extreme old age or suffering from any other disability, has the capacity to testify as a witness primarily rests with the Presiding Officer of the court in which the evidence is to be given. It is to take such a decision that, while dealing with such type of witnesses, the trial judge puts preliminary questions to such a witness in order to ascertain whether his deposition as a witness should be recorded or not and places them on record. The decision of the trial judge, however, may be disturbed by the higher courts if, from what is preserved in the records, the conclusion of the trial judge is found erroneous. 24. It is noticed from the statement of the victim (PW-6) lying on the trial court file that the learned trial judge at the time of recording her evidence was alive to the necessity of arriving at and recording satisfaction about her competence to testify as a witness, having regard to her tender age. On the basis of the replies of the victim given to the preliminary questions put to her, learned trial judge has recorded his satisfaction that she was in a position to understand the questions and has given rational answers thereto and therefore, found her capable of testifying as a witness. It may be stated that the most effective tool in the hands of the defence to impeach or discredit the truthfulness and credibility of a prosecution witness, may it be a child witness or otherwise, is the right of cross-examination available to the defence. The defence has a right to ask such questions to a witness which may expose him in case he is not speaking truth before the Court and is giving a tainted or tutored version. Having regard to the whole statement of the victim (PW-6), I find no plausible reason for disagreeing with the view taken by the trial judge about her capability and competence to testify as the prosecution witness. 25. Having regard to the whole statement of the victim (PW-6), I find no plausible reason for disagreeing with the view taken by the trial judge about her capability and competence to testify as the prosecution witness. 25. It is by now and since long well settled as a principle that if in a case of sexual offence, on consideration of the prosecution case in its entirety, the evidence of the victim inspires confidence in the mind of the court and is found reliable, the same can be made sole basis of conviction of the accused and even necessity of collaboration can be excluded. (Refer: Rajinder v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 3022 and Aslam v. State of Utter Pradesh, 2014 AIR SCW 1242). When the victim of a sex offence happens to be a child, his evidence is to be considered with great care as because of his tender age a child witness is pliable and liable to be easily influenced, shaken and molded and is prone to tutoring. At the same time, however, evidence of a child witness should be considered generously because possibility of false implication or making an exaggerated statement would be rare by a child. What is required is that mind of the court must be satisfied that the child was having fit mental capacity to understand the meaning of her statement and was not tutored or was making statement under some undue influence. The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability thereof can record conviction based thereon. In Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 AIR SCW 1398, the Supreme Court has drawn following conclusion regarding evidence of a child witness in para 9 of the reporting: "9. ............The conclusion which can be deduced from the relevant pronouncements of this Court is that the evidence of a child witness must be subjected to close scrutiny to rule out the possibility of tutoring. It can be relied upon if the court finds that the child witness has sufficient intelligence and understanding of the obligation of an oath. As a matter of caution, the court must find adequate corroboration to the child witness's evidence. It can be relied upon if the court finds that the child witness has sufficient intelligence and understanding of the obligation of an oath. As a matter of caution, the court must find adequate corroboration to the child witness's evidence. If found, reliable and truthful and corroborated by other evidence on record, it can be accepted without hesitation. We will scrutinize PW-2 Banwari's evidence in light of the above principles." 26. Even though the statement of the victim in this case inspires confidence and can be safely relied upon and is sufficient to be made basis of conviction, sufficient corroboration is available in the evidence of PW-2 and the Doctor, PW-5. The evidence of PW-2, the mother of the victim, would show that on opening the trousers of the victim she had seen blood on the trousers and swelling to the victim. The evidence of the doctor shows that when she examined the victim on 30.11.2010 at 12.05 PM, she inter alia had seen blood stains on her private parts and superficial abrasion over the fourchette. The evidence of the doctor in turn indicates that force has been used against the private part of the victim, which corroborates the victim's say that the accused had put his penis in her private part. Further corroboration is provided by the doctor's opinion that attempt to rape was possibly made. 27. Learned counsel for the accused had also sought to point out some contradictions in the evidence here and there to make out a case that evidence is highly contradictory and therefore cannot be relied upon. Contradictions in particular were pointed out in regard to the presence of the father (PW-1) at the time of lodging of the FIR and in the matter of the seizure of the clothes. None of these contradictions, however, are worth consideration in view of the satisfactory and convincing evidence of the victim, valuably corroborated by the evidence of the mother and the medical evidence. 28. For all that said and discussed above, the judgment rendered by the learned trial court does not suffer from any error or infirmity calling for interference by this Court. This appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed. Record of the trial court be remitted back along with a copy of this order.