Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 58 (MEG)

Joken Kharsati v. State of Meghalaya

2018-09-07

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, S.R.SEN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. By medium of this criminal appeal, judgment dated 24.03.2017 and the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court (Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong) are assailed. 2. Case No. 45(7)2010 Rynjah PS on completion of the investigation culminated in filing the final report under section 173 CrPC, 1973 (charge sheet) to the effect that during investigation, the accused is established to have committed the offences under Sections 376 (2) (f) and 506 IPC. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defence, the learned Trial Court (Additional Judge, District Council Court, Shillong) on 09.10.2013 framed the charge against the accused for commission of offences under Sections 376 (2) (f) and 506 IPC to which the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of its case produced 12 listed witnesses. 3. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused has been examined in terms of section 313 CrPC, 1973 on 06.10.2016, as against each incriminating circumstance put to him, he has responded by stating "not true" and finally has stated "have nothing to say". The accused had been asked to enter upon the defence and in defence he had produced and examined 3 witnesses. 4. The learned Trial Court vide judgment impugned dated 24.03.2017 has convicted the accused under Sections 376 (2) (f) and 506 IPC. After hearing regarding the quantum of sentence, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.04.2017 sentenced the convict to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 376 (2) (f) IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The amount of fine if recovered to be paid to the victim. In addition thereto, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, East Khasi Hills to consider the award of compensation to the victim under section 357A CrPC, 1973 if permissible. The convict has also been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences stand directed to run concurrently. Period undergone to be set-off in terms of section 428 CrPC, 1973. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences awarded, instant criminal appeal has been preferred. 6. The convict has also been sentenced to one year simple imprisonment under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences stand directed to run concurrently. Period undergone to be set-off in terms of section 428 CrPC, 1973. 5. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences awarded, instant criminal appeal has been preferred. 6. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of seven long years which is fatal to the prosecution case, as such the case should have been rejected on this ground alone. Supporting his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2007) 12 SCC 641 and (2008) 15 SCC 582 . 7. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the statement of the prosecutrix is nothing but a concocted story full with exaggeration and coloured version. Her statement is improbable, self contradictory and is not of high quality, as such unreliable. In support of his submission has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) (2008) 15 SCC 133 (ii) (2009) 15 SCC 566 (iii) (2010) 12 SCC 115 (iv) (2012) 8 SCC 21 and (v) (2012) 7 SCC 171 8. In opposition, learned Addl.PP submits that in the peculiar facts of the case, delay is not fatal. Supporting his submission has placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2009) 6 SCC 635 , (2004) 7 SCC 775 and (2004) 8 SCC 153 . Further, added that the prosecution case is fully proved. Prosecutrix has given the truthful statement which is supported by other witnesses. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also sifted the entire records. Sordid story is unfolded. Human being on losing rationality falls prey to devil with brutal consequences. Brutality demolishes all humanistic boundaries. In the case in hand sufferer is a girl of approximately 7 years of age. Background of the case: 10. From perusal of the records, it emerged that the prosecutrix in the year 2003 was about 7 years of age, she along with her two sisters were studying in Auxillium School, Shillong, so were staying in a house at Nongthymmai, Jylli Shop, Shillong whereas, in another portion of the same house, the accused an engineer in Telecom department was residing. The wife of the accused is the niece of mother of the prosecutrix (PW1). The wife of the accused is the niece of mother of the prosecutrix (PW1). The prosecutrix as per school timing used to be picked up at 12 noon by the mother-in-law of the accused who was looking after her at the residence till her elder sisters would return from school. On the day of the incident, the mother-in-law of the accused was not there, so the wife of the accused (niece of the mother of the prosecutrix) picked up the prosecutrix from school after helping her to cross the road and told the prosecutrix to go to her residence as she had to go somewhere, and said her husband, the accused is at home. On reaching home, the accused took the prosecutrix to his bedroom and made her to lie down on the bed, raped her and intimidated her by showing a knife not to tell anyone about the occurrence. The prosecutrix had developed some problem then she was carried by the accused in his car to her home situated at Mawryngkneng. While travelling in the car, the accused told the prosecutrix to put her hand on his private parts. Faced with such a situation, the prosecutrix could not pass her examination of Class-1 therefore, started studying in a school in her village but there she continued to fall sick, while growing, listening to TV and other talk shows, she got conscious as to what has happened to her. What had happened to her was haunting her. She was feeling guilty, fed up and many a times has tried to end her life. Once she had taken a broken bottle in her hand to commit suicide. Second time she tried to jump from the terrace of the house and third time she had taken TB tablets which were meant for her father but did not divulge the agony and distress she was going through. 11. In the year 2010 PW1 her mother got her admitted in a school at Mawkyrdep which was her desire but again in the school she used to fall sick. It is in the said school on proper counselling she revealed to teacher Marvella Shangpliang PW6 as to what had happened to her when she was in Class-1. The said PW6 called the mother of the prosecutrix (PW1) and told her exactly what the prosecutrix had revealed. It is in the said school on proper counselling she revealed to teacher Marvella Shangpliang PW6 as to what had happened to her when she was in Class-1. The said PW6 called the mother of the prosecutrix (PW1) and told her exactly what the prosecutrix had revealed. She was advised to take the prosecutrix to the doctor for treatment. PW1 took her to North Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Sciences (for short NEIGRIHMS) but on the way the prosecutrix finally told her mother that she was raped by the accused. The prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital on 18.06.2010 and was discharged on 21.06.2010. In the hospital, the doctors informed the police but PW1 asked the police not to register a case because the accused is her relative. While going back home, she (PW1) tried to settle the matter internally, the accused was also called and there was a family meeting. The accused denied to have committed any wrong with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix got annoyed banged the table and went to another room, she was followed by the accused where the accused asked her to forgive him. 12. On 10.07.2010 a written report (Exhibit 1) was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge Nongthymmai PS who forwarded it to the Officer-in-Charge Rynjah PS for registration of the case vide GDE No. 200 dated 12.07.2010. Accordingly, a case was registered by the Officer-in-Charge Rynjah PS, Shillong as PS Case No. 45(7)2010. S.I. H.M. Sangma initially investigated the case. 13. Before the learned Trial Court, learned defence counsel had projected that delay in lodging the FIR being fatal to the prosecution case therefore, the case may be rejected. 14. The learned Trial Court after referring to the statements of the prosecutrix, PW2 (mother of the prosecutrix), PW6 (Marvella Shangpliang) and ordeal the prosecutrix had gone through and then while relying on the judgments reported in (2009) 1 SCC 420 , (2009) 6 SCC 635 and (2004) 7 SCC 775 rejected the contention by holding that in the peculiar fact position delay is not fatal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is not correct, delay of seven long years in not lodging the FIR, by no means has been explained therefore, it is fatal to the prosecution. Possibility of coloured version and concoction cannot be ruled out. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the learned Trial Court is not correct, delay of seven long years in not lodging the FIR, by no means has been explained therefore, it is fatal to the prosecution. Possibility of coloured version and concoction cannot be ruled out. While supporting this contention has placed reliance on two judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi: (2007) 12 SCC 641 . It shall be quite advantageous to quote paras 9 to 11 of the reported judgment:- "9. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. 10. In Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. (1972) 3 SCC 393 it was held that the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. 11. In Ram Jag v. State of U.P. (1974) 4 SCC 201 the position was explained that whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused and/or when plausible explanation is offered for the same. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of the prosecution." (emphasis added) 16. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused and/or when plausible explanation is offered for the same. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity of the version of the prosecution." (emphasis added) 16. Whereas, from another judgment rendered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. M Madhusudhan Rao: (2008) 15 SCC 582 . Para 30 is relevant to be quoted:- "30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained." 17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, now it is to be ascertained as to whether delay in lodging the FIR after a lapse of seven years is fatal to the prosecution. The answer has to be no, every case has its own facts and features. The question of delay has to be analyzed in the same background. The learned Trial Court after reproducing the statement of the prosecutrix (PW2) has rightly observed that the prosecutrix had no grudge or reason to have made a story of the torment she had gone through. The fact that for seven years she had to live a miserable and tormented life cannot be explained in words. When she chose to confide in Sister Marvella Shangpliang (PW6), she had come to a stage where she no longer could keep her pain and suffering to herself. PW6 a teacher of missionary school is a Nun, who is not only motherly but well equipped to deal with people who have undergone traumatic experiences. 18. When she chose to confide in Sister Marvella Shangpliang (PW6), she had come to a stage where she no longer could keep her pain and suffering to herself. PW6 a teacher of missionary school is a Nun, who is not only motherly but well equipped to deal with people who have undergone traumatic experiences. 18. Statement of the prosecutrix recorded as reproduced by the learned Trial Court in the judgment reveals as to how she had undergone traumatic life right from her childhood i.e. from the date of occurrence when she was just approximately 7 years old reading in 1st Primary. Her statement gives a clear picture as to why she did not divulge as to what had happened to her, how she was feeling guilty, sinful and as to how she has been feeling about the news of rape incidents. Her statement as quoted in the Trial Court judgment is advantageous to be quoted hereunder:- "When I was doing my Class I in Auxilium School, Nongthymmai, Shillong, I stayed with my elder sisters, Smt. Banteilin Lawai and Smt. Darisha Lawai in our house at Jylli Shop, Lawjynriew, Nongthymmai, Shillong. I was about six and a half years old. My said sisters attended the same school as I. My school hours are earlier then that of my elder sisters who were in higher classes than me. My aunt who is the mother-in-law of the accused used to pick me up from school. Sometimes the wife of the accused Smt. Ridalin who is my cousin sister used to pick me up from school. One day my said cousin sister picked me up from school and helped me cross the road to my house which is lying opposite to my school. She was then pregnant. She brought snacks for me. After helping me cross the road my said cousin sister told me to go home and that her husband (accused) is there. She went away for some work. When I entered the house nobody was there except for the accused. He helped me take off my school uniform. He took me to his bedroom. He made me sit down in the bed. He took off my underwear. He told me to lie down so that he can test me. I could feel the pain and cried out to him that i was in pain. He helped me take off my school uniform. He took me to his bedroom. He made me sit down in the bed. He took off my underwear. He told me to lie down so that he can test me. I could feel the pain and cried out to him that i was in pain. I cried but the accused told me to stop crying and not to make any sound. Near the bed where the accused had put me down there is a basket where betel nut is kept. The accused took the knife from the basket and kept it on the pillow where my head was. He threatened to use the knife against me if I cried or make a noise. He told me not to let the tears come out of my eyes. I just starred at the knife next to me. I was so scared of the accused I was no longer aware while the accused was raping me. After this I felt great pain whenever I pass urine. I had skin infection from the waist down as a result of the rape by the accused. I did not tell this to anyone. I was scared of the accused. I could not sleep properly. I had pain all over my body. The infection in my private parts was very severe. My elder sister Banteilin Lawai wanted to take me back to the village but the accused insisted that he would do it as he hails from the same place. We travelled to the village in his car. The accused made me sit at the front next to him. While on the way to the village on that day the accused took my right hand put it in his private parts. I just closed my eyes and dared not open them. Whenever a vehicle would come from the opposite direction the accused would put my hand away and then put it back on his private part after the vehicle had passed. Midway on reaching Sohryngkham Village the accused brought smoked corn from the road side. I did not eat the corn and when I reached home I gave it to my brothers and sisters. I stayed in the village. My mother took medicine for the infection in my body. She took care of me till I was cured. Midway on reaching Sohryngkham Village the accused brought smoked corn from the road side. I did not eat the corn and when I reached home I gave it to my brothers and sisters. I stayed in the village. My mother took medicine for the infection in my body. She took care of me till I was cured. Thereafter, my mother took me back to Shillong for my schooling. One day my aunt (mother-in-law of the accused) came to fetch me from school. She took me home. I used to be with her till my elder sisters returned from school. My aunt was staying in one part of the house. I and my sisters stayed on the other part of it. The accused took me to his bedroom while my aunt was talking to some visitors who came to the house on that day. The accused made me sit down on his bed, took off my undergarments and rape me again. However, shortly my aunt called for me. The accused put back my underwear and told me to go and not to tell anyone. I went to my aunt but I did not say anything to her. Since then I felt great fear of the accused who would always look angrily at me. I remembered the knife always. I failed Class-I in that year. I returned back to the village and started Class-I again. In the village I was alright. However, whenever the accused would come to visit, the fear of him is back again. He would always look angrily at me. This haunts me for a long time, as I grow up I always have this guilty feelings. Whenever I see in the news-paper reports of rape being committed I would feel defiled and thinking of myself as a bad girl. I understood that I have lost virginity. When I reached Class- V and more grown up I understood what had happened to me and my body. I tried committing suicide several times but someone would always find me and hold me back. I tried jumping from the top of the house but my brother found me. He slapped me and asked me why I was doing this but I simply told him that I simply wanted to die. I consumed diabetes and TB medicines of my father. Our maid found me and made me drink lemon juice. I tried jumping from the top of the house but my brother found me. He slapped me and asked me why I was doing this but I simply told him that I simply wanted to die. I consumed diabetes and TB medicines of my father. Our maid found me and made me drink lemon juice. I did not tell this to anyone. I always had the feeling of being a bad person and lost all love in this world. When I reached Class-VI, I told my mother that I wanted to stay in a hostel since I no longer wanted to be in the village. My mother got me admitted in King of Kings School, Mawkyrdep. I stayed in the hostel there. I was hoping that in the hostel all my shame and fear of the accused would go away but that did not happen. It stayed with me there also. I started to faint and become unconscious all the time. My fellow students used to talk in the hostel about rape, female issues and abuse, I always feel humiliated and used. My mother tried to get medicine for my treatment from many places but that did not help me at all. I was afraid to tell my mother what happened. Because of my illness the sisters in the school took me to a retreat centre (place of worship).The fathers and sisters there prayed for me but I felt that it is too late to tell them of what happened to me. From there after getting better my mother took me back to the hostel at Mawkyrdep Village, Ri-Bhoi District. In the hostel I had infection in my private parts which was very painful. The sisters in the hostel took care of me. I decided then to confide everything to the head sister in the hostel. I requested her not to tell my mother about it. She consulted me and said that my mother is the best person to know what happened to me. The head sister called my mother and told her to come to the hostel with a car so that she can take me to hospital since I needed medical attention. My mother talked to the head sister while I was sitting in the car with another sister. I was taken to NEIGRIHMS, Shillong. The head sister called my mother and told her to come to the hostel with a car so that she can take me to hospital since I needed medical attention. My mother talked to the head sister while I was sitting in the car with another sister. I was taken to NEIGRIHMS, Shillong. On the way to the hospital I told my mother everything that happened to me. She told me not to worry and that I will become cured in the hospital. I was treated in the Emergency Ward of the hospital. A little while thereafter the Police came. They asked what happened to me. I remained silent of what happened. I refused to their asking me whether I wanted to register a case against the accused. After few days I was discharged from NEIGRIHMS and went back to the village. My mother suggested to me that since the accused is a relative he may be called for amicable settlement but I refused. However, since my mother insisted on that I agreed to it but requested her not to tell my father and siblings. My mother called the accused who came to the village on a Sunday if I was not mistaken. Since they do not want to be seen in the house, my mother asked the accused to go to her shop. Later my mother came and told me that the accused denied committing any rape upon me. The fear of the accused came back to me. A few weeks after that the accused, his wife and some relatives came to our house at Mawryngkneng Village. In the meeting I told everybody what the accused did to me but the accused flatly denied everything. I wanted for things to clear up between us but from the side of the accused and his wife they keep on insisting that he did not commit anything upon me. I became angry, slammed the table and left the room. The accused followed me and asked for forgiveness. There was also the two of us in the other room. I went to my mother and told her that the accused have asked me to forgive him. Thereafter, I do not know where the accused went. His wife and the relatives also left the house without saying anything. My mother took me back to the hostel at Mawkyrdep Village. There was also the two of us in the other room. I went to my mother and told her that the accused have asked me to forgive him. Thereafter, I do not know where the accused went. His wife and the relatives also left the house without saying anything. My mother took me back to the hostel at Mawkyrdep Village. Before reaching the hostel, fearing for myself I requested my mother to take me back home but she assured me that nothing would happen to me. When she left the hostel I really wanted to go back with her. I slept that night in the hostel. On the next day I did not go to school but remained in the study room. By the afternoon on that day my mother came for me and took me back home. When I reached home FIR was later filed by my mother against the accused for the rape committed by him. Thereafter, the police recorded my statement. I was taken to Ganesh Das Hospital, Shillong. The doctors there examined me. My statement was also recorded by the Magistrate at DC Office, Shillong. Ext-3 is my statement recorded by Smt. C.D. Lyngwa, Magistrate First Class, on 22-07-2010 at D.C. Office, Shillong. Ext-3(1) is my signature. I pray the court to punish the accused as per law. That is all. XXX The incident occurred to me in the year 2003 based on my age today. I cannot remember at what time my school starts in the morning. I also cannot remember at what time the school ends. On the day when the first incident happened to me it was the wife of the accused who picked me up from school. I do not know whether the wife of the accused was employed or a housewife at that time. I do not know whether then he was working in the office but he used to take me to some office sometimes. On the day of incident I do not know at what time I entered the house but it was after coming back from school only. The accused and us stayed within the same building but in different parts of it. The accused was staying alone with his wife and his in-laws. The brother of the wife of the accused was also staying with them. I was staying with my sisters. The accused and us stayed within the same building but in different parts of it. The accused was staying alone with his wife and his in-laws. The brother of the wife of the accused was also staying with them. I was staying with my sisters. There were also other tenants in the house. It is a fact that I used to stay in the house of my aunt (mother-in-law of the accused) till my sisters return from school. I do not remember at what time they used to come home from school. The name of my school is Auxilium School. I do not have anything with me here to show that I attended the said school. At that point of time my sisters used to wash my clothes including my school uniform. They also used to bath me. Normally I used to change my uniform at the house of my aunt. I used to keep my home clothes with my aunt. My sister would then take my uniform after returning from school. The wife of the accused and my aunt already know of the incident that happened to me. At that time the bedroom of the accused was next to the sitting room. It is not a fact that in the year 2010-11 I had an abortion. On the day of the incident some of the tenants were at home. When the accused raped me he did not cover my mouth. He committed the act on the bed. The betel nut basket was near the bed. I cannot recall when the knife was folded or open. On the first incident there was only the accused and me in the house. The wife of the accused on the day of the first incident helped me only to cross the road and told me to go home on my own. After committing the act the accused put back my underwear. Thereafter I went to the toilet. I did not meet anyone. I do not remember who came home first in the afternoon that day. I got the infection in my private part after the accused has raped me. It started after a few days thereafter. It is a fact that my sisters had seen the infected part of my body. I cannot remember after how many days thereafter when the accused took me home to Mawryngkneng. I got the infection in my private part after the accused has raped me. It started after a few days thereafter. It is a fact that my sisters had seen the infected part of my body. I cannot remember after how many days thereafter when the accused took me home to Mawryngkneng. My sisters wanted to take me there but the accused said that he will do it. We travelled in his own car. I cannot remember the number of the car. I cannot remember at what time we started from Shillong. I do not know who was the doctor who treated me. At that time besides my parents, my siblings, Bah Heh, Bah Rit, Bah Duh, U Hop, U Lung, Ka Bina, U Diah, U Heh, my sister-in-law were all staying in our house at Mawryngkneng Village. I cannot say how long I stayed back in the village but it was till I got well. When I returned back to Shillong I attended the same school. I cannot remember in which month I came back to the School. I did not pass Class-I. I joined Seventh Day Adventist School at Mawryngkneng again in Class-I. For Class-IV & V I attended St. Francis Sec. School at Mawryngkneng. My mother teaches there. It is a co-ed institution. I cannot remember in which year I joined King of Kings Secondary School, Mawkyrdep Village, Ri-Bhoi District. The school is also a co-ed institution. I have, both male and female friends. I am now married. His name is Evirious Sten. We have one child who was born last year. We went to the same school, i.e. King of Kings Sec. School. He was my senior in School. It was kind of an arranged marriage. I cannot remember in which year I used to attend and stay in the Retreat Centre at Umroi, Ri-Bhoi District. It was during my schooling days only. The first person with whom I confide about my rape by the accused is one Sister Marvella Shangpliang. I was then 11 to 12 years old. My second eldest sister Smt. Aitihun Lawai is a nun. Sister Marbella Shangpliang informed my mother the next date about what happened to me. My mother came to the hostel in King of Kings Sec. School on the very next day. It is a fact that I am now pregnant. I was then 11 to 12 years old. My second eldest sister Smt. Aitihun Lawai is a nun. Sister Marbella Shangpliang informed my mother the next date about what happened to me. My mother came to the hostel in King of Kings Sec. School on the very next day. It is a fact that I am now pregnant. My mother came to the hostel with my sister and elder brother who drove the car. My mother talked to Sister Marvella Shangpliang in the School Office. I was not there. They did not say anything at all about the incident in my presence. One Sir Hilar was my Class Teacher then in the School. While my mother was talking to Sister Marvella Shangpliang, Sister Eugine took me to the car outside. I, my mother, sister and brother were in the car then proceeded to NEIGRIHMS, Shillong. In a while we were travelling in the car that I told my mother everything that the accused did to me. We arrived in the Hospital in the evening time. I went inside the hospital there were both male and female doctors, staff nurses and other attendants. I was examined by them in the hospital. My private parts were also examined. It is a fact that it was my mother who told the doctors about me being raped by the accused. The doctors did not ask me anything about the incident. I do not know who informed the police. I was examined by the Police Officer who came to the Hospital. From the hospital I returned to Mawryngkneng Village. My father came to know of what happened to me only when the accused came to our house for the meeting. While narrating the story to my father and my siblings, they choose not to ask any questions. I cannot remember what date it was. The accused came to my house along with his wife and elder brother. We had a family meeting. Then the accused did not confess of having raped me. It was while I was in Class-V that I thought about committing suicide. My mother knows about it. On the second time when the accused committed rape upon me, my aunt was at home. It was in his bedroom again. There were visitors on that day. On this occasion also I did not shout or cried out. It was while I was in Class-V that I thought about committing suicide. My mother knows about it. On the second time when the accused committed rape upon me, my aunt was at home. It was in his bedroom again. There were visitors on that day. On this occasion also I did not shout or cried out. Smt. Darishisha Lawai is my elder sister. She came to know of the incident only when I told her about it. I cannot remember the day, month and year when I revealed the incident to Sister Marvela Shangpliang. I went along with my mother when the FIR was filed against the accused. It is a fact that before the FIR was filed we consulted Smt. Agnes Kharshiing. The FIR was prepared by the Police on our instructions/information. It is a fact that my statement was also recorded by the recording Magistrate at DC Office, Shillong, it is a fact that my statement was also recorded by the Police. It is a fact that I never stated in detail before the recording Magistrate about the incident as have done in my evidence in this Court. My father is Shri John Ngeit Singh Kharumnuid. My father came to know of the incident only when I told him about it." 19. The statements of the other prosecution witnesses have been reproduced in detail in the judgment impugned. It shall be quite beneficial to precisely mention as to what has been deposed by the other prosecution witnesses. 20. PW1 (mother of the prosecutrix) has stated that her daughter very often fall sick, the doctors could not say exactly as to what was wrong with her. The prosecutrix was admitted in King of Kings Convent at Mawkyrdep village, which is run by Catholic nuns. Despite care and counselling, she continued to be weak and fall sick very often. She was about 7 years of age when she was staying with her two elder sisters in a house at Nongthymmai Jylli Shop, Shillong. The accused was also staying there in another portion of the house. The wife of the accused is her niece. The mother-in-law of the accused used to pick up her daughter (prosecutrix) from school at 12 noon and used to look after her till her elder sisters return from school. The accused was also staying there in another portion of the house. The wife of the accused is her niece. The mother-in-law of the accused used to pick up her daughter (prosecutrix) from school at 12 noon and used to look after her till her elder sisters return from school. On the day of incident, the mother-in-law of the accused was not there, so the wife of the accused picked up the prosecutrix from school after helping her to cross the road, asked her to go to her place because she had to go somewhere and also told the prosecutrix that the accused is at home. The school of her daughter (prosecutrix) where she was studying then (Auxillium School) is just across the road where the prosecutrix was staying with her sisters. At the end of the year, the prosecutrix failed in her examination. She was taken back and put in a school in the village. She always felt sick and not keeping good health. She (witness) did not know the reason and had no knowledge about the rape of the prosecutrix by the accused. In the year 2010, the prosecutrix was taken to the Convent school at Mawkyrdep village. She studied there as it was her desire all along but again there she continued to fall sick. She was counselled by the nuns. It was the counseling that helped the prosecutrix to open up and reveal she was raped by the accused in the house at Nongthymmai Jylli Shop, Shillong. The nuns told her (PW1) that the prosecutrix had narrated to them of her being raped by the accused. Then she (PW1) took her (prosecutrix) to NEIGRIHMS for treatment. While travelling to hospital, the prosecutrix finally told her (PW1) that she was raped by the accused. The prosecutrix told her (PW1) not to tell anyone about the incident otherwise the accused will kill her. When the prosecutrix was admitted, she told the doctors everything that had happened to her. The doctors informed the police, police came to the hospital but PW1 told them she won't register a case since the accused is a relation. The doctors got annoyed but she told them that she wanted her daughter (prosecutrix) to be treated. After the prosecutrix was discharged from hospital on 21.06.2010, PW1 tried to get in touch with the accused to know the truth. The doctors got annoyed but she told them that she wanted her daughter (prosecutrix) to be treated. After the prosecutrix was discharged from hospital on 21.06.2010, PW1 tried to get in touch with the accused to know the truth. On 27.06.2010, she (PW1) saw the accused in the village and told him that she needs to talk to him. The accused came to her house but since PW1 did not want anyone in the house to know about the incident, she took the accused to the shop. She inquired from him what he was doing to the prosecutrix while she was staying at Nongthymmai Jylli Shop, Shillong, the accused evaded the question and left the shop saying that he is busy. Then, again she called him on 02.07.2010. The accused came along with his wife and elder brother. The prosecutrix openly charged the accused but the accused denied. The prosecutrix was frustrated and left the room and went to another room. The accused also left the room. After sometime, the prosecutrix came back to the sitting room and told PW1 that the accused had begged for forgiveness from her (prosecutrix). She (PW1) made a complaint to the police against the accused on 10.07.2010, the prosecutrix was taken to Ganesh Das Hospital for medical checkup. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused, she stated that at the time of alleged incident, the prosecutrix was about 6-1/2 to 7 years old. Since she (prosecutrix) finished her school at 12 noon, the mother-in-law used to pick up her up. The classes of elder sisters of the prosecutrix would over at 3 in the afternoon. The in-laws of the accused occupied two rooms in her (PW1) house at Nongthymmai Jylli Shop. Later on, they added a small room. 21. PW3 Smti. Aicilin Mylliem has stated that one day, after finishing her work, she went to the room where they used to watch television, but saw the daughter of the complainant (prosecutrix) was lying on the floor unconscious with froth coming out of her mouth. She (PW3) immediately made her to drink lemon juice. Thereafter, the prosecutrix vomited and came to her senses started crying and requested PW3 not to tell her mother she consumed the medicine of her father. She (PW3) immediately made her to drink lemon juice. Thereafter, the prosecutrix vomited and came to her senses started crying and requested PW3 not to tell her mother she consumed the medicine of her father. The prosecutrix told PW3 that she wanted to die that is why she consumed the medicine but did not say the reason which had made her to do such an act. In the cross examination has stated that the victim was unconscious however, she (PW3) managed to drink the lemon juice as was administered to her. It is a fact that the victim herself disclosed to PW3 that she has taken the medicine to commit suicide. PW3 could not say whether the prosecutrix was suffering from any kind of mental disability. 22. PW4 Smti. Darishisha Lawai (elder sister of the prosecutrix) has stated that one day the date, month and year cannot remember at round noon time she went to the shed located at their house at Mawryngkneng Main Road, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong to collect firewood. Even the prosecutrix was outside the shed holding a broken bottle and wanted to stab herself. She (PW4) snatched the bottle from the prosecutrix and slapped her. Then, the prosecutrix requested her (PW4) not to tell her mother about the incident. A few weeks later, when she (PW4) was sweeping the compound of her house, the prosecutrix came out of the house went up to the terrace saying that she (prosecutrix) will kill herself by jumping from there. She followed the prosecutrix held her hand and again slapped her. She further stated that the prosecutrix did not tell the reason for all such acts but would simply say that she wanted to commit suicide. She (PW4) came to know about the occurrence only when the accused came to her house along with his relatives to talk about the same. The accused is the husband of her cousin sister. When she was studying in Class-VIII, the accused came to meet the mother of the prosecutrix. In the cross examination, PW4 has stated that the prosecutrix told her that she wanted to commit suicide. It is not a fact that the prosecutrix was suffering from any mental disorder. She cannot say as to why the prosecutrix wanted to commit suicide. When she was studying in Class-VIII, the accused came to meet the mother of the prosecutrix. In the cross examination, PW4 has stated that the prosecutrix told her that she wanted to commit suicide. It is not a fact that the prosecutrix was suffering from any mental disorder. She cannot say as to why the prosecutrix wanted to commit suicide. It is a fact that she caught her (prosecutrix) at the time when she was going towards the terrace saying that she is going to commit suicide. 23. PW5 Sister Aitihun Lawai (another elder sister of the prosecutrix) has stated that in the year 2010, she was holding the post of Headmistress in Holy Trinity Secondary School, Sutnga, East Jaintia Hills District. Once they had a gathering in Jowai where Sister Marvella Shangpliang met her and told her as to what had happened to the prosecutrix when she was about 6 years old and it is she (Sister Marvella Shangpliang) who told me that the prosecutrix had been sexually abused by the Shri Joken Kharsati (accused). She (PW5) disclosed the same to her mother who already knew the same because Sister Marvella Shangpliang had informed her. The prosecutrix kept the entire episode to herself for six years and only revealed it in the year 2010. After, she came to know of the incident from Sister Marvella Shangpliang (witness), why she remained silent for so long, replied that she was so scared of the knife which the accused had threatened to use if she revealed the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix was very active but in the year 2009-2010 started showing signs of depression because of what was done to her by the accused. In the cross examination has stated that in the month of May or June 2010, she was told about the incident of rape of the prosecutrix by Sister Marvella Shangpliang. To her knowledge she (victim) did not disclose the incident to anyone except Sister Marvella Shangpliang. She further stated that the prosecutrix was admitted in St. Joseph's Secondary School, Pynthorumkhrah, Shillong. As the Headmistress of the school observed that the prosecutrix had changed. It is not a fact that the accused is honest and not involved in the case. She (PW5) came to know about the incident from Sister Marvella Shangpliang and later on from the prosecutrix. It is not a fact that she is deposing falsely. As the Headmistress of the school observed that the prosecutrix had changed. It is not a fact that the accused is honest and not involved in the case. She (PW5) came to know about the incident from Sister Marvella Shangpliang and later on from the prosecutrix. It is not a fact that she is deposing falsely. 24. PW6 Sister Marvella Shangpliang has stated that in the year 2010 she was posted in King of Kings Secondary School, Mawkyrdep, Ri-Bhoi District holding the post of Headmistress and fully incharge of the whole institution. The prosecutrix came for admission in the school in the year 2009 and she used to get sick. In the month of June 2010, friends of the prosecutrix came and called her (PW6) to go and see the prosecutrix in the bed in dormitory as she was not well. The prosecutrix was even assisted to go to the toilet. She (PW6) rushed to the bedroom and asked the prosecutrix what happened. In reply the prosecutrix told that she was feeling uneasy. She (PW6) kept asking her where she feels the pain, prosecutrix said that she could not even walk as she was having wounds and burning sensation in her private parts. By giving her treatment, the prosecutrix started to reveal as to what had happened to her when she was in Class-I, she told me that she was raped by her relative. She also stated that accused held a knife and threatened not to shout, also not to tell anyone as to what had happened on that day. She (PW6) called the mother of the prosecutrix and told about the episode. The mother of the prosecutrix took her to the doctor. In the cross examination has stated that the prosecutrix joined the school in the month of February 2009 in standard VI as a boarder. In the beginning months, she (prosecutrix) was doing fine and physically fit but after a few months, she started to show signs of sickness. On that evening, when she (PW6) went to the dormitory to see the prosecutrix had fallen sick on being called by her friends, she was already unconscious. After a gap of an hour, the prosecutrix was taken to Bhoirymbong CHC. The doctor opined that the prosecutrix was suffering from hysteria. The mother of the prosecutrix came and took her home. But later on, she rejoined the school. After a gap of an hour, the prosecutrix was taken to Bhoirymbong CHC. The doctor opined that the prosecutrix was suffering from hysteria. The mother of the prosecutrix came and took her home. But later on, she rejoined the school. It is a fact that she (PW6) did not have firsthand knowledge of the entire incident but the incident was narrated by the victim and then, she told it to the mother of the prosecutrix. She (PW6) disclosed the matter to the mother of the prosecutrix and also to the elder sister of the victim who too is a nun. 25. PW7 Shri Malthes S. Sangma, Extra Assistant Commissioner and Magistrate First Class, Shillong has stated that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses namely Smti. Aicilia Mylliem, Smti. Darishisha Lawai and Sister Marvella Shangpliang. Exts. 3, 4 and 5 are the statements of the said three witnesses. He also recorded the confessional statement of Shri Joken Kharsati (accused) which marked as Ext.6. In the cross examination, he has stated that the accused denied involvement in the instant case. The statements made by the witnesses were exactly what they intended or wanted to state before him (PW7). The statements were read out to the witnesses and they were satisfied. It is not a fact that the statements of the witnesses were recorded by his staff and later on recorded by him in his handwriting. 26. PW8 Smti. Camelia Doreen Lyngwa, Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong has stated that she was empowered as Additional District Magistrate and recorded the statement of the victim. Ext.7 is the statement of the victim. The victim spoke in Khasi language and she had recorded the same in English. In the cross examination stated that she had not taken any help of the translator in recording the statement of the victim in Khasi language. It is correct that all the official works in the office are done in English language. After finishing recording the statement of the victim in English language, same was read over to the victim and explained to the victim, the victim was satisfied with the statement and signed the same. 27. PW9 Shri Hambartush M. Sangma has stated that the accused was arrested on 13.07.2010. During interrogation, the accused admitted that he had raped upon the victim. 27. PW9 Shri Hambartush M. Sangma has stated that the accused was arrested on 13.07.2010. During interrogation, the accused admitted that he had raped upon the victim. The accused was taken to Civil Hospital for medical examination and samples were collected. The accused fell ill was taken to the hospital for treatment. Later on, the case was handed over to WPSI A Ch. Sangma for further investigation. In the cross examination has stated that the investigation started on 12.07.2010. The statement of the victim was recorded by female police officer. The doctor opined that there was an old tear of the hymen. In the opinion of the I/O, it was a case of rape not molestation. 28. PW 10 Smti. Atula Ch. Sangma has stated that she was posted at Women Police Station, Shillong. The investigation of the case was endorsed and made over to her by O/C of the station WPSI E. Khongsdam. She recorded the statements of the complainant and victim on that day. She interrogated the accused and recorded his statement on 15.07.2010. She (PW 10) was told by the maid servant about swallow of pills by the prosecutrix. The maid servant also stated that she stopped the victim for taking more pills which were tuberculosis medicines of the victim's father. She (PW 10) also examined Sister Marvella Shangpliang as witness in the case as well as the elder sister of the victim who is a nun. The victim revealed about the incident for the first time to Sister Marvella Shangpliang that is how the family came to know about the incident. Sister Marvella Shangpliang said that the victim was studying in King of Kings Secondary School, Mawkyrdep, Umiam, Ri-Bhoi District. One day in the afternoon, the victim got sick in the classroom she kept on insisting and asked the prosecutrix what is the problem with her. The victim revealed that she was raped when she was 7 years old studying in Class-I in Auxilium School, Shillong. The victim till then had not disclosed the incident to anyone. She (PW 10) further stated that Sister Marvella Shangpliang called the mother of the prosecutrix to her office and informed her. Mother of the victim also stated that after meeting with the accused in their house at Marryngkneng village, the accused cried and asked for forgiveness from the victim. The victim till then had not disclosed the incident to anyone. She (PW 10) further stated that Sister Marvella Shangpliang called the mother of the prosecutrix to her office and informed her. Mother of the victim also stated that after meeting with the accused in their house at Marryngkneng village, the accused cried and asked for forgiveness from the victim. The mother of the victim tried to solve the entire matter within the family but for the adamant attitude of the accused, she was compelled to file the FIR. She (PW 10) further stated that the victim made it clear that after the incident she started to fall sick and became depressed. Most of the time, she was thinking of ending her life. She felt miserable and could not tell anyone about what had happened to her. It was only Sister Marvella Shangpliang to whom she revealed the incident initially. In the cross examination, she has stated that the complainant (mother of the prosecutrix) came to know about the incident on 18.06.2010. According to her investigation, the complainant came to know about the incident from Sister Marvella Shangpliang. It also appeared from the investigation that the victim was picked up by her mother from the convent of King of Kings School. It is a fact that the family of the victim tried to solve the problem with the accused. 29. PW 11 Shri Jyrat Sing Kharsati stated that in the year 2010 he was posted in Rynjah PS. The FIR was received and endorsed. He did not take part in the investigation of the case. 30. PW 12 Dr. Fairnalyn Verina Kharshiing has stated that she was posted in the year 2010 in Ganesh Das Hospital had examined the victim. According to the victim in the year 2003, she was sexually molested by her brother-in-law twice within a span of few months and he had threatened her not to tell it to anyone. In the local examination, it was found that hymen is not intact. There is old hymen tear. The main cause for hymen tear is sexual intercourse. Old hymen tear means the hymen was no longer intact and not a recent case otherwise, there would be signs of abrasions and lacerations in the victim's private parts if there was any recent sexual intercourse. There must be some penetration to cause it. There is old hymen tear. The main cause for hymen tear is sexual intercourse. Old hymen tear means the hymen was no longer intact and not a recent case otherwise, there would be signs of abrasions and lacerations in the victim's private parts if there was any recent sexual intercourse. There must be some penetration to cause it. For the victim to undergo such experience when she was very young, it would definitely cause her mental and physical trauma. She can also be affected socially. In the cross examination of the learned counsel for the accused has stated that she did not mention the exact position of the torn hymen. She also agreed that beside sexual intercourse, there can be other cause for hymen tear but percentage of the later is very less. 31. The concise and precise reference to the statements of the witnesses other than the prosecutrix is, because pivotal witness in the case is the prosecutrix. Her statement in detail is reproduced hereinabove. The learned Trial Court has quoted the statements of all the witnesses in detail but for disposal of this appeal, detailed reproduction of the statements of other witnesses is not found necessary except for the portion of the statements quoted above. 32. Statement of pivotal witness (victim) is fully corroborated regarding non-disclosure of the occurrence, by PW1 (mother of the prosecutrix) and PW6 (Marvella Shangpliang), who was her teacher and it is she who encouraged the prosecutrix to divulge as to what had happened to her. 33. Para 11 of the judgment reported in (2007) 12 SCC 641 and para 30 of the judgment reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 quoted above in para 15 of this judgment, clearly cover the position of the prosecutrix and explanation regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. The learned Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment reported in (2009) 6 SCC 635 . Para 21 of the judgment is relevant to be quoted:- "21. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the first information report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon. Both the courts below apart from relying on a part of the testimony of the prosecutrix found the evidence of PW5 to be absolutely reliable. Delay in lodging the first information report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon. Both the courts below apart from relying on a part of the testimony of the prosecutrix found the evidence of PW5 to be absolutely reliable. The medical evidence itself being a part of the evidence is required to be appreciated in the context of ocular evidence and other circumstances surrounding thereto. There was some time gap between the occurrence and the examination of the witnesses. Some lapse of memory on the part of the child witness, therefore, is possible." 34. Para 5 of the judgment reported in (2004) 7 SCC 775 is also relevant to be quoted:- "5. We wish to first deal with the plea relating to the delayed lodging of the FIR. As held in a large number of cases, mere delay in lodging the FIR is really of no consequence, if the reason is explained. In the instant case, the evidence of PW3, the victim and that of her husband, PW4, clearly shows that there was initial reluctance to report the matter to the police by PW4. He, in fact, had taken his wife to task for the incident and had slapped her. In Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. it was observed that a woman who was a victim of sexual violence, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and, therefore, her evidence need to be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of a culprit. Therefore, the rule of prudence that her evidence must be corroborated in material particulars, has no application. At the most, the court may look for some evidence which lends assurance." 35. Prosecutrix at the time of making the statement before the learned Trial Court was 13 years old, has narrated the sequence of events which she had gone through right from the day of occurrence when she was just 7 years old. 36. There was no occasion for the prosecutrix to unnecessary involve the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that there was any enmity or there was any other dispute among the appellant, family members of the prosecutrix or the prosecutrix. 37. 36. There was no occasion for the prosecutrix to unnecessary involve the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that there was any enmity or there was any other dispute among the appellant, family members of the prosecutrix or the prosecutrix. 37. Said position has rightly been taken note of by the learned Trial Court by observing that the victim in her evidence had highlighted and narrated the sordid incident of rape and molestation by the accused in a very eloquent manner and was not shaken in her cross examination. There is no evidence to show that the victim had an enmity towards the accused or any other cause for her to make an allegation against him. 38. Another aspect of the case is as to whether the testimony of the prosecutrix is free from blame and is un-impeached to inspire confidence for holding that the accused had tormented her. Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of Raju & ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2008) 15 SCC 133 are relevant to be quoted:- "9. The observations in Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 case were reiterated in Ranjit Hazarika v. State of Assam (1998) 8 SCC 635 in the following terms: (Gurmit Singh case, SCC pp.395-96, para 8) "8. ..... The courts must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in a case of rape, no self-respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make a humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her. In cases involving sexual molestation, supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nature, be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case. The inherent bashfulness of the females and the tendency to conceal outrage of sexual aggression are factors which the courts should not overlook. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The testimony of the victim in such cases is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the courts should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? The court while appreciating the evidence of a prosecutrix may look for some assurance of her statement to satisfy its judicial conscience, since she is a witness who is interested in the outcome of the charge leveled by her, but there is no requirement of law to insist upon corroboration of her statement to base conviction of an accused. The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a par with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is even more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be selfinflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding. (emphasis supplied) Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person's lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Inferences have to be drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest that type of rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a casualty. Courts cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of sex crime strikes the judicial mind as probable." (emphasis in original) 10. The aforesaid judgments lay down the basic principle that ordinarily the evidence of a prosecutrix should not be suspected and should be believed, more so as her statement has to be evaluated on a par with that of an injured witness and if the evidence is reliable, no corroboration is necessary. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid observations must carry the greatest weight and we respectfully agree with them, but at the same time they cannot be universally and mechanically applied to the facts of every case of sexual assault which comes before the Court." 39. The prosecutrix in her statement as referred to above has given sequence of events and the traumatic life she had been living ever since the occurrence and the agony she had gone through because of the brutal act of the appellant. 40. The prosecutrix no doubt was just approximately 7 years of age at the time of occurrence. When she was examined as witness before the learned Trial Court she was 13 years of age. The manner, she has deposed as quoted hereinabove, leaves no room for doubting her testimony. Her testimony is free from exaggeration and embellishment. The quality of her testimony inspires confidence for relying on her credibility. The statement of such witness cannot be ignored unless there are compelling circumstances available to refute her testimony. In this connection, it shall be quite relevant to quote para 22 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rai Sandeep v. State of (NCT of Delhi): (2012) 8 SCC 21 as under: "22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." 41. Applying the law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the present case, it is quite evident and clear that the prosecutrix (PW2) has given true account of what had happened to her, how she was ravished and how her growth made her to feel guilty, sinful and then, without divulging it to anyone tried to kill herself. Her statement in respect of how she had divulged the occurrence to PW6, a teacher (Nun) in her school and then the statement of PW3, who was a helper in their house has stated that the prosecutrix consumed medicine i.e. tablets meant for curing TB which were available in the house as her father was suffering from the said disease. PW4 sister of the prosecutrix has also stated that once she came out of her house found the prosecutrix carrying a glass bottle in her hand in a broken condition and was trying to stab herself and then again one day she was running to the terrace of the house to jump but was saved. 42. PW6 (a Nun) has also given clear picture as to how she counseled and motivated the prosecutrix to divulge as to what had happened to her, as she had an occasion to inquire because the prosecutrix had fallen ill and complained pain in her private parts i.e. how PW6 by counseling made her to divulge as to what had happened to her. It is the positive statement of PW6 that it is she who then informed PW1 (mother of the prosecutrix) about the matter. It is the positive statement of PW6 that it is she who then informed PW1 (mother of the prosecutrix) about the matter. Then PW1 (mother of the prosecutrix) while coming to school had carried the prosecutrix to NEIGRIHMS as she was informed by PW6. PW1 explained that she did not allow the doctors of NEIGRIHMS to inform the police as she wanted to hush-up the matter internally to avoid embarrassment. PW1 also stated that she had called the accused (appellant) to her house and there was a family meeting but the accused denied to have committed rape, the prosecutrix stood up banged the table and went to another room, she was followed by the accused, where the accused asked her to forgive him, as was said by the prosecutrix. 43. PW1 (mother of the prosecutrix) has made it clear that the accused was married to her niece that is why the matter was being handled with care. 44. It is trite that the prosecution has to stand on its own feet to prove the guilt against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt. Unimpeachable testimony of the prosecutrix about the sequence of events, testimony of PW1 (mother of the prosecutrix) and PW6 (Marvella Shangpliang), leaves no room to doubt the actual occurrence. 45. The learned Trial Court while appreciating the testimony of the prosecutrix has rightly observed that there was no other eye witness to the crime. Children are mostly ignorant about rape and are not able to offer resistance. Worst example of traumatic experience is of the (prosecutrix) she was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen her. 46. While appreciating the entire evidence and while considering the entire materials and reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court and the law cited, there is no scope to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Trial Court. 47. Humanity feels ashamed when it is noticed that a woman folk had been scandalized. Woman, a grandmother, mother, sister and daughter what a sweetest words, full with affection, but subjected to unforeseen situation. A person who did not spare a "tiny tot" not knowing what ravishing means, a small flower yet to bloom, can such a person, who tarnished, ravished and brutalized a female baby of 7 years of age, be a human being? Even an animal will feel ashamed of such a person. A person who did not spare a "tiny tot" not knowing what ravishing means, a small flower yet to bloom, can such a person, who tarnished, ravished and brutalized a female baby of 7 years of age, be a human being? Even an animal will feel ashamed of such a person. There is no scope for getting swayed by sentiments but the observations made hereinabove and concern shown is only after conclusions are drawn as to what had happened to a young girl. The accused who has committed such a dastardly act, has made the life of a young girl hell, does not deserve any concession. 48. While going through the statements of the prosecution witnesses and also of the defence witnesses as recorded during trial by the learned Trial Court, we found that the learned Trial Court has meticulously appreciated the evidence of all the witnesses and has rightly drawn the conclusions. No infirmity, irregularity or illegality is noticed in the judgment impugned. Sentence awarded is also appropriate. Therefore, both the judgment impugned as well as the order awarding sentences being in conformity with law are upheld. 49. The Chairman, District Legal Services Authority concerned shall ascertain from the record as to whether the victim has been paid any compensation in accordance with the victim compensation scheme, if not, maximum compensation permissible in accordance with the scheme shall be paid to the victim. 50. Copy of this judgment along with the record be sent to the Trial Court. Copy of this judgment be also sent to the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority concerned for compliance and copy be also provided to the appellant free of cost.