The trial court, after analysing the evidence, found that there were few contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and her daughter PW-2 with regard to the period of stomach ache and the duration for which she was on medication by the local doctor/private chemist. However, in the opinion of the Sessions Court, these were very minor discrepancies. The Sessions Court noted that the prosecutrix was only nine years old child when the incident happened and she was only twelve years of age when she deposed in the Court and, therefore, it could not be expected of her to report each and every fact by giving minute details. The trial court further observed that both the witnesses withstood the test of credibility as even after undergoing detailed cross-examination their depositions on vital aspects remained firm and could not be shaken. The main argument advanced by the defence before the trial court was that it was a case of inordinate delay where reporting to the Police was three years after the incident. The trial court, however, was not convinced by this argument. In the judgment given by the trial court, detailed reasons are given, which will be discussed at the appropriate stage by us, as to how, in the given circumstances, the prosecution was able to explain the delay. Taking aid of various pronouncements of this Court on this aspect, the trial court concluded that the said delay had not dented the case of the prosecution. Other argument of the defence that PW-1, mother of the prosecutrix, had filed false complaint to implicate the respondent on account of family feud was also not found to be convincing. In the ultimate analysis, the trial court believed the statement of the prosecutrix as true since it was supported by medical evidence on record. It was found to be trustworthy and not shrouded with any doubt. The trial court pointed out that the statement of PW-8 clearly suggested that the prosecutrix was forcefully raped by the respondent and as a result of that her hymen was ruptured and her external anal sphincter was also torn. Even internal sphincter was not continence. She found that anal sphincter of the prosecutrix was not functioning properly. In the opinion of PW-8, on account of injury to the prosecutrix's anal sphincter, she might be a sufferer throughout her life. Another argument of the defence before the trial court was that it was impossible that such an incident would have occurred in the house where so many family members lived. In such circumstances, it could not be believed that the respondent would have taken the prosecutrix to the room on the first floor and committed sexual intercourse. This argument was also brushed aside by the trial court pointing out that, in her cross- examination, the prosecutrix has stated that the incident had taken place in the morning hours, around 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Female members of the family returned back to the house after one hour of the incident. The trial court, after analysing the evidence, found that there were few contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and her daughter PW-2 with regard to the period of stomach ache and the duration for which she was on medication by the local doctor/private chemist. However, in the opinion of the Sessions Court, these were very minor discrepancies. The Sessions Court noted that the prosecutrix was only nine years old child when the incident happened and she was only twelve years of age when she deposed in the Court and, therefore, it could not be expected of her to report each and every fact by giving minute details. The trial court further observed that both the witnesses withstood the test of credibility as even after undergoing detailed cross-examination their depositions on vital aspects remained firm and could not be shaken. The main argument advanced by the defence before the trial court was that it was a case of inordinate delay where reporting to the Police was three years after the incident. The trial court, however, was not convinced by this argument. In the judgment given by the trial court, detailed reasons are given, which will be discussed at the appropriate stage by us, as to how, in the given circumstances, the prosecution was able to explain the delay. Taking aid of various pronouncements of this Court on this aspect, the trial court concluded that the said delay had not dented the case of the prosecution. Other argument of the defence that PW-1, mother of the prosecutrix, had filed false complaint to implicate the respondent on account of family feud was also not found to be convincing. In the ultimate analysis, the trial court believed the statement of the prosecutrix as true since it was supported by medical evidence on record. It was found to be trustworthy and not shrouded with any doubt. The trial court pointed out that the statement of PW-8 clearly suggested that the prosecutrix was forcefully raped by the respondent and as a result of that her hymen was ruptured and her external anal sphincter was also torn. Even internal sphincter was not continence. She found that anal sphincter of the prosecutrix was not functioning properly. In the opinion of PW-8, on account of injury to the prosecutrix's anal sphincter, she might be a sufferer throughout her life. Another argument of the defence before the trial court was that it was impossible that such an incident would have occurred in the house where so many family members lived. In such circumstances, it could not be believed that the respondent would have taken the prosecutrix to the room on the first floor and committed sexual intercourse. This argument was also brushed aside by the trial court pointing out that, in her cross- examination, the prosecutrix has stated that the incident had taken place in the morning hours, around 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Female members of the family returned back to the house after one hour of the incident. Submit