previous statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. No ulterior motive was assigned to the prosecutrix ‘X’ who gathered courage to report the matter to the police and deposed against her own father. In her statement (Ex.PW-1/1) given to the police at first instance, the appellant was specifically named for the crime. She gave detailed account as to how and under what circumstances she was ravished by her father on various dates after putting her in fear and under threat. When her mother inquired from her as to why she used to remain in fear, she divulged the whole incident to her. In 164 Cr.P.C. statement, she reiterated her version and implicated the appellant for sexual assault. In her statement before court as PW-1, she proved the version given to the police without any variation. Her statement remained unchallenged and uncontroverted in the cross-examination. No suggestion was put to her if the appellant had not indulged in any such sexual activity. No suggestion was put to her if he was falsely implicated due to a quarrel with his wife over coming late in the house. The child witness had no extraneous consideration to rope in her own father. Her testimony inspires implicit confidence and there are no sound reasons to disbelieve her in the absence of any material discrepancies. PW-2 (Smt.Durga Wati), her mother, has also corroborated her version on material aspects. When she inquired from ‘X’ as to why Crl.A.180/2010 Page 3 of 5
