―...15. Having heard the rival submissions of parties and after perusal of record, it is clear from the statement of the victim and other witnesses u/s 161 & 164 of CrPC including the alleged history given at the time of medical examination that 5-6 months prior to the registration of present FIR, when the victim was sleeping at her house, accused "MDN" who happens to be her father touched her perineum and breast inappropriately. Further, accused "DS" who happens to be the cousin brother of the victim after swinging the victim in his lap had touched her breast and inserted his finger in her vagina and this wrong act was being committed repeatedly about two years prior to the present case. Furthermore, around 4-5 months ag, when the victim was alone in her house, accused "MDN showed her obscene videos and she informed about all the said incident to her mother accused who did not bother to inform about the incident to the police. By the aforesaid acts, accused "MDN had outraged the modesty of the victim, had physical contact with the victim and sexually harassed her by making advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and also sexually assaulted the victim by touching her breast and vagina. It is also clear that the accused "DS" had committed repeated penetrative sexual assault/ rape upon the victim. The accused despite having knowledge of the said acts, had not approached any competent authority. Thus, the arguments that to offence is made out has no leg to stand at this stage of prima facie case. Further, with due respect, the case laws relied upon on behalf of the accused have no application to the facts of the present case as in the present case, one and incident is stated to have happened in front of the accused even that event was not reported. Further, there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the victim and the defence raised by the accused is a matter of trial and the case laws relied upon on behalf of the accused have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case as those are related to the cases after full fledged trial while the present case is at the stage of framing of charge. Further, the defence of the accused "MDN that he is not mentally fit is also a matter of trial. Otherwise also the accused will have full opportunity to rebutt the veracity of the facts after full fledged trial.
