5. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, on the other hand, submits that the allegation made by the applicant is serious and the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order had held that the mental condition of the victim girl became worse during trial and her evidence could not be recorded by the learned Trial Court. This was also reflected in para 26 of the impugned judgment and order. He also submits that as per the medical examination undergone by the victim girl before PW7, i.e., the Medical Officer, the same showed that there was old tears in the hymen of the victim girl. He further submits that cross-examination of PW7, i.e., the Medical Officer, is to the effect that the mother of the victim girl had narrated to her that the occurrence of the illegal act of the applicant occurred about 10 months back. Further, the mother informed PW7 that the victim girl had been behaving in a restless and irritable way. Further, the mother of the victim girl stated that she did not know as to when the victim girl started behaving in a restless way and when her mental condition was retarded. He submits that as the victim girl had given her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., implicating the applicant, which was exhibited by the Magistrate who had recorded the said statement, in the learned Trial Court, there is no infirmity with the conviction of the applicant on the basis of the 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
