A perusal of the evidence would bring to the forefront that the victim girl at the time of the incident was a minor and the age of the victim girl as projected was not disputed by the appellant, herein. The evidence of PW-2 the victim girl is direct and she had deposed about commission of the offence upon her by the appellant, herein. It is also brought to the forefront that the appellant was known to her and she used to address the appellant as “Bordeuta” (uncle). Her deposition also brings to the forefront that the appellant, herein, upon taking her to the Girls High School had removed her pant. The said evidence of the victim girl was not dislodged by the appellant even after detailed cross-examination. The fact that the appellant had taken away the girl away is also apparent from the evidence of the PW-3 who is the aunt of the victim girl, who had met the victim girl while she was being taken away during the date of occurrence of the incident by the appellant, herein. The medical evidence also highlights that the vulva of the victim girl was slightly separated posteriorsly in lithotomy position. Accordingly, the fact of the victim girl being taken away by the accused on the date of occurrence of the incident is established beyond reasonable doubt. Further the evidence of the victim girl brings to the forefront that she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellant, herein.
