10 . We have considered submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae, learned A.P.P., gone through the entire material evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment. The prosecution had adduced nine witnesses in support of their case of which material witnesses Nos.2, 5 and 9, the Doctor are the prime witnesses whose testimony taken together along with the deposition of P.W.1 (mother) would be sufficient to test whether the prosecution case has been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt against the sole accused/appellant. We find from the testimony of P.W.1 (mother) also read in conjunction with the statement of P.W.2 (father and informant) that the occurrence was reported by the girl (P.W.5) immediately on her return from the field where she had gone to graze cattle. She had specifically named this accused as having committed rape upon her. The matter was discussed between spouses i.e. P.W.1 (mother) and P.W.2 (father), but since it was late in the evening, it could not be reported to the Village Munda. On next morning, they approached the Village Munda who advised them to go to the Police Station and institute a case. As such, there was no deliberate delay on the part of the informant in reporting the incidence. Minor delay, if any, has been well-explained. We also find that the girl was sent for medical examination after institution of the F.I.R. She was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the Acting Deputy Superintendent which comprises of three doctors, Dr. Sukhmati Banra, Dr. Neeru Jha (P.W.9) and Dr. B. K. Sahni on 4th February, 2009 at 12.15 hours. During the course of her medical examination, the Medical Board found the following features of her physical appearance/ growth apart from the injuries on her private parts. The medical report which has been proved by the Doctor (P.W.9) and marked as Exhibit-6, is as under :-
