person, who committed the offence on her and when the trial Court pressurized the victim child (P.W.3) by way of putting leading question to her to identity fit he appellant, the victim child identified the appellant only on the instructions of the trial court. It is to be noted that on a careful reading of the statement of the victim child, which was recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., the victim child had clearly narrated the entire occurrence and in the statement it is stated by the victim child that when she was sleeping, the appellant trespassed into the house and when she attempted to shout, the accused threatened her that he would kill her and gagged her with cloth and removed his pant and also removed her panty and inserted his private part into her private part, when she cried out of pain, the brothers, who were playing into the outside of the house, unlocked the door and rescued the victim child and attacked the victim. During the evidence also, victim child has narrated the entire occurrence. It is to be further noted that at the time of occurrence, the victim child was aged about only 7 years and she was examined only after two years and further, the victim child has clearly stated during her evidence that when she was sleeping, the accused trespassed into the house and committed the offence and therefore, mere non-identifying the appellant on the first time through video, during trial is not a fatal to the case of the prosecution, and however, when the accused was shown to her for the second time, he observed him keenly and told that he was the person who came to the house on the date of occurrence. Further, the evidence of the victim child was also corroborated by the P.W.4 and P.W.6 who are eyewitnesses to the occurrence and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel in this aspect is also rejected.
