implicate the appellant, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence as no victim would come forward to make a self humiliating statement in a casual manner. In this case on hand victim is a sterling witness as she is consistent through out and has withstood the test of cross-examination and therefore, there is no need for corroboration of her testimony. Even the medical report does not negate the claim of the victim. Learned APP further submitted that PW-12 (I.O) has also supported the story of prosecution and he has specifically pointed out the place of occurrence. The I.O. has supported the version of FIR that appellant was apprehended by the villagers as he committed rape upon the victim and condition of the victim was not well and she was taken to hospital by her parents. In this way, the version of PW-12 is quite consistent with the story of prosecution. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that PW-1, PW-6, PW-9, PW-10 and PW11 have stated that age of the victim is 10-11 years and even in radiological findings of the doctor, age of the victim has been assessed as 10-11 year. In this way, as per statutory requirement, prosecution has already proved that victim was below 18 year at the time of occurrence and there is no dispute regarding the determination of age of the victim by the defence and even no suggestion was made on the said point. Learned APP further
