HELD: 1. Apart from some minor and trivial discrepancies with regard to the period of stomach ache or about the medicine taken from the local doctor/chemist, insofar as material particulars of the incident are concerned, version of prosecutrix and her mother is in sync with each other. As per the prosecutrix, she B was called by the respondent to his room, which is on the first floor of the house. Unmindful of what could be the motive of an uncle to call her, she obliged as a dutiful child. Her mental faculties had not developed fully; she was in the age of innocence; unaware of the dreadful consequences. Further, at the time when she was c being sexually assaulted, her mouth was gagged so that she was not able to scream and after the incident she was threatened not to disclose this incident to anybody. In fact, she kept mum out of this fear. It is quite understandable that a nine year old child, after undergoing traumatic experience and inflicted with threats, would be frozen with fear and she could not find voice to speak D against her uncle. Incident came to light and tragedy struck on the prosecutrix only when her mother noticed that she was continuously suffering from stomach ache and was, therefore, taken to a Gynecologist for her treatment. But for the above, matter may not have come to light. It is only after she was E medically examined by Gynecologist (PW-8), and formed the opinion that the prosecutrix had been sexually assaulted forcibly about 2-3 years ago, since her hymen was rnptured and her external and internal sphincters were also torn, that PW-1 queried the prosecutrix and she revealed the incident, hitherto hidden by her from the entire world out of fear, not only as a result of the F threats extended by the respondent but for varied other reasons. The reluctance on the part of the prosecutrix in not narrating the incident to anybody for a period of three years and not sharing the same event with her mother, is clearly understandable. Notwithstanding the fact that the trial court accepted the G explanation for delay as satisfactory by giving detailed reasons, the High Court was swayed by this delay in reporting the matter with omnibus statement that it is not satisfactorily explained without even an iota of discussion on the explanation that was offered by the prosecution in the form of testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. [Paras 22, 23, 24, 27) (250-G-H; 251-B-G; 252-H; 253H A-B)
