Accused Mahender Singh was arrested by the Kalyanpuri police after a statement was registered by the girl's father Chhaju Ram. The tailor lives with his mute wife Chandra and daughter Beena (name changed to protect identity) in Trilokpuri.

The incident dates back to the evening of May 30, 1997. Beena was playing outside her house when Singh, a neighbour, took her to his house, raped her and then left her lying in a nearby gali. Beena told her mother about the incident the same day, but Chandra was unable to convey the same to her husband.

When Beena complained of acute pain and bleeding the next day, a distressed Chandra somehow managed to communicate thorough signs and explain to her husband that their daughter had been raped. A complaint was filed with the police, Singh was arrested and taken for a medical examination. Moreover, Beena was also taken by a lady constable for an examination.

The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, the main witness being Beena. She identified Singh in court and through gestures and a few words haltingly explained how she had been violated. To verify her statements, the defence counsel showed her a picture of a naked man, which is on the reverse of any Medico-Legal Certificate, and she correctly identified the penis.

In her deposition, the doctor who examined Beena said the child's hymen was intact although there was a redness in and around her vagina. This, the defence said, pointed out to the fact that the girl was not raped, as the redness could be due to an infection.

Arguing that the medical examination did not support Beena's statement and that there were contradictions between the medical evidence and the parents' statements, the defence counsel further said that the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt.

The prosecution maintained that the case solely depends on the child's statement. Even if her hymen is intact ``it is a clear cut case of rape,'' said the public prosecutor.

The judge said while there were contradictions, they did not affect the case. ``Such contradictions are bound to creep in with the passage of time ... two persons on being asked to reproduce a particular incident which they have witnessed with their own eyes would be unable to do so in like manner.''

Also, under the provisions of the Evidence Act, the girl's statement does not require corroboration. ``... if the statement of the prosecutrix is quite clear and unequivocal on the point as to who has ravished her, there is no reasons, whatsoever as to why the said statement, without any corroboration from any quarter, whatsoever, cannot form the basis of conviction,'' said the judge.

Singh was convicted under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code.