Appearing on the evidence of section 10 (3) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), section 7 (c) adultery Bill, the affected girl at the age of three pointed the accused in the trial court and What he did with his version was to confirm that the infected woman was confirmed by medical evidence, Victim was not inspected at all and no objection was raised to the defense despite the opportunity for defense. , Which is similar to the passage of his statement that the victim is the only testimony of a natural, reliable person. Satisfying and trustworthy enough to warrant a conviction, although there were no eyewitnesses to the incident, they provided details of the facts cited by the two witnesses, and depended on them. The cross did not occur during the examination. The statements not only confirmed each other, but were also supported by medical evidence and the Chemical Examiner's report, which found that the vaginal discharge stitches were found by the complainant in the FIR. He was not immediately named, but he did so after learning about it, which shows the complainant's honesty that the accused had failed to prove his meaning in the accused's case. Brutally committing an abusive crime against a three-year-old girl who not only hurt her, surprised her, but also left a scar on the family and the accused was not entitled to any kind of relaxation.
