As per case facts, the victim's mother found the appellant on top of her minor daughter, who is physically and mentally weak and mute, doing "wrong things." The incident occurred ... in the evening while the mother was cleaning utensils. The appellant ran away when confronted. The victim's father was informed, and they later lodged an oral report after initial threats from the appellant and his family. Medical examinations confirmed injuries and hymen rupture, and FSL reported semen stains and human sperm. The appellant was convicted for offence under Section 376(2)(i)(j)(l) of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twenty years. The appellant appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial court's judgment was contrary to law, relied on unreliable testimony, and that prosecution witnesses did not support the case. The question arose whether the trial court rightly determined the victim was a minor and whether the appellant committed rape. Finally, the High Court, considering the victim's mother's statement, medical reports, FSL report, victim's age (under twelve years), and her speech and hearing impairment, upheld the trial court's conviction, finding no illegality or irregularity, and concluded that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The criminal appeal was dismissed.