As per case facts, the appellant-prosecutrix, a 14-year-old agricultural labourer, was gang-raped by the accused. The Trial Court convicted the accused for rape, but the High Court acquitted them, citing ... the prosecutrix as an unreliable witness whose statement lacked medical corroboration. Consequently, the State Government and the prosecutrix filed appeals. The question arose whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused by deeming the prosecutrix an unreliable witness and whether her testimony was sufficiently corroborated by medical and witness evidence. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the prosecutrix was a reliable witness, corroborated by medical evidence and an independent witness. The court dismissed concerns about lack of back injuries, explaining the environmental conditions. It clarified that minor discrepancies or omissions in her statements were not contradictions, especially when not cross-examined. The medical findings of a ruptured, bleeding, tender hymen were conclusive proof of rape, irrespective of finger admission. Breast injuries also indicated force. The absence of spermatozoa does not necessarily negate rape. Given her minor age, the lack of resistance marks on the accused was not a valid reason for acquittal. The High Court's judgment was reversed, and the Trial Court's conviction restored.