As per case facts, the victim's father reported sexual assault by their neighbor, Mohd. Hussain, after witnessing an incident. The minor victim also disclosed repeated assaults and receiving money from ... the accused. An FIR was subsequently lodged. The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, arguing insufficient evidence, medical findings (intact hymen, no injuries) contradicting the prosecution, inconsistencies in the victim's statement, an improbable place of occurrence, and prior animosity. The question arose whether the victim was a minor and if the accused's guilt for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, the High Court affirmed the victim's minor age and upheld the conviction. It found the victim's testimony consistent, credible, and corroborated by her father and forensic evidence (semen and sperm on garments), noting that minimal penetration suffices for penetrative sexual assault despite an intact hymen. The court, however, converted the life imprisonment to 20 years rigorous imprisonment, deeming the former too harsh.