As per case facts, a minor victim was allegedly raped by the appellant in her maternal grandparents' house. Her maternal aunt lodged an FIR following the victim's phone call about ... the incident. A charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under the POCSO Act, leading to his conviction and sentencing by the Special Judge. The appellant appealed this judgment, arguing that medical evidence did not support the charges and that the victim's age determination was inconsistent. The question arose whether the medical opinion's ambiguity and age discrepancies undermined the prosecution's case, and if the victim's testimony alone was sufficient for conviction. Finally, the court found the victim's testimony cogent, consistent, and trustworthy, corroborated by other witnesses, despite ambiguous medical evidence that did not rule out the offense. The court upheld the use of the birth certificate for age determination, confirming the victim was a minor. Dismissing the false implication defense, the court upheld and confirmed the conviction for the heinous crime.