As per case facts, PW-1 filed an FIR stating that the appellant raped her 17-year-old daughter and threatened her. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under sections 376/506 (Part II) ... IPC. The appellant appealed to the High Court, citing a significant delay in filing the FIR, inconsistencies in the survivor's statements, failure to establish the survivor's age, absence of an FSL report, and the non-examination of a key witness. The question arose whether the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt, considering the alleged flaws, and if the conviction could be upheld based primarily on the survivor's testimony. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that delays in FIRs for sexual offenses are not always critical, minor discrepancies do not undermine reliable prosecution evidence, and a conviction can stand solely on credible survivor testimony. The court found the survivor's account consistent and valid, noting that medical evidence, though delayed, did not contradict her. The court stressed that a hyper-technical scrutiny of evidence from rustic witnesses is inappropriate and the appellant did not establish consent.