As per case facts, a nine-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a neighbor's son, which she reported to her parents, leading to an FIR and medical examination. The trial court ... convicted the accused based on the victim's testimony and corroborating evidence. However, the High Court reversed this, acquitting the accused due to perceived major contradictions in witness accounts, improbable travel distances, animosity between families, and delayed reporting, concluding that medical evidence alone was insufficient given these inconsistencies. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in acquitting by focusing on minor discrepancies and improbabilities, despite the victim's consistent and unchallenged testimony and corroborating medical evidence. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in "picking holes" in the case. The Court emphasized that the victim's positive identification and unequivocal statement of sexual assault were not credibly questioned, and medical evidence corroborated her account. It clarified that minor inconsistencies from memory lapses should not undermine credible testimony, especially when the core narrative is intact. The Supreme Court ruled that the victim's testimony alone, if confident, is sufficient for conviction and that animosity should not override justice. Thus, the High Court's acquittal was set aside.