The Delhi High Court held that a child victim of sexual assault cannot be expected to describe the incident using precise legal or anatomical terminology. In State v. Munna Kumar, the case involved a young child who had alleged sexual assault. The Trial Court had acquitted the accused of rape while convicting him for a lesser offence, partly relying upon the absence of specific terminology describing penetration. The High Court held that testimony of a child must be assessed in the context of the child's age, understanding and circumstances of the incident. A young child cannot reasonably be expected to understand or reproduce technical legal concepts. The Court also considered the medical and forensic material available on record and held that evidence should be examined cumulatively rather than by isolating individual statements. The Court emphasised that investigation deficiencies do not automatically destroy otherwise reliable evidence. It consequently interfered with the finding concerning the more serious offence. The judgment is significant for appreciation of child testimony, medical corroboration, evidentiary standards and cases involving sexual offences against children.