JUDGMENT - BATTA R.K., J.:---The appellant was tried for rape of his own daughter under section 376 of Indian Penal Code. In addition to that he was also tried for threatening to kill her if she disclosed the same to any one and was charged under section 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 2.The prosecution had in all examined 11 witnesses in support of the charge. The trial Court after scrutinising the evidence led by the prosecution accepted the prosecution case and found the appellant guilty for the offences under sections 376 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for one year. He was also convicted under section 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant was in custody in connection with the said case from 16-10-1997 and the same was set off in terms of section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal. 3.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant along with the prosecutrix P.W. 2 Kusum and others had gone to work in the field of Pralhad Tikar Patil. At about 5 p.m. others who were working went away from the field and the appellant asked the prosecutrix to collect wood from nullah. When she went to collect fuel sticks from the nullah, the appellant caught hold of her hair, fell her down, uplifted her saree and committed sexual intercourse with her. The appellant threatened her not to disclose the incident to any one, otherwise he would kill her. She returned back to the house along with the appellant at about 6 p.m. The appellant went for taking drinks and after taking meals again went away. The prosecutrix did not reveal the incident in the presence of the appellant on account of fear and after he went she related the incident to her mother. Her mother called a number of persons before whom also the prosecutrix narrated the incident. The prosecutrix did not reveal the incident in the presence of the appellant on account of fear and after he went she related the incident to her mother. Her mother called a number of persons before whom also the prosecutrix narrated the incident. The complaint was lodged with the police, the prosecutrix was medically examined, the clothes on her person as also the paijama which the appellant was wearing at the time of the incident were attached. They were sent to chemical analyser, who found that the petticoat was stained with blood and also semen stains ranging from 2 to 3 cms. in diameter located in the middle portion, the paijama of the appellant was also found to be stained with blood on one leg middle portion as also it had one semen stain of about 3 cm. in diameter located in the middle portion. The appellant stated that he was falsely implicated on account of inimical relations with his wife and on account of the fact that the brother of his wife is Superintendent of Police. 4.Learned Advocate Shri R.M. Daga argued before me that the appellant was not medically examined; that in so far as rape on prosecutrix is concerned, the Medical Officer has not given any definite opinion and according to the Medical Officer, the redness on vagina could be due to infection and chronic inflammation. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of his strained, relations with his wife and her brothers on account of property matters. It was also suggested to the prosecutrix that she was having illicit relations with one Ashok More and since the appellant was objecting to the same, he has been falsely implicated. The learned Advocate for the appellant, therefore, submits that the evidence on record cannot be believed in the circumstances and the appellant be acquitted. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged before me that the prosecutrix has in clear terms stated that the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with her and had even threatened to kill her if she disclosed the same to any one; that even previously also the appellant had raped the prosecutrix but the matter was not reported. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged before me that the prosecutrix has in clear terms stated that the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with her and had even threatened to kill her if she disclosed the same to any one; that even previously also the appellant had raped the prosecutrix but the matter was not reported. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also states that the appellant was also tried for rape of another girl but that matter was compromised and the same ended in acquittal. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no reason whatsoever to discard the evidence of the prosecutrix which gets corroboration from her conduct after the incident as also the presence of semen stains on her petticoat. It is also pointed out that semen stains were also found on the paijama of the appellant. The evidence on record, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, proves the offence against the appellant beyond any iota of doubt and as such, no interference is called for. 6.The prosecutrix P.W. 2 Kusum is the daughter of the appellant. At the time of her deposition, she was 25 years old which means that at the time of the incident which took place on 14-10-1997 she may be around 24 years of age. She has stated that she had gone along with the appellant and others for work in the field of Pralhad Tikar Patil. The others, namely, Sahadeo More and Vasant Kalne went to their house at about 5 p.m. The appellant asked the prosecutrix to collect wood from the nullah and when she went to collect fuel sticks in the nullah, the appellant caught hold of her hair, fell her down, lifted her saree and committed sexual intercourse with her. She has also stated that the appellant threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone and in case she disclosed the same to anyone, he would kill her. The prosecutrix and the appellant returned home at about 6 p.m. and according to the prosecutrix, on account of fear of the appellant she did not immediately disclose the incident to her mother but when the father after having drinks and meals went out of the house to the field once again, she narrated the entire incident to her mother as also to the others, who were called there by her mother. She has stated that her saree, petticoat and blouse were seized by the police. She also stated that about 5 years prior to this incident the appellant had earlier also committed rape on her in the field but at that time the matter was not reported. However, on account of the said incident, she tried to burn herself by pouring kerosene on her person. She also states that the appellant was prosecuted for the offence of rape of another girl but the matter was compromised and the appellant was acquitted. She admitted in cross-examination that her maternal uncle is officer at a higher rank in the police department and that the relations of the accused/appellant with his mother and maternal uncle are not cordial. It was suggested to her that the appellant came back to the field at about 5.45 p.m. and then took away the bullock-cart. The presence of the appellant in the field at the time of the incident is not disputed. This witness was cross-examined at length but she could not be shaken on material particulars. 7.The evidence of the prosecutrix gets corroboration from her conduct as also the other circumstances on record including the presence of semen on her petticoat as also the presence of semen on the paijama of the appellant which were attached by the police. The mother of the prosecutrix has been examined as P.W. 1 who has stated that she returned from the work at about 5 p.m. and at about 6 p.m. her daughter prosecutrix came as also the appellant. She has further stated that her husband took meals and went to the field again. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 1 has stated that when her daughter came from the field at about 6 p.m. she was weeping. She told her that there should not be quarrel in the presence of the accused and, therefore, she declined to disclose anything at that time. However, when her husband-the appellant went to the field the prosecutrix told her that the accused had taken her away beneath a Neem tree in the field of Pralhad Tikar and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent. The mother of the prosecutrix called a number of persons to whom also the prosecutrix narrated the incident. The said persons are P.W. 6 Abhimanyu, P.W. 7 Vasant. The mother of the prosecutrix called a number of persons to whom also the prosecutrix narrated the incident. The said persons are P.W. 6 Abhimanyu, P.W. 7 Vasant. I shall refer to the evidence of the said witnesses at a later stage. Continuing with the evidence of P.W. 1 Yamunabai she has stated that 5 years prior to this incident the appellant had also committed rape on the prosecutrix but the matter was not reported to the police and on account of the said incident the prosecutrix had set herself on fire. She also states that the appellant was prosecuted for rape of another girl but the said matter was compromised. She fairly admitted furing cross-examination that the appellant used to quarrel with her and one of her brothers is Superintendent of Police. According to her, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident at about 10 p.m. after the appellant had left at about 9 p.m. There are a few omissions in her statement but that does not affect the value of her statement. She has also stated that the appellant was prosecuted on her complaint for offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and that matter had also been compromised by her. P.W. 1 Yamunabai substantially corroborates and lends support to the version given by the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix at the earliest occasion disclosed the incident to her mother and prior to that she did not do so on account of the fear of the appellant who had told her that he would kill her in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. 8.The prosecution case gets further corroboration from the statement of Sahadeo P.W. 5 who has stated that he along with the appellant, prosecutrix and others had gone to work in the field of Pralhad Tikar patil. He stated that he left at about 4.30 p.m. and at that time the appellant and his daughter were in the field. They stayed back because the appellant told her to collect fuel sticks. Though this witness is related to the prosecutrix, yet there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence on that count alone. The evidence of this witness, therefore, corroborates the version of the prosecutrix that the appellant had told her to collect fuel sticks on account of which she had gone into the nullah and the appellant followed her and thereafter committed rape on her. The evidence of this witness, therefore, corroborates the version of the prosecutrix that the appellant had told her to collect fuel sticks on account of which she had gone into the nullah and the appellant followed her and thereafter committed rape on her. 9.The prosecution had examined P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 who were called by P.W. 1 Yamunabai and in whose presence the prosecutrix related the incident. This conduct of the prosecutrix after the incident is relevant. P.W. 7 also speaks of rape by the appellant on his cousin sister in respect of which the appellant is reported to have been acquitted. 10.The prosecutrix was examined by Medical Officer Dr. Rashmi P.W. 8 who did not find any marks of violence. She found that the hymen was absent and there was slight redness on vagina. According to her, the prosecutrix was accustomed to sexual intercourse on account of which no definite opinion could be given about rape. She stated that redness on vagina could be due to infection and chronic inflammation but that is a mere possibility which cannot be given much credence in the light of the evidence on record. Slight redness on the vagina of the prosecutrix is a factor which strengthens her evidence. 11.The Investigating Officer had attached the clothes which the prosecutrix was wearing at the time of the incident as also the paijama of the appellant. In this respect, the prosecution had examined panch P.W. 4 who has stated that he seized one blouse, parkar and saree of the prosecutrix as also the paijama of the appellant. He has identified the clothes of the prosecutrix and he has also stated that he had seen the prosecutrix wearing saree article 1 even prior to the incident. These clothes were sent to the chemical analyser. The chemical analyser found that the petticoat was stained with blood in the middle portion and appeared to be washed and that the said petticoat had few semen stains ranging from 2 to 3 cms. in diameter located in the middle portion. He also found that the paijama (Exhibit 5) had few blood stains on the leg middle portion and one semen stain of about 3 cm. in diameter located in the middle portion. According to the chemical analyser, the blood and semen detected on the petticoat and paijama was human. in diameter located in the middle portion. He also found that the paijama (Exhibit 5) had few blood stains on the leg middle portion and one semen stain of about 3 cm. in diameter located in the middle portion. According to the chemical analyser, the blood and semen detected on the petticoat and paijama was human. These are mute circumstances of the incident which speaks for themselves. 12.In the light of the above evidence on record, I do not find any reason whatsoever to disbelieve the statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has accused her own father-the appellant and this is a case where the protector has himself violated his own daughter. The evidence on record is thus sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant in respect of both the offences and the trial Court by elaborate judgment after considering all material aspects found the appellant guilty of both the charges. 13.For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is hereby rejected. Appeal rejected. -----