JUDGMENT A.H. Joshi, J.— This is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted of offence under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the victim who is the daughter of accused, was reaped on 24-7-2001 in their own house at about 5.00 pm and the matter was reported by the victim to her mother who is examined as PW 2. The entire case depends on oral evidence of victim Sandhya and the medical evidence, viz., the medical certificate and the oral evidence of Dr. Nidhi Bhansali who had examined the prosecutrix. The prosecution has tried to improve its case in the midst of the trial by suggesting that there were previous instances of similar occasions of rape. Barring the suggestion, there is no other material to corelate such instance. 3. The prosecutrix Sandhya in very clear terms stated in her deposition that the accused forcibly made her to lay on mat; removed her nicker; committed act of rape and even gave her forcible strokes in the course of commission of offence. She also deposed that this resulted in pain. Soon after the incident, in her own version, the vagina portion was wet which she cleaned by frock which she was wearing. In the examination-in-chief, she has further stated that soon after the incident, she continued to sit in the house weeping and reported about the incident to her mother on her return to home. In the cross-examination, how-ever, the prosecutrix stated that soon after the incident, she went outside the house for riding bicycle which was hired. It is pertinent to note that before exami-ning the prosecutrix who was claimed by the prosecution to be of 11 years of age on the date of examination before the Court, understood the sanctity of oath and thereupon only the oral evidence had been recorded. 4. Pramila, mother of prosecutrix who was examined as PW 2, on the other hand, deposed that she returned home at about 8.00 pm and thereafter the prosecutrix reported to her the incident of rape. The matter then went to police and prosecutrix was examined by Medical Officer Dr. 4. Pramila, mother of prosecutrix who was examined as PW 2, on the other hand, deposed that she returned home at about 8.00 pm and thereafter the prosecutrix reported to her the incident of rape. The matter then went to police and prosecutrix was examined by Medical Officer Dr. Nidhi Bhansali (PW 3 ) at 1.30 in the night. The medical report and the oral evidence of Dr. Nidhi Bhansali clearly reveal that there was no fresh sign of hymen tear and there was no bleeding. In no unambiguous term, the doctor has deposed that no definite opinion about the rape can be given and the girl was found habitual to sexual intercourse. The doctor has stated that there was no bleeding and the vagina of PW 1 Sandhya could normally have admitted small but could admit index finger. The medical report shows that there were local injuries over vulva and thigh. Chemical Analyser’s Report in this background reveals in very clear terms that frock which was seized and sent for analysis vide Article 11, did not reveal blood or semen thereon. 5. The prosecution has examined second wife of accused, viz. Nanda, but it could not be made out as to for what exact purpose this evidence was adduced before the Court. If the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is perused, he has stated in answer to the last question that he has been involved in this case falsely as he had caught Pramila (his wife - PW 2) red-handed with other person and, therefore, on the teaching of her mother i.e. Pramila, the prosecutrix Sandhya has deposed before the Court falsely. 6. Looking to the emphasis that the prosecutrix has come with an effort to prove the act of rape, it becomes very difficult to reconcile the same with the medical evidence. The learned Trial Judge has placed reliance on the said evidence and found that the defence was not able to shatter the evidence and tried to satisfy himself observing that the injuries caused due to rape, could have healed in eight hours of time before the medical examination was conducted. The observation of the learned Trial Judge, viz.— “In the instant case, the incident took place on 24-7-2001 between 5.00 to 6.00 pm and Medical Officer Dr. Mrs. Nidhi Bhansali examined the victim Kum. The observation of the learned Trial Judge, viz.— “In the instant case, the incident took place on 24-7-2001 between 5.00 to 6.00 pm and Medical Officer Dr. Mrs. Nidhi Bhansali examined the victim Kum. Sandhya on 25-7-2001 at about 1.15 a.m. after about 8 hours. Therefore, the minor degrees of injuries on the person of the victim and swelling and tenderness may disappear rapidly in few hours when there is no such resis-tance from the victim at the time of rape by her father.” is not based on either medical authority of actual evidence in that behalf. The observation that there was no resistance from the prosecutrix is also based on no evidence to that effect. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that if an offence of rape or attempt to commit rape on a minor daughter by her father is established, it is certainly an heinous act and it attracts not only conviction, but as severe sentence as the learned Trial Judge has awarded. 7. However, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, where the evidence of prosecutrix and medical evidence can-not be reconciled, the fact of commission of rape cannot be said to have been proved. In this background and due to the reasons recorded by me hereinabove, the appellant has made out a case for appeal being allowed. 8. Appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered by the Ist Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 193 of 2001 vide judgment dated 21-8-2002 is hereby set aside. Accused/appellant is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged and consequently, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.