JUDGMENT : B.K. Patel, J. - The Respondent having been acquitted of the charge under Sections 376(2)(f) read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code by the impugned Judgment and order dated 30.1.1999 passed in S.C. No. 27/98 (S.C. No. 204/98-GDC) by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, the State has preferred this appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the victim girl P.W.4, aged about 7 years, is the daughter of P.Ws. 2 and 3. The alleged occurrence took place on 11.12.1997. In the F.I.R. Ext.3 lodged by the victim's father P.W.2 on 12.12.1997, it was alleged that when the victim had gone to watch vegetable plants in the field at about 1 P.M. the Respondent subjected her to sexual intercourse by gagging her mouth. As a result, there was profuse bleeding from the victim's genital and she became unconscious. As the victim did not return home till evening the victim's mother P.W.3 went to the spot. Having found the victim lying unconscious P.W.4 sprinkled water on her face and removed the cloth with which her mouth had been gagged and thereafter brought the victim home. P.W.2 returned home at about 6.30 P.M. and was told about the occurrence upon which he went to the Respondent's father and reported about the matter. Respondent's father did not pay any heed to his complaint. Under such circumstances, he lodged the F.I.R. Ext.3 before D.W.1, the I.I.C. of Bhanjanagar Police Station who registered the case for commission of offences u/s 376(2)(f) of I.P.C. and entrusted the investigation to P.W.8 A.S.I, of Police. In course of investigation, witnesses were examined, seizures were effected and the victim as well as the Respondent were medically examined by doctors P.Ws. 9 and 10 respectively. D.W. 1 took over charge of investigation from P.W.8 and, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the Respondent for commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(f) read with 511 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the Respondent faced trial. 3. Defence took a plea of denial. The Respondent in his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure stated that as the victim's mother P.W.3 is a woman of bad character she was expelled from the village. In order to avenge expulsion of P.W.3 from the village; the case has been instituted on false allegations. 4. 3. Defence took a plea of denial. The Respondent in his statement recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure stated that as the victim's mother P.W.3 is a woman of bad character she was expelled from the village. In order to avenge expulsion of P.W.3 from the village; the case has been instituted on false allegations. 4. In order to substantiate the charge the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all apart from relying upon the documents marked Exts.1 to 11 and material exhibited M.Os. I and II. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 have already been introduced in course of the narration of prosecution case. P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 deposed regarding appraisal by victim's parents of the incident to the Respondent's father. P.W.1 testified also regarding seizure of the wearing apparels of the victim. P.W.7 is a Home Guard who accompanied the victim to hospital-D.W.1 was the only witness examined on behalf of the defence. Defence also, relied upon Ext.A the charge-sheet. Learned trial Court having found evidence of the victim girl as well as her parents to be inconsistent and contradictory and having observed that the allegation of rape is ruled out by the medical evidence available from P.W.9 as well as chemical examination report of the seized articles, held that the case has been concocted by P.Ws. 2 and 3 in order to avenge expulsion of P.W.3 from the village. 5. In assailing the impugned Judgment, it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix can form the basis of conviction in a' case of rape. In the present case the minor victim has categorically alleged to have been raped by the Respondent. Her testimony was corroborated by her parents P.Ws. 2 and 3. In such circumstances, learned Court below should have ignored minor contradictions appearing in their evidence and should have convicted the Respondent of the charge even in absence of any medical corroboration. In defending the impugned Judgment, it is argued on behalf of the Respondent that in order to sustain conviction in a case of rape the solitary testimony of the victim has to be reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, P.W.4's allegation to have been raped by the Respondent, who was aged about 24 years during the period of occurrence, was totally ruled out by the medical evidence. Also P.Ws. In the present case, P.W.4's allegation to have been raped by the Respondent, who was aged about 24 years during the period of occurrence, was totally ruled out by the medical evidence. Also P.Ws. 2 and 3 not only contradict P.W.4 as well as themselves but also F.I.R. version was given a gobye in course of trial. In such circumstances, the Respondent is entitled to be acquitted and there is no scope to interfere with the impugned Judgment. 6. Having closely scrutinized the evidence on record it is pertinent to point out at the outset that the allegations in the case related initially to commission of rape of a minor girl aged about 7 years. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offence of attempt to rape. Obviously the investigation revealed that the allegation of rape was not made out from the materials on record. P.W.9, the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Specialist in S.D. Hospital, Bhanjanagar, medically examined the victim on 12.12.1997 at 4.50 P.M. She categorically testified that the victim was not capable of sexual intercourse. There was no external injury on the victim's forearm, breasts, chest, lower abdomen, inner aspects of thighs and back. Her hymen was intact and did not admit tip of the little finger also. Valva was also intact. Vaginal examination was not possible as the hymen was intact. Examination of vaginal swab did not show presence of spermatozoa. In her cross-examination P.W.9 further clarified that the victim's labia majora was not swollen and hymen, posterior commissure and perineum were intact. She admitted to the suggestion that in case of commission of rape and/or attempt to commit rape on a 7 years old girl, there must be redness, swelling and inflammation of external genital. She also deposed that she did not find any bleeding from her genital. Chemical examination report Ext.12 received from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Berhampur reveals that semen stains were not found either in the wearing apparels of the victim and the Respondent or in the vaginal swab of the victim. Therefore, in the absence of medical corroboration the evidence of the victim and her parents has to be assessed on the basis of the intrinsic worth and value of their testimonies. P.W.2 the informant deposed that upon return home on the date of occurrence in the evening he found the victim complaining of pain and crying. Therefore, in the absence of medical corroboration the evidence of the victim and her parents has to be assessed on the basis of the intrinsic worth and value of their testimonies. P.W.2 the informant deposed that upon return home on the date of occurrence in the evening he found the victim complaining of pain and crying. On his enquiry, P.Ws. 3 and 4 told him that the Respondent committed sexual intercourse with the victim in the field. He found that the victim's vagina was bleeding. P.W.2 also testified that the victim P.W.4 told that she was raped under a mango tree in the field. According to P.W.2, he along with P.W.3 took P.W.4 to the house of the Respondent and asked his father to bear the expenses for the victim's treatment but the Respondent's father did not listen to them. So he and his wife came to the Bhanjanagar Police station and lodged F.I.R. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that his wife P.W.3 had gone out and returned home in the evening on the date of occurrence. Upon her return, P.W.3 found the victim in the house. The version of P.W.2 in Court is materially different from his version in the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. it has been categorically alleged that in the evening only P.W.3 went in search of the victim to the field where she found her unconscious and bleeding, and that P.W.3 brought the victim home. Also in the F.I.R. P.W.2 did not allege that his wife P.W.3 also accompanied him to the house of the Respondent in order to apprise his father of the occurrence. In the F.I.R. it has been specifically mentioned in singular that P.W.2 alone went to the house of the Respondent. P.W.3 also testified that on her return home in the evening she found the victim lying and complaining of pain. On being asked the victim told that while she was watching vegetables in the field the Respondent came to her, made some chit chat and, thereafter, by making her naked and taking away her napkin, forcibly inserted his penis in her vagina. P.W.3 further stated that P.W.4 told her that after the incident she returned home. P.W.3 asserted to have verified and found bleeding in P.W.4's vagina and to have washed the same along with P.W.4's napkin. P.W.3 further stated that P.W.4 told her that after the incident she returned home. P.W.3 asserted to have verified and found bleeding in P.W.4's vagina and to have washed the same along with P.W.4's napkin. P.W.3 also testified that about one hour thereafter P.W.2 returned home and she narrated the occurrence to him as told by the victim. Victim also told regarding the occurrence before her father. According to P.W.3, on the next day morning they brought the victim to the house of the Respondent and asked his father to bear the expenses for treatment. It has been elicited in P.W.3's cross-examination that she has no vegetable garden. Thus, P.W.3's testimony is also not consistent with the contents of the F.I.R. which had been lodged by P.W.2 according to the P.W.3's version that she brought the victim back from the spot after finding her unconscious. Now, coming to the evidence of the victim P.W.4, it is found that she testified that the occurrence took place when she was watching vegetables in the field. Respondent took her near a mango tree. By removing her clothes, i.e. the napkin she was wearing, the Respondent made her naked and forcibly penetrated his penis in her vagina. P.W.4 testified that she sustained pain due to forcible penetration and also found bleeding from inside the vagina. P.W.4 deposed that after committing rape on her the Respondent left the place and, later on, she was brought to the house by P.W.3. Thus, P.W.4 contradicts P.W.2 as well as P.W.3 with regard to her return home. 7. Contradictions and inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 are irreconcilable. Lack of medical corroboration to the evidence of P.W.4 to have been subjected to rape in spite of specific assertion of P.Ws 2, 3 and 4 that P.W.4 had profuse bleeding is unexplained. On the contrary, medical evidence totally rules out commission of rape or attempt to commit rape on P.W.4. Learned trial Court has taken into account all the circumstances to rightly conclude that the prosecution has failed to substantiate allegation of rape on the victim by the Respondent. Considering the nature of evidence placed by the prosecution, there appears no ground for interference with the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal which stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed