ORDER This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against judgment and order dated 31.03.1999, passed by learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1992, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu, under Section 376 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, and learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.03.1992, at about 3.00 p.m. accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu S/o Swaroop Singh of Village Govindpur, picked up Ms. Sonu (victim) aged five years, and enticed away her from his village stating that he would leave her to her parents, about whom it was told that they were working in the field. On the way accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu took the victim to the sugarcane field of one Gyan Singh, and committed rape on her. The little girl cried. On hearing her cry PW-3 Karam Singh along with PW2 Jaswant Singh S/o Hukam Singh rushed to the spot. On seeing them coming, the accused Jaswant Singh alias Jassu (S/o Swaroop Singh) ran away, leaving the girl at the spot. The aforesaid witnesses took Ms. Sonu (victim) to her uncle Prem Singh. The girl was bleeding from her private parts. On the very day, at about 7.30 p.m. PW4 Prem Singh (uncle of the victim) got lodged the First Information Report (Ex. A1), after getting the same scribed through PW1 Ravindra Joshi. On the basis of said report, Crime No. 201 of 1992, was registered, at Police Station Kashipur, against the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu, relating to offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. On the very day, the little girl Sonu was taken to L.D. Bhatt, Hospital, where she was medically examined by PW6 Dr. P. Khanna at 10.00 p.m. who affirmed in the medical report (Ex A4) that there were injuries on the private parts of the girl (Sonu), which could be six hours old. PW9 Sub-Inspector Gajendra Singh investigated that crime, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. The accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu was also medically examined by PW8 Dr. P. Khanna at 10.00 p.m. who affirmed in the medical report (Ex A4) that there were injuries on the private parts of the girl (Sonu), which could be six hours old. PW9 Sub-Inspector Gajendra Singh investigated that crime, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. The accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu was also medically examined by PW8 Dr. S.N. Singh Chandel, who opined on basis of the swelling and abbrated contusion in the penis of the accused that the same could have been caused, while committing sexual intercourse with some virgin. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, submitted chargesheet (Ex A9) against the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu for his trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. 4. On receipt of the chargesheet, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after giving the necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned trial court on 31.03.1993, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Section 363 and 376 of I.P.C., against the accused Jaswant Singh alias Jassu, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Ravindra Joshi (scribe of the First Information Report), PW2 Jaswant Singh (S/o Hukam Singh) (declared hostile), PW3 Karam Singh (partly hostile), PW4 Prem Singh (uncle of the victim), PW5 Sub-Inspector Ram Phal Singh (who prepared the chick report) PW6 Dr. P.Khanna (who medically examined the victim), PW7 Dr. Arun Kumar Richariya (who gave radiological report on the point of the age of the girl), PW8 Dr. S.N. Singh (who medically examined the accused), and PW9 Sub-Inspector Gajendra Singh (who investigated the crime). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which, only this much is admitted by the accused that Sonu (victim) used to live with her father Bachhan Singh and in respect of rest of the evidence, it was pleaded that the same is false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu S/o Swaroop Singh and convicted him accordingly. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C., against the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu S/o Swaroop Singh and convicted him accordingly. However, the accused was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 363 of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years by the trial court. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 18.08.1998, passed by Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1992, this appeal was preferred by the convict before the Allahabad High Court, where the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the same was admitted. The appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 5. It is a case of rape with a five years old little girl. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention that the observations made by PW6 Dr. P. Khanna, in her report dated 04.03.1992, prepared at 10.00 p.m. after the victim (Sonu) was brought to hospital. The observations made by aforesaid Medical Officer, on examination of the private parts of the girl (Sonu) are reproduced from the injury report (Ex A4) as under :- "External genetaria (genetalia) not well developed. Pubic hairs not developed. Mark of injury seen on posterior forchette 1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm deep to muscles. Bleeds on touching the swab. Vagina admits tip of little finger, oozing still present P/V. Hymen ruptured. Injury is, in my opinion, within about six hours duration. Vaginal swab taken, slides made and sent for evidence of any sperms. Slides handed over to Police." 6. Now it is also relevant to mention here the observations made by PW8 Dr. S. N. Singh Chandola, who examined the private parts of the accused Jaswant Singh alias Jassu S/o Swaroop Singh on 05.03.1992, at 6.40 P.M. The same are being reproduced below from the injury report (Ex A6) of the accused. "i) Pubic hairs cut, not entangled with semen. ii) Margins of prepuce slightly swollen. iii) Small abrasion cut of corona at 5 O'clock position. iv) Small abrated contusion cut on the frenulam of penis (junction of glans and prepuce). v) Glans is clear, not covered with smegma. "i) Pubic hairs cut, not entangled with semen. ii) Margins of prepuce slightly swollen. iii) Small abrasion cut of corona at 5 O'clock position. iv) Small abrated contusion cut on the frenulam of penis (junction of glans and prepuce). v) Glans is clear, not covered with smegma. Opinion: The person examined shows no injury marks on body but signs of forceful opening of glans or retraction of prepuce cut which goes in favour of sexual contact with some virgin." 7. Statement of PW7 Arun Kumar Richariya shows that on the basis of X-ray reports it could be said that the age of Sonu (victim) was about five years. 8. On the basis of the evidence of the three medical officers, which is discussed above, it is clearly established on the record that the five years old little girl (Sonu) was raped on 04.03.1992, at about 3.00 p.m. The medical report of the accused is suggestive that he had forceful sexual intercourse with some virgins. Now this Court has to see whether Jaswant Singh alias Jassu committed rape on the little girl (Sonu) as suggested by the prosecution. 9. PW3 Karam Singh, though, declared hostile, has stated that on the day of incident, at about 3.00 p.m. when he reached near the sugarcane field of Gyan Singh, he heard cries of a child and went inside the field. The witness further narrates that Sonu was crying. He further told that accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu was running away. The witness further told that he picked up the girl (Sonu) and saw that she was bleeding from her private parts. PW3 Karam Singh has further told that accused Jaswant Singh was running away from the spot. This witness was declared hostile only for the reason that he stated that he did not see the commission of rape by the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu on the victim. But his testimony clearly establishes on hearing the cry of the child, when this witness entered in the sugarcane field of Gyan Singh, the accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu was running away. 10. PW4 Prem Singh (informant) who is uncle of the victim has stated that on the day of incident his brother Bachhan Singh (father of the victim) had gone to Kichha. The witness further told that Karam Singh (PW3) along with Jaswant Singh (PW2) brought Sonu to him. 10. PW4 Prem Singh (informant) who is uncle of the victim has stated that on the day of incident his brother Bachhan Singh (father of the victim) had gone to Kichha. The witness further told that Karam Singh (PW3) along with Jaswant Singh (PW2) brought Sonu to him. The witness further told that Sonu was bleeding from her private parts. The witness further told that Karam Singh (PW3) further told him that Jaswant Singh alias Jassu ran away, after committing the rape. This witness has lodged First Information Report (Ex. A1), after getting it scribed by PW1 Ravindra Joshi. Though, PW2 Jaswant Singh S/o Hukam Singh has not supported the prosecution story but it appears that he was won over by the accused. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the girl raped was of tender age and she could not have understood the questions and answers in the court. As such, she was not examined by the prosecution. 12. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, this Court is in full agreement with the trial court that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C., against the accused Jaswant Singh alias Jassu S/o Swaroop Singh. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae drew attention of this Court to the statements of PW2 Jaswant Singh S/o Hukam Singh and PW3 Karam Singh who were declared hostile and on its basis it is argued that since the two vital witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, as such, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. However, on going through the entire statement of PW3 Karam Singh it cannot be said he has not supported the prosecution story. As to the statement of PW2 Jaswant Singh S/o Hukam Singh is concerned, this Court has already observed above that he appears to have been won over by the accused. It is also important to note that it is not a every doubt on the basis of which acquittal can be recorded. It is only the reasonable doubt which can help the accused in his acquittal. After going through the medical reports prepared by three doctors, which are already discussed above read with oral testimony of PW3 Karam Singh there remains no reasonable doubt, on the basis of which it can be said that the accused can be given benefit of it. 14. After going through the medical reports prepared by three doctors, which are already discussed above read with oral testimony of PW3 Karam Singh there remains no reasonable doubt, on the basis of which it can be said that the accused can be given benefit of it. 14. Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Accused/appellant Jaswant Singh alias Jassu appears to have been arrested during the pendency of this appeal. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence. The lower court record be sent back to the trial court to ensure that the appellant serves out the sentence awarded against him. The copy of this judgment be sent also to the Superintendent of the jail concerned. Appeal dismissed.