JUDGMENT:- Heard both sides, Mr. Chaukidar places on record appeal memo with copy supplied to the learned A.P.P. 2. The present appellant, who is convicted by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable u/s. 376 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 3 months, has preferred the present appeal. 3. Since the application was sent by the appellant through Jail, Mr. Chaukidar was appointed as a amicuscuriae, who has filed the appeal memo. 4. The allegations in short are as under: That the parents of the victim of the offence reside in the locality of Ahmednagar detailed in the prosecution papers. On 12/11/2010, while the mother of the victim went for labour work, father complainant was taking a nap after his meal in the house. Minor victim went to school for taking rice and thereafter returned to the house. At about 2.30 p.m., when father of the victim/complainant heard the screaming of the victim, he immediately woke up and came outside the room. At that time, he found that screaming of Pooja was originating from room no.3 i.e. the place where appellant Ramlakhan resides. When he went to the room, he found that the victim was crying and the present appellant was sitting by her side. Blood was oozing from the private part of the victim. Her nicker was lying nearby her with blood stains and the appellant was wearing a Lungi. In the circumstances, father filed FIR on the same day with the concerned Police Station. P.W. No. 5 Police Inspector Sainath Thombare carried the investigation. Upon receipt of the information, he immediately visited the spot and found crowd at the place of incident. The crowd was assaulting the appellant. The victim was sent to the Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar. The incriminating articles were seized under the spot panchnama from the spot like blood samples etc. The clothes of the prosecutrix as well as the appellant were seized. Statements of the concerned witnesses were recorded. Medical certificate at Exh.23 was collected by the Investigating Officer. The property was sent to the Chemical Analyzer. The clothes of the victim and the appellant tested negative as regards semen but positive regarding human blood. The clothes of the prosecutrix as well as the appellant were seized. Statements of the concerned witnesses were recorded. Medical certificate at Exh.23 was collected by the Investigating Officer. The property was sent to the Chemical Analyzer. The clothes of the victim and the appellant tested negative as regards semen but positive regarding human blood. As the victim was only of 4 years old and is from labour class, no birth certificate was available. In the circumstances, charge sheet came to be filed. 5. Before the learned Sessions Judge, 5 witnesses were examined. Those were the complainant as well as his wife i.e. the mother of the victim as P.W.No.1 and P.W.No.2. P.W.No.3 Dinesh Wagh is the neighbour of the complainant and the appellant, who was examined to show that immediately after the incident, the crowd has gathered wherein the victim was found crying with her clothes stained with blood and the incident was narrated by the complainant to this witness alongwith persons gathered at the spot. P.W.No.4 Prachi Deshmukh, Medical Officer has examined the victim and proved the medico legal certificate at Exh.23. P.W.No.3 Sainath Thombre is the Investigating Officer. 6. Exh.23, the injury certificate issued by P.W.No.4 Dr. Prachi Deshmukh shows that victim was suffering from lacerations in between labia majora and minora, mainly on right side, and the blood was seen oozing through small vagina. Laceration was also seen there. 7. On the basis of the material before him, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence of the appellant of total denial was held to be not acceptable on the ground that in no case, a father of 5 years old girl would put at stake the dignity of his daughter over the alleged non payment of Rs.3,000/- 8. Mr. S.R. Chaukidar, the learned counsel appointed by this Court vehemently submits that the evidence of the Medical Officer would show that there was no penetration at all and no other injuries were found on the person of the victim. Mr. S.R. Chaukidar, the learned counsel appointed by this Court vehemently submits that the evidence of the Medical Officer would show that there was no penetration at all and no other injuries were found on the person of the victim. Relying on the ratio of K. Venkateshwarlu versus State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 73 : [2012 ALL SCR 2328], he submits that since in that case, it was not established that the spermatozoa detected on the skirt of the victim was of the appellant, taking into consideration the other circumstances, the appellant/accused therein was acquitted. 9. It was further submitted that even the MLC was not filed on record and the learned Sessions Judge, on his own, called for those papers. The evidence would show that even the certificate at Exh.23 was not prepared during the alleged period and was undated. In the circumstances, he submits that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly concluded that the offence alleged is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 10. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that if certain investigation of non collecting the injury certificate would be there and if the evidence on record is convincing in all other aspects, no defect can be found in the prosecution case in this regard. The evidence on record would clearly establish that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In view of all these submissions, following points arise for my determination: Whether the prosecution has proved that on 12/11/2010, the appellant has committed sexual intercourse with the minor victim at the given time and place? My finding to the same is in the affirmative. The appeal is therefore dismissed for the reasons to follow. REASONS 12. There is no doubt that the MLC certificate at Exh.23 was not filed on record at the time of filing of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer. However, in a case under section 376 of the IPC, the same document, being material, the Court is competent to call for the evidence and even the witnesses, if required. In the present case, MLC certificate was the necessary requirement in order to find out as to whether there is any corroboration to the prosecution case or it was a case of clear false implication of the accused. In the present case, MLC certificate was the necessary requirement in order to find out as to whether there is any corroboration to the prosecution case or it was a case of clear false implication of the accused. In the circumstances, in order to bring truth on record, if such exercise is carried by the Court, the same can not be called in question. 13. It is to be noted that P.W.No.4 Dr. Prachi Deshmukh, who is the medical officer of Civil Hospital, Ahmednagar, upon direction of the Court, came with the documents. She candidly admitted that there were no obvious injuries on the body of the victim except the injuries as detailed supra. She proved the MLC at Exh.23. She also deposed about the age of the victim as of 4 years and that secondary sex organs of the victim were not developed. Only suggestion that the Medical Officer is giving false deposition, was put to her. It was suggested that if someone falls on a rough wood, then the type of injury, as has been noted by her on the private part of the victim is possible. The Medical Officer has however denied the said suggestion. 14. The deposition of the complainant P.W.No.1 Subhash Shelar coupled with the deposition of independent witness i.e. one of the neighbourer P.W.No.3 Dinesh Wagh would show that the victim was found in the room of the appellant while he was there. According to them, she was crying and her clothes were stained with blood and also blood was oozing from the private part of the victim. 15. In the case of K. Venkateshwarlu, [2012 ALL SCR 2328) (cited supra), the appellant accused was acquitted by the Sessions Court, but convicted by the High Court in appeal. Both the parents of the victim, the victim herself nor the medical evidence supported the prosecution case. In that view of the matter, additionally the fact of non proof that the spermatozoa was found on the skirt of the victim was that of the accused, was the factor which was also taken into consideration. The ratio therefore would not be applicable in the present case. 16. In the circumstances, in my view, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the offence punishable u/s. 376 of the IPC. The ratio therefore would not be applicable in the present case. 16. In the circumstances, in my view, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the offence punishable u/s. 376 of the IPC. As regards sentence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment to the appellant. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Copy of the present judgment be sent to the appellant for service of the same through the concerned Supdt. Of the Jail. 17. Fees of Rs. 10,000/- be paid to the appointed learned counsel Mr. Chaukidar for the appellant. Appeal dismissed.