JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. 1. THE respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly committing rape on the prosecutrix (six years). 2. STATE felt aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, hence, the present appeal. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial court did not properly appreciate the prosecution evidence, which clearly proved the allegations of rape against the accused and as per the medico legal certificate Ext.PW.1/B, the possibility of sexual intercourse was not ruled out. 3. WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the evidence on record very closely and minutely. 4. AS per the FIR Ext.PW.6/A, lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix had complained of some pain in her private parts to her father about 10/12 days prior to lodging of FIR. He put off her trouser and asked her where she was having pain. She pointed out the place with her finger. He further asked her, as to whether some boy had opened or removed her 'Salwar', but she neither shown anything to him, nor imputed allegations against anyone. Two days thereafter, when her father was standing with the prosecutrix in the Nurpur bazaar, at that time she allegedly pointed out towards the accused coming from the opposite side and disclosed that he was the person, who used to take her to his house and opened her trouser and committed 'Bura Kam'. She also alleged to have disclosed that he had also paid Rs.5/- to her. She further told that the accused had taken her several times to his house. Thereafter, he inquired about the accused from the owner of the shop, with whom the accused was working as driver and in turn he told that the accused had gone outside and on his return, he would inquire about it. The father of the prosecutrix made efforts to trace the accused, but in vain, which according to him caused delay in lodging the FIR. When the trial commenced, the father of the prosecutrix had already expired. The prosecutrix thereafter was residing with her maternal grandfather. The prosecutrix was examined in the Court as PW.3, certain preliminary questions were put to her, being a child witness. When the trial commenced, the father of the prosecutrix had already expired. The prosecutrix thereafter was residing with her maternal grandfather. The prosecutrix was examined in the Court as PW.3, certain preliminary questions were put to her, being a child witness. Though, the Court found her capable of making the statement, but she was not in a position to understand the sanctity of the Court. However, the Court proceeded to record her statement without administering oath. She stated that the accused had removed her underwear and then his pant and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the accused gave Rs.5/- to her at his house and this was done by him number of times. She had informed her father about it. In cross examination, she stated that her father used to live separately from her grandfather. Their mess was also separate and admitted that there are many houses in and around their house at Nurpur. She also stated that she had been informing her father about the acts of the accused every time, even disclosed his identity, but her father did not ask the accused about it. She also stated that her father was not having any shop at Nurpur. Significantly, she stated that she had come to the Court with her maternal grandfather and stayed for the night in Police Station, Nurpur. She did not know, who had lodged the report to the police and when her father had died. 5. THE prosecutrix was medically examined by PW.1, Dr. Sushma Sharma. On clinical examination, doctor did not notice any injury on her person, nor any evidence of sexual act. Thereafter, she was referred to gynecologist for collection of slides and expert opinion. Her clothings were also preserved. The doctor issued medico legal certificate Ext.PW.1/B. In cross examination and on perusal of the report of the Chemical Examiner, she stated that there was no evidence of stains, semen or blood, but adhered to her opinion that possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out without any material for such opinion, but also admitted that there is no clinical evidence of rape in the present case. 6. EVEN PW.5, Dr. Madhu Kaistha, Gynecologist, also observed that there were no injury marks seen on vulva, introitus and thighs. Hymen was not visible because of high up intra vaginal situation. Even single finger examination was not possible because of narrow introitus. 6. EVEN PW.5, Dr. Madhu Kaistha, Gynecologist, also observed that there were no injury marks seen on vulva, introitus and thighs. Hymen was not visible because of high up intra vaginal situation. Even single finger examination was not possible because of narrow introitus. After the perusal of report of the Chemical Examiner, she also stated that there was nothing to suggest that rape was performed and issued MLC Ext.PW.5/A. In the present case, there is neither clinical evidence of rape, nor anything to suggest in the forensic report to come to this conclusion. It cannot be said that the rape was committed with the prosecutrix. Also the version given in the FIR goes quite contrary to the facts stated by her, making the case doubtful. 7. FURTHER the case of the prosecution also becomes suspect because of the fact that the prosecutrix prior to the day when she appeared in the Court to make her statement, she along with her maternal grandfather had stayed in the police station. The reason for that is not known though the fact is denied by PW.6, Inspector Nathu Ram. Thus, the possibility of influencing the witness by the police cannot be ruled out. Mere assertion of the prosecutrix that the accused had committed sexual intercourse with her several times, cannot be believed in view of the clinical/forensic findings. 8. THUS, after sifting the evidence, we do not find it a case of reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court into conviction, which is based upon the evidence on record. The appeal filed by the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds entered upon by the accused during the proceedings of the case are hereby discharged.