ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and the victim girl are residents of one and the same village and they are neighbours. On 27.11.2010 victim Rita, who was studying in 4th Standard, had returned from school at about 11:00 a.m. She was playing in the open place at about 5:00 p.m. The appellant had taken the victim girl in his house on the pretext of providing her a chocolate. It is alleged that the appellant removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with the victim girl. The victim girl reported the matter to her mother and police complaint was lodged on next date. The victim girl was sent for medical examination. The Medical Officer was not able to give any definite opinion about the rape as there were no external injuries or injuries on the genitals of the victim. Hymen was also found intact. After recording of statements of the witnesses and completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. 3. The case came up for hearing before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, who framed a charge under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution had examined in all eight witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Rita Dhurve is the victim girl. P.W.2 Sheshrao Dhurve is father of P.W.1. P.W.3 Keshao Dhurve is brother of P.W.2. P.W.4 Babanrao Magarde is the Police Officer who had recorded the First Information Report. P.W.5Ramesh Pande is panch witness in whose presence clothes of the appellant were seized. P.W.6 Mahadeo Tagade was working as Police Patil of village Khadki where the incident had occurred. P.W.7 Dr. Shanket Hiware is the Medical Officer who had examined the appellant. P.W.8 Sanjaykumar Patil is the Investigating Officer. 5. As far as seizure of clothes of the appellant and the victim girl are concerned, there is no dispute over the reports of the Chemical Analyser produced in the trial Court and exhibited. The Chemical Analyser's report shows that no semen or blood was found on clothes of the victim. P.W.8 Sanjaykumar Patil is the Investigating Officer. 5. As far as seizure of clothes of the appellant and the victim girl are concerned, there is no dispute over the reports of the Chemical Analyser produced in the trial Court and exhibited. The Chemical Analyser's report shows that no semen or blood was found on clothes of the victim. Two drops of semen were found on underwear of the appellant. Cotton swabs of both thighs, swab of vulva and swab of Intraoitus (opening) did not indicate that either there was blood or any tissue. No semen was detected on any of the swabs. Neither blood nor tissue matter was detected on nail clippings of the victim girl. As such the Chemical Analyser's reports did not support the prosecution case in any manner. 6. As far as Medical report is concerned, that also did not support the prosecution case. The medical examination report of the victim girl was admitted by the defence lawyer before the trial Court. Therefore, the Medical Officer, who examined the victim girl, was not called as a witness. The Medical Report Exh.15 admitted by the defence indicates that the doctor was not able to give any definite opinion as to whether there was forcible sexual intercourse. Hymen was found intact. No external or internal injuries were found on person of the victim. 7. As such it is not necessary to go into the details of evidence of panch witness. It is also not necessary to go into the details of evidence of witness who had scribed the First Information Report as lodging of First Information Report is not disputed. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 is in respect of conduct of the victim girl after the incident. The matter was reported to P.W.2 by the victim girl. P.W.2 has stated that his wife was bedridden since last three years. His daughter Rita (victim) was about ten years old at the time of incident. P.W.2 and his elder daughter Geeta had gone to agricultural field. He had returned home at about 6:00 p.m. It is stated by this witness that Rita had been weeping and she told him that she was raped by the appellant. Matter was reported to Police Patil and later on police report was also lodged. 8. P.W.2 and his elder daughter Geeta had gone to agricultural field. He had returned home at about 6:00 p.m. It is stated by this witness that Rita had been weeping and she told him that she was raped by the appellant. Matter was reported to Police Patil and later on police report was also lodged. 8. P.W.3 more or less has supported the evidence of P.W.2 as far as narration of incident by P.W.1 is concerned. As such the prosecution case was mainly based on the evidence of P.W.1. 9. As already stated the medical report and Chemical Analyser reports do not support the prosecution case even to the slightest extent. In this background, the evidence of P.W.1 needed to be scrutinized very carefully. No doubt, conviction in a case of rape can be based only on the oral evidence of prosecutrix. There is no rule of law that the evidence of prosecutrix must be supported by the medical evidence. However, at the same time, it also needs to be noted here that if medical evidence is in contradiction with evidence of prosecutrix then the Court has to exercise an extra caution while examining the evidence of prosecutrix. In the present case, the conviction of the appellant is based on only word 'heple'. P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that she had taken to the house of appellant by the appellant. She was wearing a frock and paijama. The appellant had not given her a chocolate. However, he had committed rape on her. A Marathi word 'gsiys' (heple) is used by P.W.1 to describe the incident. There is nothing more than this in the whole evidence which needed discussion. P.W.1 has not even stated that her clothes were removed by the appellant nor has she stated that the appellant had removed his own clothes. In my opinion, when the medical evidence is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.1, it was highly risky on the part of the trial Court to base conviction on the basis of one word 'heple' when there is no description of the incident given in whole of the evidence of P.W.1. I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Hence, I pass the following order. The appeal is allowed. I am of the view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Hence, I pass the following order. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.165/2011 on 19.3.2012 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant shall be released from the prison if not required in any other case. The fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. The appeal stands disposed of.