JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.14/2005 delivered on 17.12.2005. By the said judgment and order of conviction, the learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years, seven years and six months as jail punishment for respective offences and fine of Rs.500/- on each count with a default clause that if the fine is not paid, he shall be subjected to suffer further incarceration in jail for three months and fifteen days. 2. Prakash Deshmukh (PW2) was the investigating officer. His evidence would show that initial investigation in crime was carried by PSI Meshram and API Mankar and he took over the investigation on 30.10.2004 and subsequently filed final report in the Court of law. 3. The criminal law was set into motion by the victim (PW1). She lodged her oral report (Exh.-18) at Police Station, Walgaon on 28.10.2004. The report was disclosing commission of cognizable offence. Resultantly, PSI Meshram registered an offence against the appellant vide Crime No.189/2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the IPC. Printed FIR (Exh.19) is on record. 4. As per the oral report, the victim used to stay along with her family at village Saur and was taking education in 7th standard in a school known as Dada Bhamorkar Krishi Vidyalaya, Saur. The appellant is also resident of the same village and stays in her neighbourhood. Oral report (Exh.-18) asserts that on 21.08.2004, it was the second day of Nag Panchami festival at 11.00 a.m. she alone was present in her house and was sleeping. Taking advantage of the situation that her parents are not available in the house and her brother and sister are also not there, appellant took entry in her house and thereafter removed her clothes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. After completion of the said act, he extended threat to her that she shall not disclosed the said fact else he will commit murder of her parents. Therefore, she did not disclose the said incident. After completion of the said act, he extended threat to her that she shall not disclosed the said fact else he will commit murder of her parents. Therefore, she did not disclose the said incident. Report (Exh.18) further recites that after 8 to 10 days of the first incident, again when the victim was alone at 12.00 O'clock the appellant repeated forcible sexual intercourse on her and when she was weeping, her neighbour Sau. Arti Bangar, though peeped in her house, did not make any inquiry with her. It is further disclosed in the oral report that one month prior to lodging of the said report, when she was not keeping good health, therefore, she was taken by her mother to Dr. Mrs. Takur and after her examination, Dr. Thakur found that she was carrying pregnancy. In order to avoid bad name in the society, her father went to the father of the appellant for some settlement. However, since there was no positive response from them, report is lodged. 5. From the evidence of Prakash Deshmukh (PW2), it is clear that he only recorded supplementary statement of the victim and arrested the appellant on 18.11.2004. The arrest panchanama (Exh.-8) is available on record. All other investigation, it appears from the record, was carried by earlier two investigating officers. Spot panchanama (Exh.-20) and report of medical officer (Exh.- 21) dated 28.10.2004 are on record. Under seizure panchanama (Exh.-22), the victim's blood samples, her pubic hair and vaginal swab were seized. Seizure panchanama (Exh.-24) is a seizure panchanama done after arrest of the appellant, under which his pubic hair, semen samples and blood samples were seized. PI Deshmukh (PW2) filed final report. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in whose Court final report was presented, found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After having done so, it was registered as Sessions Trial No.14/2005. The learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati framed the charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of the IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for his trial. Resultantly, he committed the case to the Court of Sessions. After having done so, it was registered as Sessions Trial No.14/2005. The learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati framed the charge against the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of the IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for his trial. In order to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant, during trial, the prosecution examined two witnesses namely; Victim (PW1) and PI Prakash Deshmukh (PW2), who filed challan before the Court of law and also relied upon various documents duly proved during the course of trial. Learned Court below found that prosecution has proved charge against the appellant and therefore convicted him, as observed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. I have heard Mr. Badar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Tembhare, learned A.P.P. for State. With their able assistance, I have gone through entire record and proceedings. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also his submission that the investigating officer is totally silent in his evidence that he collected school leaving certificate, which mentioned the date of birth of the victim and therefore, it is his submission that the prosecution has not proved the date of birth of the victim. His further submission is that the material witness like Smt. Arti and the victim's mother are not examined. After reading in detail evidence of the victim, he submitted that the appellant's father is murdered by the victim and her mother therefore he is being falsely implicated in the crime and it would be unsafe without there being any corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix to record his conviction, is the another limb of submission. To sum up, his argument, if entire prosecution case is read in correct perspective, benefit of doubt is required to be extended in favour of appellant and he therefore prays for setting aside the impugned judgment. 8. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. would submit that the victim has disclosed her date of birth in her evidence. Not only that, the school leaving certificate is admitted by the defence during the course of the trial and if that be so, the age of the victim was only 14 years. 8. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. would submit that the victim has disclosed her date of birth in her evidence. Not only that, the school leaving certificate is admitted by the defence during the course of the trial and if that be so, the age of the victim was only 14 years. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant who has committed rape on a minor girl, was rightly convicted by the learned Judge of the Court below. He, therefore, supported the reasoning given by the learned Court below and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Quantity of the evidence can never be a yardstick for decision of a criminal trial. What is required is to be examined is the quality of evidence adduced during the course of trial. In a rape case, the prosecutrix is victim. It is a trite law that the prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put at par with an accomplice. In fact, she is the victim of the crime. There is no rule that there should be corroboration to the version of the prosecutrix and her solitary evidence is sufficient to record the finding of the guilt. However, in such fact situation, the quality of the evidence of the prosecution case as adduced and her evidence should be of sterling quality. The evidence of the prosecutrix herself should inspire confidence in judicial mind. Keeping this principle in mind, now let us analyse and reappreciate the entire prosecution case. 10. According to the charge, at the time of commission of rape, the age of the victim was 14 y ears. Oral report (Exh.-18) would disclose that though he did not disclose her date of birth, it is stated that her age was 14 years. It is also disclosed in the oral report that at the relevant time, she was taking education in 7th standard at Dada Bhamodkar Krushi Vidyalaya, Saur, District Amravati. She disclosed her date of birth from the witness box as 23.06.1991. Perusal of transfer certificate (Exh.-28) issued by Head Master of the said school shows that the date of birth of the victim is recorded as 23.06.1991. Thus, this document corroborates the oral version of the victim about her date of birth. 11. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the investigating officer PI Prakash Deshmukh (PW2) is silent about collection of document (Exh.-28) by him. Thus, this document corroborates the oral version of the victim about her date of birth. 11. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the investigating officer PI Prakash Deshmukh (PW2) is silent about collection of document (Exh.-28) by him. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that reliance cannot be placed on this document. 12. At the first blush, aforesaid submission of the learned counsel appears to be very attractive. However, on a closer scrutiny of the entire record and proceedings, there is no hesitation in my mind to reject the said submission. Record and proceedings show that during the pendency of the trial, an application was moved seeking permission to assist the prosecution. The said application is on record at page no.61 of Part-IV. This application is signed by counsel for the complainant and on the top of said application in brackets it is mentioned that, "complainant is in jail." Vakalatnama of Advocate Smt. Varsha Sanjay Nerkar (Exh.-13) is filed on record signed by Smt. Lata Gangadhar Tayade, as complainant. Application for permission to assist prosecution was allowed by the Court below on 05.07.2005. 13. Record page no.63 of part-IV shows that an application for permission to file transfer certificate/school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix was filed on record. It is not only signed by the learned A.P.P. incharge of the sessions trial but it is also singed by Smt. Lata Gangadhar Tayade. By moving the said application (Exh.-27), permission was sought by Smt. Lata Gangadhar Tayade to produce the school leaving certificate of her daughter. Record shows that in the left hand column, the learned Judge called say of the accused and on the very same day, the defence counsel states that production is admitted and accordingly the document i.e. transfer certificate given by Head Master of the school came on record. Further, perusal of the document (Exh.-28) would show that below the said document on left hand column side, learned counsel for the appellant, who was representing him during trial, has admitted genuineness of the said document. Since, the genuineness of the said documents was admitted by the defence, it appears therefore the prosecution did not adduce evidence of the Head Master and the said school though he was cited as a witness. 14. Since, the genuineness of the said documents was admitted by the defence, it appears therefore the prosecution did not adduce evidence of the Head Master and the said school though he was cited as a witness. 14. For the aforesaid reason, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of evidence from the investigating officer about collection of transfer certificate, reliance cannot be placed on the school leaving certificate (Exh.- 28) and hence, in my view, it must fall to the ground. 15. The date of birth of the victim is dated 23.06.1991. The FIR (Exh.-18) was lodged on 28.10.2004 in which the victim disclosed her age as 14 years, leaves no doubt in my mind to record a finding that the victim was aged about 14 years. 16. The age would play a very important role during trial if a defence is taken by the accused about consent. In the present case, neither such a defence was taken nor it was the submission before this Court. The defence as it could be seen from the line of cross-examination of the victim and from the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is that of his false implication in the crime. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., according to him, pregnancy of the victim was known to the entire village and he was not responsible for the same and when he refused to pay the amount, he is being falsely implicated. 17. The question that this Court has to answer is; whether the appellant was responsible for the pregnancy of the victim. 18. From the cross-examination of the victim, it is brought on record that on 07.12.2004, victim delivered a female child. Medical report (Exh.-21) of the victim, when she was referred to Women's Hospital, Amravati is on record. This document is also admitted by the defence. Therefore, the medical officer, who examined the victim is also not examined as prosecution witness. Contents of this exhibited document would show that after examination of the victim, the medical officer found that her hymen was not only torn but her vagina was admitting two fingers and thus, she was habituated to sex. The medical officer also recorded a finding that at the time of her physical examination, the girl was found to be carrying pregnancy of 26 weeks. The medical officer also recorded a finding that at the time of her physical examination, the girl was found to be carrying pregnancy of 26 weeks. However, when defence has admitted this document that does not mean that it is admitted by defence that accused is responsible for pregnancy. By admitting the said document, only the status of the victim that she is pregnant is admitted. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove, by adducing cogent evidence, about the authorship of victim's pregnancy. The medical officer also collected blood sample, vaginal swab, etc. of the victim and those were seized by the investigating officer under the seizure memo (Exh.-22). 19. The Chemical Analyser's report (Exh.-25) about the said shows that no semen was detected at the pubic hair and the vaginal swab of the victim and in my view, much importance cannot be given to this CA report inasmuch as the sample was obtained by the medical officer at the time when the girl was carrying 26 weeks of pregnancy. 20. The FIR (Exh.-18) is also very specific. It states that on 21.08.2004, it was second day of Nag Panchami festival. Her father was at Mumbai in connection with some work. Her mother was in agriculture field, her brother had been to the place of her uncle Kameshwar and sister Rajashri was playing outside and prosecutrix alone was present in the house. At 11.00 a.m. on the said day, when she was sleeping, the appellant took entry in her house and noticing that she is sleeping, committed sexual intercourse against her wish and thereafter extended threats to her. Resultantly, she did not disclose the said incident to her parents. It is also alleged in the report that after lapse of 8-10 days of the first incident, noticing prosecutrix all alone in her house, the appellant again repeated the said act of entering into her house and when she was weeping, her neighbour Sau. Arti Bangad peeped into house, however, did not make any inquiry. 21. From the FIR (Exh.-18), it is clear that as per the victim, the first act of forcible sexual intercourse took place on 21.08.2004 and the second such act occurred after 8-10 days of the same. 22. Undisputedly, victim delivered a female child on 07.12.2004. It is not the prosecution case that the said female child was a premature baby. 21. From the FIR (Exh.-18), it is clear that as per the victim, the first act of forcible sexual intercourse took place on 21.08.2004 and the second such act occurred after 8-10 days of the same. 22. Undisputedly, victim delivered a female child on 07.12.2004. It is not the prosecution case that the said female child was a premature baby. On the contrary, the victim has admitted in her evidence that she delivered female child after a full pregnancy of nine months. Thus, as per victim's version, as found in the FIR, from the date of first instance of forceful sex that occurred on 21.08.2004, nine months cannot complete on 07.12.2004. 23. The record shows that after evidence of the prosecutrix was over, the learned A.P.P. incharge of the trial moved an application for reexamination of the girl and during her reexamination, she narrated that, in fact, in the month of March2004, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with her and her supplementary statement to that effect was recorded by the investigating officer. The learned A.P.P. submitted that this particular statement made during reexamination is not questioned and it is his further submission that if this version is believed then the date of birth of the female child would be after nine months from the date of the incident. In my view, the learned A.P.P. has culled out this circumstance against the appellant, however, again in my view that alone cannot be sufficient to hold against the appellant. 24. From the evidence, this Court has already noticed that initially investigation was carried by two different investigating officers and PI Prakash Deshmukh, who ultimately filed chargesheet, appeared on the scene of investigation only on 30.10.2004. By that time, medical certificate (Exh.-21) was already part of the investigation and the record. 25. Evidence of PI Prakash Deshmukh (PW2) is very interesting. He states in his examination-in-chief itself that after he took over the investigation, he found that in the medical certificate, the victim girl was found carrying pregnancy of 26 weeks and therefore he recorded supplementary statement. The record shows that supplementary statement of the girl was recorded on the very same day on which he took investigation. Thus, from March-2004 to 30.10.2004, the victim was blissfully silent about the alleged atrocities committed on her by appellant. The record shows that supplementary statement of the girl was recorded on the very same day on which he took investigation. Thus, from March-2004 to 30.10.2004, the victim was blissfully silent about the alleged atrocities committed on her by appellant. It is also to be recorded here that it would have been very convenient for the prosecution to examine Sau. Arti Bangad who, though only peeped in the house of victim noticing her weeping. However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, she is not examined. Her evidence would have shown the fact, which victim has narrated in her oral report (Exh.-18), which would have been a corroborative piece of evidence to the victim's version about the appellant having entered inside her house. It is an admitted position on record that murder of appellant's father took place and in it the victim as well as her mother were accused persons. 26. What is important to note here that the prosecution has not brought before the Court the best possible scientific evidence. In this case, three investigating officers have conducted investigation. The prosecution was aware about the fact that the victim has delivered a female child. It was always open for the prosecution to take necessary steps for sending the blood sample of the said female child and the appellant and the victim to the forensic laboratory for Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) test. In not taking such steps, the prosecution, at least investigating officer, was lethargic in collection of the scientific evidence and only trying to prove the prosecution case by recording supplementary statement at a belated stage. 27. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2008) 14 SCC 763 , found that in absence of the DNA test, it was unsafe to accept the version of the prosecution. In the present case, in the light of the evidence that is brought on record that the victim as well as her mother were facing trial for murder of the appellant's father, speaks volume against the prosecution and therefore absence of the DNA report plays pivotal role in this case, allowing me to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. 28. Resultantly, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. 28. Resultantly, I pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) Judgment and order of conviction dated 17.12.2005 passed by 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.14/2005 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 452, 376 (1) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.