JUDGMENT : P.N. Deshmukh, J. 1. Both these appeals are decided by this common judgment as Criminal Appeal No. 547/2013 is preferred by State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused while Criminal Appeal No. 518/2013 is preferred by accused challenging his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) (f) and 377 of Indian Penal Code, whereby he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months on each count. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. For the purpose of convenience, appellant/accused is referred as "accused" in this judgment, who is charged with the allegations that on 10/10/2011 at about 2 p.m. he committed rape on prosecutrix-minor girl, aged about 3 years, in her house situated in the premises of Khandelwal's Crasher and at the same time, he had cornal intercourse against order of nature with the minor girl. 3. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that on the day of incident, i.e. on 10/10/2011 at 8 a.m. P.W. 1 Gumfabai, P.W. 2 Asaram and their minor daughter-prosecutrix were present at home. Accused is related to P.W. 2 Asaram, father of prosecutrix, being husband of his sister. It is alleged that on 10/10/2011 after accused visited house of complainant, she and her husband proceeded for work and accused asked prosecutrix to come with him to his house. Around 2 p.m. when P.W. 1 Gumfabai returned back with her husband, they noticed that entrance door of their house was open and accused was wearing his pant while prosecutrix was found sleeping on ground and weeping. On seeing them, accused ran away from the spot. Minor girl on seeing her parents came to her mother and informed that accused committed sexual assault on her by inserting his private part into her vagina as well as anus. It is the case of prosecution that due to such act, prosecutrix was bleeding from her private parts and, therefore, on the basis of report (Exh. 10) lodged by P.W. 1 Gumfabai, offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide Crime No. 283/2011 by P.W. 7 Harne, PSI. During the course of investigation, he drew spot panchanama (Exh. 10) lodged by P.W. 1 Gumfabai, offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered vide Crime No. 283/2011 by P.W. 7 Harne, PSI. During the course of investigation, he drew spot panchanama (Exh. 15) and from the spot seized articles including one bottle containing coconut oil, blood stained frock and knicker of prosecutrix under seizure panchanama (Exh. 17). Prosecutrix was referred for medical examination by issuing requisition memo (Exh. 45) and on recording statements of witnesses, arrested accused vide arrest panchanama (Exh. 46). On 11/10/2011 he seized clothes of accused, which were on his person at the time of incident under seizure panchanama (Exh. 47) and on the same day, seized blood and semen samples of prosecutrix and accused under seizure panchanama (Exhs. 48 and 49). Further investigation was carried out by P.W. 6 Raut, during the course of which he forwarded seized muddemal articles to Chemical Analyser under requisition memo (Exh. 37) and Chemical Analyser's reports are on record (Exhs. 38, 39 and 40). DNA reports are on record (Exhs. 41 and 42) and on completion of investigation, P.W. 6 Raut filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati. In due course of time, case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Charge was framed against accused vide Exh. 2, to which he denied and claimed to be tried. Defence of accused is of total denial and false implication. 5. To establish charge levelled against accused, prosecution in all examined eight witnesses and commenced evidence by examining P.W. 1 Gumfabai and P.W. 2 Asaram, parents of prosecutrix, P.W. 3 Mahesh, panch on spot and seizure of articles from spot, P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma, who examined prosecutrix, P.W. 6 Raut and P.W. 7 Harne, Investigating Officers and P.W. 8 Vaishali Mahajan, Assistant Chemical Analysist. (Inadvertently serial number of witnesses appears to be wrongly mentioned in the judgment as there is no mention of evidence of P.W. 4). It is material to note that statement of prosecutrix is not recorded nor she is thus examined as it is noted from the evidence of Investigating Officer that he had not recorded her statement. 6. (Inadvertently serial number of witnesses appears to be wrongly mentioned in the judgment as there is no mention of evidence of P.W. 4). It is material to note that statement of prosecutrix is not recorded nor she is thus examined as it is noted from the evidence of Investigating Officer that he had not recorded her statement. 6. Learned trial Court having considered evidence of aforesaid witnesses and documents on record, convicted accused as aforesaid, hence, prosecution has filed appeal for enhancement of sentence while accused has challenged his conviction as aforesaid. 7. We have heard Shri Navlani and Shri Kukday, learned Counsel for accused in the respective appeals and Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who have taken us through the evidence of witnesses and documents on record. It is submitted on behalf of accused that from the evidence of P.W. 1 Gumfabai and P.W. 2 Asaram, it has come on record that on the day of incident, relations between parents of prosecutrix and accused were strained and there was also quarrel between P.W. 2 Asaram and accused on the day of incident, due to which report came to be lodged falsely implicating him. It is further submitted that evidence on record, even otherwise, does not inspire confidence inasmuch as it has specifically come on record that prosecutrix did not sustain any bleeding injury. It is contended that for this reason, even Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 38) needs to be kept out of consideration, according to which blood of group "B" was detected on frock while though blood was also detected on her knicker, its group could not be determined. It is, therefore, submitted that since there were no injuries on the person of prosecutrix and according to case of prosecution, her aforesaid clothes were seized on 10/10/2011 itself, nothing is on record how they were found stained with blood. It is also contended that it has come on record from the evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma that reddishness or inflammation on hymen is also possible, if child falls on hard substance and she has specifically admitted that in spite of her thoroughly examining prosecutrix, she did not notice any bleeding injury on the person of victim. It is also canvassed that even according to medical certificate of accused (Exh. Sushma that reddishness or inflammation on hymen is also possible, if child falls on hard substance and she has specifically admitted that in spite of her thoroughly examining prosecutrix, she did not notice any bleeding injury on the person of victim. It is also canvassed that even according to medical certificate of accused (Exh. 50), who was examined one day after the incident, no injury was found on his person or his private parts and, therefore, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahim Beg vs. The State of U.P. AIR 1973 SC 343 ), appeal preferred by accused is liable to be allowed, rejecting the State's appeal. 8. Per contra, Shri Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, submits that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of parents of prosecutrix to whom minor girl immediately made her disclosure statement about act of accused and since accused was found present in their house in their absence, that itself establishes his involvement in the present case, which is found more substantiated when according to the evidence of these witnesses he was found wearing his pant when they arrived in their house. It is thus contended that above evidence along with other corroborative evidence on record establishes involvement of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is thus prayed that appeal preferred by accused be dismissed and appeal filed by State be allowed by enhancing his sentence in the present crime. 9. In the background of submissions advanced as aforesaid, we have scrutinized evidence of witnesses. From the evidence of P.W. 1 Gumfabai/complainant, it has come on record that on the day of incident, accused, who is in their relation, in their presence around 8 a.m. took prosecutrix along with him to his house and around 2 p.m. when she along with P.W. 2 Asaram, her husband, returned back to their house, noted that entrance door of their house was open. On entering their house, she found prosecutrix sleeping on the ground and crying while accused, who was also present, was wearing his pant and on seeing complainant, ran away. She has further deposed that she found blood oozing from private parts of prosecutrix including from her anus and on her enquiring with minor girl, she involved accused to have sexually assaulted her. She has further deposed that she found blood oozing from private parts of prosecutrix including from her anus and on her enquiring with minor girl, she involved accused to have sexually assaulted her. In the latter part of her evidence, P.W. 1 Gumfabai has specifically stated that apart from finding blood oozing out of private parts of prosecutrix, she had also seen injuries on her cheek and nose and had filed complaint (Exh. 10), upon which offences came to be registered against accused. 10. Before considering cross-examination of P.W. 1 Gumfabai, we have perused her report (Exh. 10), which is found fully corroborated with her oral version and also scrutinized evidence of P.W. 2 Asaram, who has also corroborated material evidence of P.W. 1 Gumfabai about accused arriving in their home in morning and taking away prosecutrix with him and also on the point of P.W. 1 Gumfabai and himself returning back in the afternoon and noticing prosecutrix crying. He has also specifically deposed that blood stains were found on the private parts of their daughter and on enquiring with her, she involved accused to have sexually molested her. Evidence of P.W. 2 Asaram, father of prosecutrix, is also specific about prosecutrix having sustained injuries on her cheek and by way of abrasion, on her back. Though he claims that information disclosed to them by prosecutrix was immediately conveyed by him to one Laxmibai, she is not examined. 11. Having considered evidence of P.W. 1 Gumfabai and P.W. 2 Asaram together with report (Exh. 10), thus it is the specific case of these witnesses that they found bleeding injuries on the private parts of prosecutrix as well as injuries on her cheek, back and according to P.W. 1 Gumfabai, on nose. In spite of evidence having been corroborated on material portion as aforesaid, it is necessary to peruse evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma, who had examined prosecutrix immediately after the incident, i.e. on 11/10/2011 and further to consider injury report before relying upon evidence of P.W. 1 Gumfabai and P.W. 2 Asaram. Accordingly, we have further scrutinised evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma, who has deposed that on 11/10/2011 she had examined prosecutrix at District Women Hospital, Amravati at around 12.30 a.m. and on local examination she did not find any bleeding injury sustained by prosecutrix. Injury report on record (Exh. Accordingly, we have further scrutinised evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma, who has deposed that on 11/10/2011 she had examined prosecutrix at District Women Hospital, Amravati at around 12.30 a.m. and on local examination she did not find any bleeding injury sustained by prosecutrix. Injury report on record (Exh. 33) also certifies that no injuries were found on the person of prosecutrix nor on her external genitals except for one small abrasion on back right side. 12. When above stated medical evidence is considered, it falsifies the claim as put forth by prosecution of P.W. 1 Gumfabai and P.W. 2 Asaram noticing bleeding injuries on private parts of prosecutrix as well as injuries on her face. As prosecutrix is found examined immediately after the incident and since Expert's evidence does not corroborate evidence of complainant and her husband though their evidence as stated earlier corroborates to each other on material aspects, their evidence does not appear to be convincing to be acted upon for want of corroboration from medical reports. 13. Further evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma though reveals that on examination of prosecutrix, she noted reddishness and inflammation around hymenal area and such findings are possible when there is forcible penetration of penis into vagina, she in the cross-examination in clear terms admits that such findings are also possible, if a girl falls on hard substance and in that case, there is possibility of inflammation and reddishness. The Medical Officer has not expressed any opinion if a minor girl, aged about 3 years, who is subjected to sexual assault by a grown up man shall sustain bleeding injuries as according to Expert, she is unable to say if such bleeding injuries can occur. P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma admits that in spite of her through examination, she had not noted any bleeding injury or even blood stains upon the body of victim. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to rely upon the case as put forth by parents of prosecutrix as apart from reasons as aforesaid, even on considering medical report of accused on record (Exh. 50), who was examined on the following day of incident, it is revealed that no external injuries were found sustained by him on his person. As such, said document also establishes innocence of accused. 50), who was examined on the following day of incident, it is revealed that no external injuries were found sustained by him on his person. As such, said document also establishes innocence of accused. In view of said piece of evidence, we find that judgment in the case of Rahim Beg (supra) relied upon by learned Counsel for accused is aptly applicable wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in cases involving rape committed by a fully developed man on a girl of 10 or 12 years, who was virgin and whose hymen was intact, if no injuries are found on the person of male organ, his innocence is established. 14. In view of above said evidence, case of accused about his false implication is found to be more probable as in the cross-examination of complainant she has admitted that sister of P.W. 2 Assaram had eloped with accused and they had performed marriage and on that issue, there used to be quarrel between accused and P.W. 2 Asaram and on this count, P.W. 2 Asaram was annoyed with accused. She has admitted that for this reason her husband had also threatened accused to involve him in a false case so that he should give divorce to his wife and that report came to be lodged after there was quarrel between accused and P.W. 2 Asaram. According to her evidence, prior to accused marrying sister of P.W. 2 Asaram, their relations were cordial and since sister of P.W. 2 Asaram had eloped with accused, their relations became stained and lastly she further admits that report was lodged on the day of quarrel, which took place between accused and P.W. 2 Asaram. In view of above admissions of P.W. 1 Gumfabai, we, even otherwise, find that case as put forth on behalf of accused is more probable as against the case put forth by prosecution. 15. In view of evidence and for the reasons as aforesaid, we do not find it necessary to evaluate evidence of P.W. 3 Mahesh, who is panch and in whose presence spot panchanama (Exh. 16) as well as panchanama in respect of seizure of articles (Exh. 17) were drawn, however, find it necessary to comment upon the case of prosecution with regards to Chemical Analyser's reports as from the seizure panchanama (Exh. 16) as well as panchanama in respect of seizure of articles (Exh. 17) were drawn, however, find it necessary to comment upon the case of prosecution with regards to Chemical Analyser's reports as from the seizure panchanama (Exh. 17) drawn in the presence of P.W. 3 Mahesh, one frock and one knicker having blood stains were seized on 10/10/2011 from the bathroom. According to Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 40), blood of accused is of group "B", however, no blood group of prosecutrix could be determined. As per Chemical Analyser's report (Exh. 38), blood stains of group "B" are detected on the frock of the victim girl and blood stains are also stated to be found on her knicker, however, their group could not be detected. Considering the Chemical Analyser's report as above, case of prosecution is not unfolded on this aspect as to how blood stains were found on the frock and knicker when it is the specific evidence of P.W. 5 Dr. Sushma that when she examined prosecutrix immediately on the date of incident, she did not notice any bleeding injury on the person of prosecutrix nor on her private parts. In view of Chemical Analyser's reports certifying blood of group "B" and blood stains on the frock and knicker of prosecutrix, reasonable doubt is created upon the case of prosecution of possibility of tampering with clothes of prosecutrix, which possibility is further substantiated in view of evidence of Investigating Officer since silent on sealing of clothes at the time of their seizure as produced by P.W. 2 Asaram in seizure panchanama (Exh. 17). Even evidence of P.W. 3 Mahesh, panch and P.W. 6 Raut, Investigating Officer is silent on the seizure of clothes of prosecutrix. In that view of the matter, we find much substance when it is suggested to P.W. 3 Mahesh that articles were seized in the Police Station though same is denied by him. 16. 17). Even evidence of P.W. 3 Mahesh, panch and P.W. 6 Raut, Investigating Officer is silent on the seizure of clothes of prosecutrix. In that view of the matter, we find much substance when it is suggested to P.W. 3 Mahesh that articles were seized in the Police Station though same is denied by him. 16. In view of above discussed evidence and since evidence of P.W. 6 Raut, Investigating Officer establishes that he has not recorded statement of girl as she was not speaking properly and that she was speaking in Urdu, which does not appear to be reason sufficient not to record her statement, we find that in fact no such incident might have taken place and, therefore, no statement of prosecutrix is recorded, but prosecution has based its case on the statements of her parents, who were having strained relations with the accused since prior to incident for the reason stated above. As such, case of prosecution is full of doubts. 17. For the aforesaid reasons we find that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we pass the following order: Criminal Appeal No. 547/2013 preferred by State is dismissed. Legal fee payable to learned Counsel appointed for accused is quantified as rupees five thousand. Criminal Appeal No. 518/2013 preferred by accused is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 6/8/2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 23/2002 is quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 of Indian Penal Code. Fine, if any paid by accused, be refunded to him. Accused be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.