JUDGMENT 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted under Section 376 of IPC and he may be set at liberty." 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1992. 3. Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 02.03.1990, an incident took place, for which an FIR was reported on 03.03.1992 in which, the allegation of rape was alleged upon the accused appellant supported by the statement of PW-2-Nema Ram. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of PW-1, in which, she has accepted that there was an altercation between her father and the accused. She has also accepted in her statement that she was beaten on that day, apart from allegation of rape. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also taken this Court to the evidence of PW-2 and submits that the version is doubtful to the extent that the uncle of the girl, rather than helping the prosecutrix in an injurious condition to reach home, has ran behind the accused and it was the prosecutrix, who alone came back to her house. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant gives heavy weightage to the evidence of PW-4, who is a Doctor, who in his deposition has deposed that the age of the accused is between 15 to 17 years. 7. He further deposed that there were no signs of rape on the body of the prosecutrix; the doctor has also deposed that there was no signs of any kind of violence in the perineal region nor there was any sign of any semen or blood; the doctor also deposed in his deposition that the hymen was intact and there was no bleeding. The doctor also deposed that there was no external injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the altercation between the father of the prosecutrix and the present appellant points out an animosity, which occurred due to grazing of a camel. The deposition of the Doctor creates suspicion amongst in the prosecution story. 8. The doctor also deposed that there was no external injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the altercation between the father of the prosecutrix and the present appellant points out an animosity, which occurred due to grazing of a camel. The deposition of the Doctor creates suspicion amongst in the prosecution story. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the petition and submits that the statement of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict the present accused appellant and there is no discrepancy in her statement. 9. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the material available on record, finds that the appellant himself was a 15 years old boy and there was an animosity between the father of the prosecutrix and the present appellant creates a question mark upon the story of the prosecution. The prosecutrix has narrated that she was beaten by the appellant, thus, for removing such suspicion, which crept into the statement of the PW-1, the best would be corroborated with the medical evidence whereas in this case there is no medical evidence on record of any kind of injury or violence, so much so that the doctor has deposed that there was no rape as the hymen was intact and there was no injury at the private parts or any other body parts of the prosecutrix, thus, the benefit of doubt has to go to the appellant, who himself was a minor boy. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 30.07.1992, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Churu is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 11. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.