1. The appellant in the present appeal has challenged his conviction under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and his sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-in FIR No.832 of 1992, Police Station Shalimar Bagh, Delhi imposed by the learned ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

.2. The case of the prosecution was that on 28th November, 1999, Shri Ram Bahadur, father of the two-year old prosecutrix, Pooja had come to House No.564, Gali No.6, Ambedkar Nagar, along with his wife to attend the Chati ceremony at the house of the son of his Chacha, named Pramod. On the said

.day, at about 7.00 PM, Shri Ram Bahadur found his daughter missing from the house. He along with other family members tried to search her but could not find her. At about 9.45 PM the cries of Pooja were heard coming from the house of the appellant which was in Gali No.6, Haidar Pur, Delhi.

3. When Shri Ram Bahadur, father of Pooja, came to House No.565 of the appellant, he found Pooja wrapped in a blanket. Along with Ram Bahadur his wife and other people of the locality had also come to the house of the appellant. Pooja, at that time, was bleeding from the vagina and a call was made to Phone No.100. The police vehicle, which had come pursuant to the call made to phone No.100, took Pooja to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital along with wife of Ram Bahadur. DD No.48B was recorded and the investigation was handed over to SI Tejpal Singh who along with Constable Umender Singh, reached the House of the appellant and found many people gathered there. When SI Tejpal Singh and Constable Umender Singh reached the house of the appellant, they came to know that Pooja had already been taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital. Statement of Ram Bahadur was recorded and thereafter, an FIR under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code was registered by the local police and investigation handed over to SI Tejpal Singh.

4. During investigation scratches were found on the abdomen of two-year old girl, Pooja, and therefore, the nail clippings of the appellant were taken. Besides the prosecutrix, Pooja, the accused was also medically examined and the CFSL Report and FSL Report were also obtained with regard to the various articles like garments etc. which were seized from the spot. The charge was framed against the appellant on 3rd May, 2000 as under:- “That on 28th November, 1999 between 7.00 PM to 9.45 PM at House No.565, Gali No.6, Ambedkar Nagar, Haidar Pur, Delhi, you committed rape on Kumari Pooja, aged two years, daughter of Shri Ram Bahadur and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC”.

5. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined father of the prosecutrix, Pooja, Shri Ram Bahadur, as PW-1; his wife Kusum, mother of Pooja, was examined as PW-2; Pramod, son of the uncle of the father Ram Bahadur, was examined as PW- 3; Constable Umender Singh as PW-6 and SI Tejpal Singh as PW-14 and Shri Devender Sharma, Record Clerk as PW-7 in place of Dr.Sapna. Prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also recorded.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the testimonies of witnesses and documents. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Verma, has very emphatically contended that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the offence alleged to have been committed by him. According to him, there is no direct evidence and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof. It is contended that there are no such complete chain of circumstances established from which the guilt of the appellant can be inferred conclusively.

7. Learned counsel has also challenged the modality of proof of the MLCs of the accused and the prosecutrix by a Record Clerk, Shri Devender Sharma, who was also examined twice in place of the concerned doctors. Reliance in this regard was placed on Sher Singh v