Kailash Gambhir, J.

1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 respectively passed by the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, West Distt., Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376(2) (f) of India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life together with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The case of the prosecution in the brief is that:

“On 30.05.2007, on receipt of DD No.24, ASI Harpal Singh reached PS Pashchim Vihar, where HC Ranjeet Singh Ct. Satish Kumar PP Madipur met him. ASI Joginder Singh produced Prosecutrix aged 11 years, the daughter of the accused. ASI Harpal Singh made inquiries from Prosecutrix who stated that the accused had raped her in November and December 2006. Prosecutrix along with her mother Geeta Anand were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (hereinafter “SGM Hospitai”) where she was medically examined. The IO recorded the statement of Prosecutrix. The case was registered and after due investigation challan was filed under sections 376 (2) (f) /506 IPC against the accused.”

3. After supplying the copies of the charge sheet to the accused as per law, case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges under sections 376 (2) (f) / 506 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution tendered 17 witnesses in support of their case. The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the incriminating evidences produced by the prosecution against him. In his defense accused had examined 18 witnesses.

4. Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate contended that mother of the accused, PW-1 and father of the accused PW-2 had did not support the case of the prosecution. He further contended that the accused and PW2 did not have cordial relationship due to which PW2 even disowned accused by publishing a notice in the newspaper in the year 1999. Counsel also pointed out that PW-2 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he had handed over the children to their mother on the very next day of taking the prosecutrix on superdari.

5. Dealing with various statements made by the prosecutrix who had entered into witness box as PW-3, counsel for the appellant pointed out that her version that her father used to commit rape upon her regularly, is contrary to in the MLC report of the of the Prosecutrix (Ex.PW5/A), wherein the gyne doctor who examined the prosecutrix had opined that introituses admits two fingers with difficulty.

6. Counsel further pointed out that, in the MLC report, the doctor has not given any opinion as to whether the hymen was torn afresh or the same was an old one. The counsel further contended that in the said MLC it is not clear as to whether the rape was committed on the prosecutrix in the recent past or not and such a doubt goes in favour of the accused. Counsel also argued that as per the MLC report there were no injuries on the private part of the prosecutrix and the absence of such injuries would again prove the innocence of the appellant as had the prosecutrix been raped by the appellant during the period of November-December, 2006, certainly the prosecutrix must have suffered some injuries on her private parts.

7. Placing reliance on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence, counsel for the appellant had drawn the attention of this Court to pages 503 and 504 of the same wherein it has been observed as under:-

Page 503:

“In nubile virgins, the hymen, as a result of complete sexual intercourse, is usually ruptured, having one or move radiate tears.”- Having in the present case, the g