1. By the present appeal, the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 25th July, 2012 whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 376 (1) IPC and the order on sentence dated 3rd August, 2012 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-and in default thereof to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one day.

2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the conviction has been based on mis-appreciation of facts and law. As per the Doctor, the Appellant was incapable of sexual intercourse. Thus he could not have been convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC. Further the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact. There was no injury either on the male organ or the private parts of the prosecutrix. The FSL result also does not support the prosecution case. Material witnesses have not been examined. No witness has been examined who could have proved the deposit of the seized articles and the safe custody thereof. The FIR was registered belatedly after a period of two days. Though the explanation for registering the FIR belatedly is that the father of the victim was not available, however the case of the prosecution