Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral):

1. The appellant is the father of baby ‘Z’. He was charged for having raped his daughter baby ‘Z’. He has been convicted vide impugned decision dated March 18, 2011. Vide order on sentence dated April 05, 2011, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The FSL report Ex.PW-15/A records the opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, to which the clothes of baby ‘Z’ and vaginal swab of baby ‘Z’ were sent that semen could not be detected either on the clothes of baby ‘Z’ or in the vaginal swab.

3. Therefrom an argument has been advanced that at best it is a case of digital rape.

4. Counsel highlights that the offence took place on April 04, 2009, before the Penal Code was amended on February 03, 2013.

5. The MLC of baby ‘Z’, Ex.PW-9/A, records inter-alia :-

(i) Lips swollen, bruise.

(ii) Bruises present on face.

(iii) Scratch marks present over labia minora.

(iv) Oozing from scratch marks present

(v) Bite marks present on libia.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the MLC which shows that baby ‘Z’ was examined at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital at 11.00 P.M. on April 04, 2009, was sexually defiled. But co