VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The State has preferred the present appeal upon grant of leave, to assail the Judgment rendered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge–01 South East District, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 44/12 arising out of FIR No. 106/12 registered at Police Station Kalkaji under Section 376(2)(f) IPC, titled State Vs. Murari. By the impugned judgment the Learned ASJ has acquitted the respondent/ accused of the charge on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.

2. The background facts in which the present case arises have been taken note of in the impugned judgment. We reproduce the same as under:

“1. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per final report are that on 10.04.2012 complainant Asha along with her daughter aged two years (name is withheld as per law and she is being referred as victim hereinafter), her mother in law and one person Murari in drunken state came to police station and stated that Murari had raped her daughter. The statement of the complainant was recorded in which she stated that her daughter went to play out side at about 6.30 PM and she saw that Murari, who resides in neighbor, was playing with her by taking her in his lap. She stated that after some time one boy named Kamal came to her with victim and stated that he had taken her from the house of Murari. She was crying and her 'Kachi' was down. The complainant asked her about the reason and she pointed out towards house of Murari and told that Murari had hit her and pointed towards her private part. The complainant saw blood was coming out from her private part. She went to the house of Murari and took Murari to police station. On this statement of complainant, case was registered. Accused was sent for his medical examination. IO with the complainant, victim and other police officials visited the spot and inspected the same and also called Crime Team who also inspected the spot. Victim was also got medically examined from AIIMS Hospital and exhibits were taken into possession by the police. Accused was arrested. Exhibits were sent to FSL for examination and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC against the accused was filed in the court and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.”

3. The accused was charged with commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) IPC. Since the accused did not plead guilty to the charge, the matter went to trial. By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/ accused. The impugned judgment is only a five-page order. We consider it appropriate to extract the relevant portion thereof before we proceed to discuss the submissions and examine the correctness of the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court.

“6. Admittedly there is no witness who has seen the accused committing the offence with the victim and the case is based on the presumption of the mother of victim when she saw blood oozing out of private parts of victim. As per the testimony of the complainant she brought the accused with her to the police station. The IO or other police witnesses have not deposed that they examined the victim when was brought to the police station and they also observed blood stains on the body of the victim or that her clothes were having blood stains. As per witnesses, the IO with her team, complainant and victim went to the spot after registration of the case and from there the victim was sent for medical examination.

7. The victim was medically examined by PW5 in the hospital and she prepared her MLC Ex. PW5/A. The witness deposed that upon examination, she opined that the hymen of the prosecutrix was torn and that she also collected the vaginal smear and undergarments of the prosecutrix and sealed the same with the seal of hospital along with the sample seal and handed over the same to the police. But in the MLC it is written that ‘undergarm