ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

1. By way of aforesaid appeal, a challenge has been laid to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.01.2012 vide which the appellant has been held guilty under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.22,000/- under Section 376 IPC. In default of fine, he was required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 506 IPC. In default whereof, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The complaint Ex.PA dated 07.10.2009 was made by the prosecutrix, aged 15 years. She along with her mother and one Balwinder Singh met the police party and alleged rape and criminal intimidation by her father Lachhman Singh i.e. the present appellant. On 05.10.2009 the victim's mother and the younger brother had gone to another village for labour. After serving dinner to her father the victim slept inside along with her sisters and brother. Her father slept in the courtyard. In the night at about 1:00 a.m. her father came in the room and asked for a top sheet, but she could not find it. Meanwhile, her father made her to sit on the cot and tried to commit rape. When she protested, he slapped her. In the meantime, Ramandeep Kaur, her cousin sister, who was sleeping woke up on hearing the cries and raised alarm. The accused then fled from the spot and criminally intimidated his daughter. Due to fear she did not disclose it to anybody and called her mother through her aunt Veerpal Kaur, who returned in the evening. Thereafter, they narrated the incident to Jarnail Kaur Sarpanch wife of Balwinder Singh, who took her to the police.

3. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 225 dated 07.10.2009 was registered under Sections 376 read with Section 511 IPC and 506 IPC and investigated. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Vaginal swabs and undergarment of the prosecutrix were sent for analysis. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Accused was arrested on 08.10.2009 and was medically examined.

4. Charge under Section 376 and 506 IPC was framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. At the trial, prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW1 Dr. M.G. Sharma had medically examined the accused on 09.10.2009; PW2 Dr. Ranju Singla had examined the prosecutrix on 07.10.2009; prosecutrix stepped into the witness box as PW4; PW4 Mohinder Kaur was the mother of the prosecutrix; PW5 Bimla Devi had brought the record pertaining to admission and withdrawal pertaining to the prosecutrix and gave the date of birth, as per record, as 10.12.1996; PW6 Ramandeep @ Namandeep Kaur was the eye-witness; PW7 HC Ashok Kumar was associated in the investigation with investigating officer ASI Kulwant Singh, who had since expired. He had deposited the samples with Chemical Examiner and had tendered affidavit Ex.PW7/F and PW8 ASI Major Singh had tendered his affidavit Ex.PW8/A.

6. The incriminating circumstances led by the prosecution were put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which were denied.

7. In defence, the appellant examined Veerpal Kaur wife of Jarnail Singh as DW1.

8. On appraisal of the evidence produced on record, the trial Court rejected the defence and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated above.

9. Dis-satisfied with the same, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the record of the case very carefully.

11. The learned Counsel for the appellant have assailed the findings of the learned trial court inter-alia on the ground that the case of the prosecution was extremely weak and rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix. Elaborating his arguments, he had submit