Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—Appellant Bachchu Singh has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.12.2000 passed by the then Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 762 of 1998 under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) arising out of Crime No. 56 of 1998 P.S. Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation. Out of the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5000/- was directed to be paid to complainant.

2. Prosecution case in short is that complainant Dalip Haldar (P.W. 1) and his wife Meena (P.W.2) were living in the Shanty No. B-274 within the jurisdiction of P.S. Sector 20 Noida. Appellant Bachchu used to live in another Shanty No. B-273 which was adjacent to the hut of complainant. On 19.1.1998 at about 5 pm. appellant Bachchu took one and a half year old daughter (victim) of complainant Dalip Haldar on the pretext of playing and took her to his own shanty. After some time complainant heard the cries of his daughter and rushed towards the hut of appellant Bachchu. He saw that the underwear of his daughter was blood stained. He questioned appellant Bachchu but he ran away from his hut.

3. First Information Report (FIR) was scribed by P.W. 3 Ashok Sarkar. Complainant Dalip Haldar reported this matter to the Police Station (P.S.) Sector 20, Noida at 8:45 pm. which was located almost 1/2 km. away from the place of occurrence. A copy of FIR is available on record as Ext. Ka-1. The police carved out a chik report (Ext. Ka-4) and made relevant entries into General Diary (G.D.) of concerned P.S., the extract of which is available on record as Ext. Ka-5. The victim was taken to Hospital where she was medically examined and given treatment by Dr. K. Prasad (P.W. 4). Medical report (Ext.Ka-2) disclosed following internal injuries on the person of victim:

“1. Laceration of vagina present.

2. Mankind congestion present around outer part of vagina.

3. There is teer ½ cms. long below labia majora.

4. Bleeding present from vagina.”

4. Sub Inspector Kamal Singh (P.W.5) commenced investigation. He went to the place of occurrence; prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-3); recorded statement of witnesses and thereafter submitted charge-sheet against appellant Bachchu (Ext. Ka-6). After committal, trial judge framed charge under Section 376 IPC against appellant on 22.9.1998 which was denied by appellant who desired to be tried.

5. Prosecution adduced evidence of P.W. 1 Dilip Haldar (complainant), P.W. 2 Meena (mother of victim), P.W. 3 Ashok Sarkar (scribe the FIR), P.W. 4 Dr. K. Prasad (examined the victim), P.W. 5 S.O. Kamal Singh (Investigator).

6. The statement of appellant was recorded wherein he denied all allegations and claimed false implication for unknown reason. On evaluating evidence trial judge was convinced of available evidence, therefore, appellant Bachchu was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2000. This judgment is under challenge before this Court.

7. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Advocate for appellant and Sri Ajeet Ray, learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.

8. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that there is discrepancy about the time and place of arrest. P.W. 1 Dilip Haldar has said that appellant was arrested from Cannaught Place, New Delhi while I.O. has claimed that arrest was made from Noida itself. Submission is that no independent witness has been produced despite large number of people living in the vicinity. Forensic report was not produced. Undergarment of victim was not taken into possession.

9. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. Sri Ajeet Ray has submitted that every mistake committed by Investigating Officer by itself would not entitle appellant of acquittal. Further submission is that there is no reason to falsely implicate appellant in this heinous crime. He has drawn the atten