cross examination admitted that the said fedness may be on account of itching by naii. With this, the possibility cannot be ruied o‘ut that as the prosecutrix was a teenage giri about 10—13 years, duringthecourse of itching, the said redness occurred. At that time, the doctor had not noticed any other injury over the entire private part of the prosecutrix, there was no any redness, congestion or any other kind of injury noticed in the private part V. inciudingexte‘rnai genitals. If there were any attempt for rape, certaipiy some ifind of redness or any effect of s’uCh' attempt may be noticed durin‘g the d iCa examination and as therewwas no delay in MLC, possibility,o delay is not considerable factum in the matter. Consideri n t ire statement of the prosecutrix, wherein she deposedivthat-theappellant had attempted to insert genitals but the attem p re, ained unsuccessful. When we connect this piece of evidence with medical corroboration, offence under Section 376/511 IPC is not surfaced, which shows that the case falls under the ambit of Section 354 of the IPC and not under Section 376/511 of the IPC. ln the considered view of this Court, as the prosecution failed to prove the necessary medical evidence to prove the offence under Section 376/511 IPC, conviction of the appellant at the best may be under the category of Section 354 IPC. Hence, judgment passed by the trial Court requires interference.
