examination and produced her before the Judicial Magistrate and recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was strained relationship between the appellant and his wife P.W.1 and his daughter P.W.2 did not like him and thereby foisted the false case against the appellant. The learned Government would submit that though there are contradictions and discrepancies in the averments made in the complaint and in the statements of the victim made before police and Magistrate subsequently before the Court, the contradictions pointed out by the learned Counsel are not material contradictions which will not go into the root of the case of the prosecution. Since there is no penetrative sexual assault, the medical evidence is not helpful neither to the prosecution nor to the defence. Further, the learned Counsel for the appellant has pointed out certain contradictions regarding the injuries sustained by the victim and the medical evidence. But the victim has not stated that she sustained injury on her private parts. She had only stated that she sustained scratch injury on her leg. The doctor would not have noted the injuries on the other parts of the body of the victim or she would have thought that it was not necessary to mention the same before the doctor. Therefore non noting of small scratch injuries on the other parts of the victim, may not be a sole ground to disbelieve he evidence of the victim. With regard to the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that no father would do such sexual assault on his own daughter, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that as such no daughter would make such false allegation against her own father. The victim was only aged 12 years and she was a child at the time of occurrence. Further, her evidence is cogent and consistent. Except some immaterial contradictions, there is no other reason to discard the evidence of the victim. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellant and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
