JUDGMENT 1. - This judgment will deal two appeals listed above of the same appellant namely, Mohanlal, from the same judgment of conviction and sentence. It so happened that after appeal No. 55 of 1977 had been filed by the appellant through his counsel, he sent another petition of appeal through the authorities of the jail in which he is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him. 2. The appellant has been convicted under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. It is alleged that on February 9, 1976, at about 10 or II a. m. in the area of village Chaganpura, P. S. Kekri, the appellant, raped from, a child 7 or 8 years of age, and that, hearing the cries of the child, her elder sister, namely. Dbanno (P. W. 5) went into the pit in which the appellant was having sexual intercourse with her. On seeing Dhanno, the appellant managed to escape. Dhanno saw that Prem was bleeding and her Ghagra had become smeared with blood. She tried to wash the blood on the Ghagra with some water which was available in the puddle in the pit. Both the sisters went home and narrated the incident to their parents. Mangilal (P. W. 3) their father, lodged the first information report the same day. On medical examination by Dr. Sharmila Karna on February 10, 1977, Prem was found to be having a fresh tear in her hymen at 6 O'clock position. The rest of the hymen was intact, but red. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated January 21, 1977, has found the appellant guilty of the offence of rape and convicted and sentenced him aforesaid. 5. In these appeals, on behalf of Mohanlal, Shri S. P. Pathak, Advocate, has very frankly conceded that there is satisfactory evidence on record to prove that the appellant had committed an offence of rape as alleged. The concession is only fair in the circumstances brought to light on the record. Prem, the prosecutrix, who is a child of about 8 years age, was found by the trial court to be competent to testify. The concession is only fair in the circumstances brought to light on the record. Prem, the prosecutrix, who is a child of about 8 years age, was found by the trial court to be competent to testify. The learned Judge satisfied himself that she understands the nature of oath and that she is capable of understanding the questions and giving rational answers to them. He, therefore, administered oath to her and recorded her statement as a witness. Prem was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned defence counsel. It will be seen on a perusal of her statement including the statement in cross-examination that she is undoubtedly a person competent to testify. 6. Prem has stated in so many words that she was raped by the appellant. What happened was that the appellant, who was working in the field nearby, came to Prem's field and threw her Chappals into the pit nearby. On Prem protesting to it, the appellant told her that there was no difficulty in her going to the pit and collecting her Chappals from there. The innocent child walked into the pit to be followed by the appellant. The appellant caught hold of her in the pit, fell her on the ground and raped her. She made it clear in her statement in the trial that the appellant bad penetrated his organ into her's. 7. It will be seen from the judgment of the trial court that the learned Judge was fully aware of the rule of prudence that it may not always be safe to base a conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the child alleged to have raped. Such corroboration is available in the present case in the testimony of Dhanuo P. W.5 and Dr. Sharmila Kama P. W. 13. Dr. Kama has testified that he found the hymen of Prem freshly torn at 6 O'clock position a day after the occurrence. She also noticed that the portion of the hymen, which was intact, was red, and blood stained discharge was present around the clitoris and the left labia mazora. P. W. Dhanno who reached the pit on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, saw the appellant running away from there and the prosecutrix bleeding profusely from her organ. 8. She also noticed that the portion of the hymen, which was intact, was red, and blood stained discharge was present around the clitoris and the left labia mazora. P. W. Dhanno who reached the pit on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, saw the appellant running away from there and the prosecutrix bleeding profusely from her organ. 8. It cannot, therefore, be seriously disputed, in the circumstances of this case that the appellant had raped Prem on February 9, 1976 in the pit in the area of Chaganpura and that he had been able to effect penetration to the extent that he caused a tear in the hymen resulting in profused bleeding from the organ of the prosecutrix. To prove penetration, it is not necessary to prove the extent of the penetration, Entry of the organ within the pudendum, no matter how little is enough to constitute penetration. 9. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation in affirming the conviction of the appellant under section 376 I.P.C. I must, however, say that appellant, who was at the relevant time a child of about 16 years of age, deserves to be dealt with leniently in the matter of sentence. Dr. Nawal Kishore, who examined the appellant on February 12, 1976 and who has appeared as a witness on behalf of the prosecution has testified on the basis of the X-ray examination of the various joints of the body of the appellant that as on Feb. 12, 1976, his age was not below 16 and not above 18. The school certificate Ex. P. 16 brought on the record show that as on that date, the age of the appellant was 15 years and 5 months. Even assuming that the appellant was above 26 on the day of the occurrence, he deserves to be dealt with very leniently in the matter of sentence. 10. Now that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for nearly 21/2 years, I feel that he should be released forthwith reducing the period of his sentence to the period already undergone. I would order accordingly. *******