RAM PAL SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant, aggrieved by his conviction under S. 376, Penal Code, recorded by the Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in Session Trial No. 54 of 1979, judgment dated 12-11-1979, has preferred this appeal. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years only. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that in village Dhamantuk lived a child girl Chhingo. She at or about 10. 30 a. m. on 13-3-1979 was watching her wheat field on the outskirts of the village. The field of the appellant is also near the field of this child girl. The appellant proceeded to the spot where Chhingo was watching her field and invited her for a game, which she declined to participate. Upon this, the appellant threw Chhingo (PW. 3) down on the ground and ravished brutally. Due to this her private part was torn and she sustained injuries, consequent to which she started bleeding profusely and her underwear was soiled with blood. The appellant is alleged to have taken away the underwear from her body for washing near a well, but at the same time Bhabhuti (P. W. 7) arrived on the spot and the appellant ran away after leaving the soiled underwear near the well. She narrated the incident to Bhabhuti (PW. 7), who went to the village and informed the father of the prosecutrix, Jugru (P. W. 1) about the incident. Jugru (PW. 1) arrived at the spot and saw his ravished daughter weeping and lying on the ground profusely bleeding from her delicate private part. Jugru (PW. 1) lifted the prosecutrix, took her home and informed the villagers. According to Jugru (P. W. 1), while he was taking away his daughter in the company of the village Chowkidar to the police station, he was accosted by Meharban, Ramcharan, Akhesingh, Basanta and Balbhadra Thakur. These persons threatened him with dire consequences if he proceeded to the police station and lodged the report. Consequently, he returned, but he again went to police station Badarwas and lodged the report at 12-30 p. m. on 14-3-1979. ( 3 ) THE police, after the report, sent the prosecutrix for medial examination, and she was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Megha Moghe (PW. 9 ). Her blood soaked clothes and the vaginal slides were sent for chemical examination. She was X-rayed by Dr. P. K. Malik (PW. ( 3 ) THE police, after the report, sent the prosecutrix for medial examination, and she was examined by Dr. (Smt.) Megha Moghe (PW. 9 ). Her blood soaked clothes and the vaginal slides were sent for chemical examination. She was X-rayed by Dr. P. K. Malik (PW. 8) for verification of her age. The appellant was arrested and was examined by Dr. B. P. Namdev (PW. 10), according to whom, the appellant was fit enough to commit the crime. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to Dr. (Smt.) Megha Moghe (PW. 9) the age of the prosecutrix was below 12 years; her private part had not developed and there was complete absence of pubic hair and axillary hair. On examination of her private part, she found that the hymen of the prosecutrix was completely ruptured. There was a tear in the forchette and a wound therein was found to be inflicted. Redness was found to have spread in the whole of the vaginal orifice and a contusion was found on labia minora. She also took vaginal swab. She was of opinion that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse but it was only an attempt. When this opinion was challenged during the trial she conceded that penetration had taken place in the vaginal orifice : labia minora and the hymen were, thus, torn. She, ultimately, conceded that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. She was of the opinion in para 10 of her deposition that the tearing of the hymen and the injury on the orifice of vagina was due to forcible penetration of the male organ. She expressed her definite opinion that the victim was raped and that there was penetration of male organ. No doubt, she was subjected to cross-examination, but the defence could not dislodge the opinion expressed by her during the examination-in-chief. Jeewana (PW. 4) and Sitaram. (PW. 5), Gopal Singh (PW. 6) and Bhabhuti (PW. 7), who were examined by the prosecution for corroborating the statement of the prosecutrix, turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the case. The trial Court has based the conviction on the sole testimony of Chhingo (PW. 3), the prosecutrix, and concluded that she stands corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of Dr. (Smt.) Megha Moghe (PW. 9), Jugru (PW. 1), her father, and the first information" report lodged with regard to the act. The trial Court has based the conviction on the sole testimony of Chhingo (PW. 3), the prosecutrix, and concluded that she stands corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of Dr. (Smt.) Megha Moghe (PW. 9), Jugru (PW. 1), her father, and the first information" report lodged with regard to the act. ( 5 ) SRI N. P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that Bhabhuti (PW. 7), to whom the incident was immediately narrated by the prosecutrix, had not supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, such is the case. Bhabhuti (PW. 7) was declared hostile to the prosecution and was contradicted by his previous statement of police case diary, in which he had given all the facts of the case, though his police case diary statement cannot be taken to be a substantive piece of evidence. However, nonsupport of the case of the prosecution by Bhabhuti (PW. 7) is immaterial. Similarly, hostility of Jeewana (PW. 4), Sitaram (PW. 5) and Gopal Singh (PW. 6) is also immaterial, the reason being that the prosecutrix has stood to her ground and all the material particulars have been found to be corroborated by the medical evidence. On X-ray examination, the prosecutrix was found to be minor, i. e. , below 16 years of age and, according to the finding recorded by the trial Court, she was rightly held to be aged about 10 or 11 years. Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, further contended that there is complete absence of independent corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix. What Sri Dwivedi means by corroboration is that the witnesses examined by the prosecution, who have turned hostile to the prosecution, should support the version of the prosecutrix, and, according to him, unless and until they support her version, the conviction cannot be sustained. This stand of Sri Dwivedi is devoid of any merit. The law on the point is settled that a conviction of an accused can be based solely on the evidence of the prosecutrix if her evidence is worthy of credence. The rule of corroboration is not a rule of law. It is only a rule of prudence. Insistence on corroboration is advisable but it is not compulsory in the eye of law. The rule of corroboration is not a rule of law. It is only a rule of prudence. Insistence on corroboration is advisable but it is not compulsory in the eye of law. The nature and extent of corroboration necessarily varies with the circumstances of each case, and the nature of corroboration too varies from case to case. If the narration of the prosecutrix is natural, if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence in the mind of the Judge and if the circumstantial and other evidence even slightly supports the case of the prosecutrix, then there arises no necessity of any corroboration of her statement. In the conspectus of the circumstances, it it the totality, which has to be accepted. There seems to be no reason to reject the testimony of the prosecutrix, which stands well corroborated by the first information report and the medical evidence. ( 6 ) SRI Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, further contended that, admittedly, there is an enmity between the faction of the father of the prosecutrix and the faction of the appellant. From this, he argues that Jugru, the father of the prosecutrix, (PW. 1) has cooked up the story of rape and falsely implicated the appellant. He in support of his contention relies on Modi, who in Chapter XVI of his book 'medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology', 12th' edition, is of opinion that in small children the hymen, being situated high up in the canal, is not usually ruptured, but may become red and congested along with the inflamation and bruising of the labia. Dr. Modi is of opinion that cases have been found, where false charges have been preferred due to enmity. But, I fail to connect these observations of Dr. Modi with the facts and circumstances of this case. Enmity, no doubt, is a double-edged weapon. It may also be caused for retaliation on the part of the appellant to ravish the minor child of his opponent. The opinion of Dr. Modi with regard to hymen in small children has been subjected to the word 'usually'. The prosecutrix was definitely above 10 years of age, but below 12 years. She is not a child. Furthermore, in this case there is positive evidence of Dr. Moghe that the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be ruptured and the male organ was inserted in the vaginal orifice. The prosecutrix was definitely above 10 years of age, but below 12 years. She is not a child. Furthermore, in this case there is positive evidence of Dr. Moghe that the hymen of the prosecutrix was found to be ruptured and the male organ was inserted in the vaginal orifice. ( 7 ) THE need of the hour is to mould and evolve the law so as to make it more responsible to the demands of the time, in order to solve the basic problem as to whether, when and to what extent corroboration to the testimony of the victim of rape is required to establish the charge. This problem has to be solved by keeping in background the special significance of the problem of women in India who are subjected to rape. It would not be out of place to quote Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, AIR 1983 SC 753 :"in the Indian setting, refusal to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual assault in the absence of corroboration as a rule, is adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? To do so is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated, society. We must analyse. the argument in support of the need for corroboration and subject it to relentless and remorseless cross-examination. And we must do so with a logical; and not opinionated eye in the light of probabilities with our feet firmly planted on the soil of India and with our eyes focussed on the Indian horizon. We must not be swept off the feet by the approach made in the Western world which has its own social milieu, its own social mores, its own permissive values, and its own code of life. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the Western world. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turn-key basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitude, mores, responses of the Indian Society and its profile. Corroboration may be considered essential to establish a sexual offence in the backdrop of the social ecology of the Western world. It is wholly unnecessary to import the said concept on a turn-key basis and to transplant it on the Indian soil regardless of the altogether different atmosphere, attitude, mores, responses of the Indian Society and its profile. "when a woman is ravished, she is not only inflicted with physical injury and pain but she also suffers a deathless life, full of shame and degradation. The incidents of rape is on an increase, creating a menace to the chastity and safety of the womenfolk. In villages, where they are required to work on lonely fields to meet their both ends-meet, they are more prone to attack by sex-fiends. They are unprotected. They are physically weak and they fall easy prey to the prowling sex maniacs. The appellant, when failed in his accosting, ravished the prosecutrix. ( 8 ) SRI Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, further contended that the whole case is a concoction because the first information report was lodged after the lapse of 24 hours. Explanation has been given by Jugru, the father of the prosecutrix, (PW. 1) for lodging the report late after 24 hours and that explanation has been accepted by the trial Court. There is no reason for me to differ from it. Furthermore, a girl or woman in the tradition-bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident, which is likely to reflect on her chastity, had ever occurred. She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours. ( 9 ) ANOTHER argument of Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the chemical Examiner's report does not contain discovery of spermatozoa on the slides. For proving an offence of rape, it is not necessary that the accused, who commits rape, must discharge semen inside the vagina after penetration, and spermatozoa cannot be discovered unless and until there is discharge of that nature. Absence of spermatozoa on the vaginal slide does not deprive the prosecutrix of the corroboration which she has in abundance. As stated above, corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. Absence of spermatozoa on the vaginal slide does not deprive the prosecutrix of the corroboration which she has in abundance. As stated above, corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction in a rape case. Why should the evidence of the prosecutrix who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? ( 10 ) THE upshot of the above discussion is that the testimony of the prosecutrix in this case has been well corroborated by other evidence on record, and the conviction based by the learned trial Judge deserves to be maintained. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court is maintained. ( 11 ) THIS Court was of the view to enhance the lenient sentence imposed by the trial Court. Times and times again it has been observed that when an offence of rape is proved, that too on child girls of very tender age and innocent in behaviour, the sentence of imprisonment should be imposed with severity. Sentencing the appellant only for three years just amounts to sending him to a picnic. The learned trial Judge has failed in his duty in not imposing a deterrent punishment on the appellant for this lusty and dastardly perverted sexual act. Unfortunately, the State itself has not challenged the sentence and, in such a circumstance, it would not be just and proper to issue a notice for enhancing the sentence. ( 12 ) WITH these observations, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .