Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Ss 376 450 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and a fine of Rs.500/- under S.376 rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- under S.450 and rigorous imprisonment for two years under S.506(ii) with permission to suffer the substantive sentences concurrently. The appeal filed before the Sessions Judge was unsuccessful. 2. The prosecution case has been fully narrated in the judgments of the Courts below. It appeals that on 30-3-1982 at about 6.45 P.M., when PW 1 Jyothi Lakshmi, aged 11 alone was inside the kitchen of her house the accused pushed open the door, entered ins Kitchen, caught hold on her threatened her with death when she cried and committed rape on her When the sexual assault was going on. PW. 2, Aunt of PW. 1, came and saw it and she cried aloud attracting PW. 3 a neighbour. The accused then ran away. 3. PW.1 was taken to the Government Hospital where she was examined by PW. 6 Doctor who issued Ext. P4 wound certificate. The vaginal smear of PW.1 was sent for chemical examination, and Ext. P5 is the report which shows that semen and spermatozoa were not detected. Ext. P4 and the evidence of PW.6 showed that PW.1 had an abrasion on the back of right elbow, another abrasion on the front of lower third of right forearm, and contusion over the labia majora on both sides Hymen was in tact. It is also stated that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. 4. The evidence of the Doctor (PW. 6) is that the first injury could be had by a fall on the back and the second one if some attempt to rape is made. This is quite in accordance with the evidence of PW.1 and the first information statement given by her shortly after the incident. PW-6 examined PW.1 within three hours of the incident and the same version was given to PW.6 also. PW. 6 further said that the third injury in the labia majora on both sides can be caused by forcible attempted penetration of penis into the vagina. This is also in accordance with the Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ext. PI. PW. 6 okayed the suggestion based on the opinion of Dr. PW. 6 further said that the third injury in the labia majora on both sides can be caused by forcible attempted penetration of penis into the vagina. This is also in accordance with the Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ext. PI. PW. 6 okayed the suggestion based on the opinion of Dr. Modi that partial penetration of penis within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum with or without emission of semen or even attempt at penetration is sufficient for constituting rape, and that hymen need not be ruptured. he further said that his opinion that there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse was only in the sense that there was no penetration of the penis into the vaginal canal and emission of semen. PW. 6 admitted that there was forcible attempt to introduce penis into the vaginal canal of the child and the opinion was given only because hymen was not ruptured. He also said that penis must have rubbed against the labia majora producing the contusion and therefore forcible attempt of rape was made. 5. I shall consider the opinion of the Doctor again. The happening of the incident cannot be now disputed and it was not actually disputed also. The only argument was that rape has not been proved and what is proved is only an attempt. The former view was that though the prosecutrix cannot be considered to be an accomplice, on the basis of rule of caution and prudence and not on the basis of any rule of law, courts should normally look for some corroboration of her testimony in order to satisfy itself that the prosecutrix is telling the truth and that a person, accused of rape, has not been falsely implicated, even though not in all cases. The nature of the extent of corroboration where it was not considered safe to dispense with it, was held to vary with the circumstances of each case and also according to the particular circumstances of the offence charged, (See Rameshwar Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, A. W. Khan v. State (AIR 1962 Calcutta 641 and Madho Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 469). But the judicial conception in that respect has undergone a gradual change. But the judicial conception in that respect has undergone a gradual change. Even now insistence on corroboration in cases of doubtful evidence of the posecutrix is there, but that is only part of the general rule of appreciation of evidence. 6. Now the judicial consensus appears to be that in assessing the testimonial reliability of the prosecutrix the courts must have a more practical approach resulting from various circumstances. Corroboration is not now considered as the sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. Courts have began to think that 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. Courts will have to bear in mind the feminine psychology and behavioural probability leading to a tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression. They would be reluctant to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on their chastity had ever occurred. They will be conscious of the danger of being locked down upon by the society including relatives, friends and neighbours and the far reaching consequences resulting therefrom. The evidence of such a victim has to be considered on a par with the evidence of an injured witness, if not on a higher pedestal. The injury which is not shown or believed to be self-inflicted and certified by a competent Doctor as capable of resulting from the alleged sexual aggression by itself could be relied on as sufficient corroboration in such normal cases for accepting the otherwise uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. The rather impossible position of getting independent corroboration in rape cases is another consideration. Even in the absence of corroboration the evidence of a victim of sexual assault is entitled to great weight for the further reason that the possibility of exculpating the real offender and falsely implicating an innocent person is very remote except in rare cases which could easily be identified by judicial wisdom. In the case of sexual assault on victims of tender ages, there may also be the possibility of fear complex persuading them to conceal the outrage from the rear and dear ones. In the case of sexual assault on victims of tender ages, there may also be the possibility of fear complex persuading them to conceal the outrage from the rear and dear ones. If the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the probabilities-factor does not render it unworthy of credence, the injuries proved by medical evidence to be the result of sexual aggression by itself must be held to be sufficient corroboration to accept the evidence for convicting the aggressor. Medical evidence also need be insisted only in cases where, Having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. But independent corroboration may have to be insisted in cases where a woman having attained majority is found in a compromising position and there is the possibility or likelihood of the charge being levelled on account of the instinct of self-preservation. In the case of child victims as in the present one, that question is also not there because the victim in a child and even consent will not suffice. In these legal positions, I am fortified by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in krishan Lal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 SC 1252) and Bhoeinbhai Harjibhai v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1983 SC 753). 7. In this case unusually there is independent corroboration also over and above the medical evidence. Within three hours of the incident the victim was seen by the Doctor and she gave the present version to the Doctor as well. Shortly thereafter the same version was given to the police also Medical evidence clearly support the version. So also, there is me evidence of PW. 2 who actually saw the accused in the process or committing the offence. Immediately afterwards PW.3 came and in spite of turning hostile he said, he also saw the accused though not in the position as PW. 5 saw him' Both the courts considered and accepted these items of evidence and I see no reason to differ. Therefore, the sexual aggression as veil as offences punishable under S.450 and 506(ii) IPC must be taken to have been established beyond doubt. The only question that may have to be considered in the light of the medical evidence is whether the evidence actually established rape or only an attempt. 8. Therefore, the sexual aggression as veil as offences punishable under S.450 and 506(ii) IPC must be taken to have been established beyond doubt. The only question that may have to be considered in the light of the medical evidence is whether the evidence actually established rape or only an attempt. 8. Under the explanation to S.375, penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. What is stared is only penetration is sufficient and not that it is necessary. For the offence of rape, while there must be penetration in the technical sense the slightest penetration would be sufficient, and a completed act of sexual intercourse is not necessary. (In re Anthony, 1960 Crl. LJ 927). Even vulval penetration is sufficient for a conviction for rape. Even with sexual intercourse sufficient to constitute an offence of rape as defined m S.375, hymen may remain unruptured. (AW. Khan v. State, AIR 162 Calcutta 641). In Krishan Lal's case (AIR 1980 SC 1252) injury on the person of the victim especially, her private parts, was held to have corroborative value regarding commission of rape. Dr. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence And Toxicology 19th Edition, at page 330 said that to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of the penis with emision of semen and rupture of the hymen, and that even an attempt at penetration is sufficient. Partial penetration of the penis within the Labia Majors of the vulva or pudendum with or without emission of semen was held sufficient for the purpose of law 9. It is true that there is a distinction between vulval penetration and vaginal penetration. Vulva is the external female genetalia. Labia Majors is outer fold of the skin of the external female genetalia. Vagina is the passage leading from the uterus to the vulva. In the eye of law vulval penetration with or without violence is as much rape as vaginal penetration. It is not necessary that hymen should be ruptured in every case. Hymen is the virginal membrane which is a fold of mucous membrane partially closing the external orifice of the vagina in a virgin. That need be ruptured only if penetration went beyond the vulva to the vagina. Rupture is not a must. It is not necessary that hymen should be ruptured in every case. Hymen is the virginal membrane which is a fold of mucous membrane partially closing the external orifice of the vagina in a virgin. That need be ruptured only if penetration went beyond the vulva to the vagina. Rupture is not a must. To constitute penetration, it is enough to prove that same part of the virile member of the accused was within the labia of the pudendum of the woman, no matter how little. Vulval penetration is sufficient under the law in India to constitute rape. Injury to the private parts itself is not a must in all cases. No marks of blood or semen is necessary. In girls under the age of 14, the vaginal orifice is usually so small that it would hardly allow the passage of the little finger, and passage of the penis is rather difficult. This aspect has also to be taken into account. When partial penetration of the penis within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum with or without emission of semen is quite sufficient for the purpose of law, the absence of rupture of hymen, absence of semen or absence of injury to the vagina cannot be taken as circumstances to find that there was no rape but only an attempt to commit rape. 10. In this case penetration, at least little into the vulva, is clear from the contusion to the labia majora on both sides. PW. 6 said that contusion in the labia majora on both sides can be caused by forcible attempted penetration of penis into the vagina. That means penis penetrated inside labia majora but not entered the vaginal passage after rupturing the hymen. Otherwise, contusion on both sides of the labia majora cannot be had. Contusion on either side means the penis forcibly contacted with both sides of the labia majora. That could be had only if the penis entered the vulva through the labia majora. 11. The medical evidence of PW. 6 in the box and in Ext. P4 is only opinion evidence, the correctness of which could be considered by the court. Labia Majora is just beneath mons veneris. That could be had only if the penis entered the vulva through the labia majora. 11. The medical evidence of PW. 6 in the box and in Ext. P4 is only opinion evidence, the correctness of which could be considered by the court. Labia Majora is just beneath mons veneris. It may not be correct to say that it is not within the genital organ of a female simply because it consists of two elongated folds of skin projecting onwards and backwards from the mons veneres. PW 6 admitted that labia majora is on either side of vaginal canal. It is impossible to cause contusion of labia majora on both sides without at least a slight penetration of the penis into the vulva. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 shows that further penetration was attempted by repeated onward and backward movements of the body by the accused when he was lying above the body of P.W.1 with his penis touching her genital organ after she was forcibly laid on her back and her garments removed. Probably further penetration into the vagina could not be had because the vaginal orifice was so small that it could hardly allow the passage of a little finger and further because he was in a hurry and confusion and by the time PW. 2 arrived at the scene. 12. Though PW. 6 may be an expert in the medical field he gave the opinion that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse as a layman in the legal point of view without ascertaining and understanding what will amount to rape in the eye of law. This fact he frankly conceded in the box. It is clear that what he meant was a full and complete sexual intercourse with full penetration and emission of semen. He made this more clear in cross-examination when he said that he gave the opinion only because hymen was not ruptured and no injuries were found in the vaginal canal. He did not realise that for the purpose of an offence of rape, a completed intercourse is not necessary and slightest penetration without anything more is sufficient. When the penis at least slightly penetrates into the genital organ of the female the offence is complete. That fact is proved by Ext. He did not realise that for the purpose of an offence of rape, a completed intercourse is not necessary and slightest penetration without anything more is sufficient. When the penis at least slightly penetrates into the genital organ of the female the offence is complete. That fact is proved by Ext. P4 and the evidence of PW.6 and therefore, there is no point in contending that there was only an attempt. While issuing the certificate and giving evidence in a medico-legal case, PW. 6 ought to have conducted himself more carefully. He ought to have given his opinion only after studying the relevant aspects of medical jurisprudence and realising that his opinion is having serious impact in bringing an offender of a heinous crime to justice. Let him take this as a lesson at least for future guidance. 13. In the box, P.W.1 also said that during the process of sexual assault some fluid like substance ran down her private parts. This is not mentioned in Ext. P1 and therefore, it was argued to be an embellishment on the basis of tutoring. That is not a material omission or contradiction and in the embarrassed state of mind, PW.1 cannot be expected to have given every detail in Ext. PI which need not be an encyclopedia of everything. It need not necessarily be semen and it can also be a feeling of PW. 1. As held in the decision in Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983 Crl. Q 1096), it is unthinkable that the parents would go to the extent of inventing a story of sexual assault on their own daughter and tutor her to narrate such a version which would bring down their own social status and spoil their reputation in society. 14. I do not find any reason to disagree with the courts below that the revision petitioner is proved beyond doubt to have committed all the three offences with which he was charged. The conviction under all the three courts must, therefore, stand. 15. On the question of sentence, considering the immature age of the revision petitioner at the time of commission of the offence and the lapse of live years, I think that a slight leniency regarding the offence under S.376 may not be out of place. The conviction under all the three courts must, therefore, stand. 15. On the question of sentence, considering the immature age of the revision petitioner at the time of commission of the offence and the lapse of live years, I think that a slight leniency regarding the offence under S.376 may not be out of place. The substantive sentence for that offence is, therefore, reduced from Rigorous Imprisonment for six years to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. In the result, the criminal revision petition is partly allowed reducing the substantive term of imprisonment for the offence under S.376 IPC from Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 years to Rigorous Imprisonment for three years. In all other respects, the convictions and sentences will stand and the Crl. RP is dismissed.