A. PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH this matter was listed for orders on the question of bail, at the request of learned counsel for parties, the case was taken up for final disposal. It needs to be mentioned here that while rejecting the prayer for bail by order dated 22-7-1993, the matter was directed to be listed for hearing on 23-8-1993. Thereafter also the matter was in the hearing list, but the same could not be taken up. The appellant had moved subsequently for bail. While rejecting the application for bail on 30-3-1994, the appeal was directed to be heard on 4-4-1994. On 14-91994, the appeal was adjourned to 20-9-1994 for hearing at the request of learned counsel for appellant. On 20-9-1994 the case was also adjourned at the request of learned counsel for appellant. When the prayer for bail was pressed into service today, with consent of learned counsel for parties it was taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) THE appellant (also described as accused) faced trial alleged commission of offence punishable under sections 376/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short I. P. C. Accusations which led to trial of the appellant in essence are as follows: On 13-9-1991, information was lodged by the informant P. W. 1, whose name need not be mentioned, alleging that on the previous night at about 2 p. m. she along with her husband and younger daughter had been to market as well as for treatment of her daughter. First they went to market. As the doctor was absent in village Khadam, she along with her husband and daughter thought of returning home. On the way father of the accused stopped them and requested them to stay in his house. Since they were related to him, they accepted the request. In the night they slept in the house of father of the accused. At about 8 p. m. when her husband was fast asleep, and the lamp was burning, suddenly the accused put out the lamp and lay on her. She questioned as to what was his intention. At this the accused put an iron rod on her throat, and threatened to do away with her life if she raised any dispute. At about 8 p. m. when her husband was fast asleep, and the lamp was burning, suddenly the accused put out the lamp and lay on her. She questioned as to what was his intention. At this the accused put an iron rod on her throat, and threatened to do away with her life if she raised any dispute. On hearing this, her husband P. W. 6 woke up and when he questioned the accused, he was given a blow on his head by the accused with the iron rod, resulting in injuries. He became senseless because of the injuries. After he had become senseless, the accused brought a rope and tied him in a pole after dragging his outside. When the victim along with her younger daughter and son aged about 7 years tried to come out from the house, the accused pushed the victim inside the house. While the victim along with her children was inside the house, the accused raped her in front of the children in spite of their protest. The wife of the accused came there and asked the accused not to leave her without rape. Some amount of money and ear rings were lost. After victims husband regained his sense he went to the house of one Bibhisan, and Bibhisans wife (P. W. 5) gave a saree to the victim to wear. Information was lodged at Lakhanpur Police Station. The victim as well as the wife of the accused were sent for medical examination. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the accused faced trial. The accused pleaded innocence and stated that on account of quarrel between his wife and the victim, the latter had sustained injuries and with a view to harass him the case has been Instituted. ( 3 ) TEN witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case. P. W. 1 is the victim, and P. W. 6 is her husband, and their son is P. W. 7, Who was aged seven years at the time of examination, P. W. 8 is the doctor who has examined the victim, P. W. 5 is the wife of Bibhisan, and P. Ws. 2,3 and 4 are co-villagers. Two witnesses were examined in support of accusedts stand. 2,3 and 4 are co-villagers. Two witnesses were examined in support of accusedts stand. ( 4 ) ON evaluation of evidence on record, learned Additional Session Judge, Sambalpur found the accused guilty of offence punishable under sections 376/324, I. P. V. convicted him thereunder, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and six months respectively. ( 5 ) IN support of the appeal Mr. H. S. Mirsa, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution version is so improbable that no credence can be put on it. According to him, a bare reading of evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 6 leaves no manner of doubt that the same is incredible and is merely aimed at falsely implicating the accused. Evidence of D. Ws. clearly establish the stand taken by accused and without considering their evidence in proper perspective, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused. The learned counsel for State on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and sentence. ( 6 ) IT is true as observed by the learned trial Judge that a lady would normally falsely implicate anybody in an once which would normally touch her own dignity. In a tradition bound country like ours, it is highly improbable that a woman belonging to rural area would subject herself to ignominy by falsely implicating anybody to have perpetrated sexual offence on her. ( 7 ) PRESENCE of the victim and her husband at the place of occurrence is not disputed. On the other hand, it is accepted that by the defence, that there was fight between the victim and and accuseds wife which resulted in injuries on the victim. However, question is whether the allegation of rape has been established. In this regard evidence of the doctor P. W. 8 is significant. She has stated that it was not possible on her part to say definitely. Whether there was rape. Medical evidence is not determinative and if the version of the victim is credible and cogent it can be accepted, even though it may be at variance with the medical evidence. Even acceptance the statement of the victim in its totality, there is no material to show the penetration which is sine qua non for an offence of rape. Medical evidence is not determinative and if the version of the victim is credible and cogent it can be accepted, even though it may be at variance with the medical evidence. Even acceptance the statement of the victim in its totality, there is no material to show the penetration which is sine qua non for an offence of rape. The Explanation to section 375 makes it clear that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to constitute the offence of rape. Neither P. W. 1 nor P. W. 6 has stated anything about this aspect. Their evidence clearly leads one to believe about attempt to rape. Therefore the conviction under section 376, I. P. C. cannot be maintained, and is altered to one under Section 511, I. P. C. So far as the offence punishable under section 324, I. P. C. is concerned, same has been amply established and I find no scope for interference. Coming to the sentence aspect, I find that the petitioner has been in custody for around two years. Sentence in respect of offence under section 511, I. P. C. is restricted to period already undergone. Sentence imposed for the conviction under section 324, I. P. C. is found to be little excessive, and is reduced to three months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. Let the accused appellant be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be in custody in connection with any other case. The criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed. .