Judgment : In S.C. No.97 of 1987, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, appellant was convicted under Sec.341, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. He was further convicted under Sec.376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The sentences of imprisonment imposed under two counts, were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case in brief will have to be stated. P.W.1 Kanniammal, an unmarried woman, is the victim in this case. Appellant is the elder brother of Thirumal, who has married Suseela, the elder sister of P.W. 1 Thirumal was not in the habit of visiting the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 was a resident of Palluvilai village and used to help P.W.4, Janammal, of the village, by fetching water. According to P.W.4, P.W. 1 has an impeccable character. 3. At or about 03.00 p.m. on 1. 86, P.W.1 was grazing sheep belonging to the owner of Mukilan Karaikaranthope she was then wearing M.O.1 saree and M.O.2 petticoat. Appellant emerged to that venue suddenly and insisted on P.W. 1 lying down. When she refused, appellant closed the mouth of P.W.1 with her saree and pushed her into a small pit. Thereafter, he removed her saree and laid himself over P.W. 1 and pressed his penis into the private part of P.W.1. P.W.1 raised a hue and cry. Her cries attracted P.W.2 Hariraman and P.W.3 Muthiah, who were then in the Vicinity. They are also residents of Palluvilai Village. They rushed to the scene and found the appellant sitting over P.W.1, who was on the ground. P.Ws.2 and 3 attempted to apprehend the appellant by chasing him, but they could not succeed. P.Ws.2 and 3 escorted P.W. 1 to her residence but since her mother was not available, they accompanied her to Suchinndram Police Station. 4. P.W.9, Dhasan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Suchindram Police Station, at or about 06.40 p.m. on 1. 1986, reduced into writing the statement of P.W. 1 regarding the impugned occurrence and obtained her signature in Ex.P-1, so recorded. P.W.9 seized M.Os. 1 and 2 produced by P.W. 1 along with her complaint. On Ex.P-1, P.W.9 registered Crime No.19 of 1986 under Sec.376, Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-8 is the printed First Information Report. 1986, reduced into writing the statement of P.W. 1 regarding the impugned occurrence and obtained her signature in Ex.P-1, so recorded. P.W.9 seized M.Os. 1 and 2 produced by P.W. 1 along with her complaint. On Ex.P-1, P.W.9 registered Crime No.19 of 1986 under Sec.376, Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-8 is the printed First Information Report. Soon after the registration of crime, P.W.9 informed P.W.10 Sankarakrishnan, Inspector of Police, over the wireless about the registration of this crime. P.W. 10 arrived at Suchindram Police Station at 07.00 p.m. took up investigation, and forwarded a requisition to the Magistrate to send P.W. 1, for medical examination. Thereafter he reached the scene at 7.50 p.m., and in the presence of P.W.5, Ayyadurai, he prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-11 scene sketch. At 08.00 p.m., on 1. 1986, P.W. 10 arrested the appellant at the byepass road to Madhusudhanapuram. He forwarded a requisition to Judicial Second Class Magistrate Nagercoil Taluk, to have the appellant medically examined. 5. Meanwhile P.W.6, Dr.Sathiavathi Devi, examined P.W. 1 at or about 12.45 midnight on 7/1. 1986 on the basis of Ex.P-3 requisition received though the Magistrate. She found a small fresh hymen tear, though there was no bleeding. Vagina admitted one finger. She was not able to find external injuries and the thing, breast or any other part of the body. There was congestion of labia majora. Spermatozoo was not seen. In her opinion, there was recent evidence for sex act. She further affirmed that P.W.1 was not accustomed to sexual intercourse. The act complained of by P.W. 1 could have been committed at or about 03.00 p.m. on 1. 1986. Ex.P-4 is the certificate issued by her. However, she was not in a position to offer any definite opinion regarding rape, while confirming, that there was penetration as well as hymen tear one further affirmed that congestion could not have been caused by mere fingering. She was also certain that fresh hymen tear cannot be caused by infection. Only by forcing any object, it can be caused. It can even be due to forcible thrust of any object including finger. During investigation, P.W. 11 Cecila cyril, Additional Professor of Forensic Medicine, was requested to give her opinion regarding rape, based on Ex.P-4. The opinion of P.W. 11 is Ex.P-13. Only by forcing any object, it can be caused. It can even be due to forcible thrust of any object including finger. During investigation, P.W. 11 Cecila cyril, Additional Professor of Forensic Medicine, was requested to give her opinion regarding rape, based on Ex.P-4. The opinion of P.W. 11 is Ex.P-13. She has definitely stated, that the injuries on the private part of the victim, were due to recent sexual connection. She was definite about it. Sexual connection was sexual intercourse. She asserted, that it was not possible to have sexual connection without penetration. Penetration means penetration into vagina. 6. P.W.7, Dr.Natarajan, examined the appellant at 4.20 p.m. on 1. 1986 and found no seminal stain in his lungi. Further, there was no discharge from his penis. According to P.W.7, there was no sign of recent intercourse. Appellant was a potent person. Ex.P-5 is a copy of the opinion offered by P.W.7. 7. Material objects seized during investigation, was forwarded, for analysis to the laboratory, through the Magistrate. Ex.C-1 is the report of the analyst. Spermatozoa was not found on the saree and petticoat of P.W. 1 P.W. 13 Subbu Kutti, Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, on completion of which, he laid the final report before the Judicial. Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil taluk. 8. P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined as eye-witnesses to corroborate the version of P.W.1 Medical evidence in corroboration of the version of the victim was brought on record through Dr.Sathiavathi Devi P.W.6 and Dr.Cecila Cyril, P.W. 11. 9. The appellant was examined under Sec.313, Code of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence. He denied his complicity in the crime. He further stated that his younger brother Thirumal, would not visit the house of P.W.1. According to him, he was arrested at his residence at 09.00 p.m. on the occurrence night by Sub-Inspector of Police and another woman police officer. However, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. 10. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of, oral and documentary evidence, accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence and dealt with the appellant in the manner stated above. 11. Mr.Samuel Rajapandian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, advanced five contentions to have the conviction and sentence quashed. However, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. 10. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of, oral and documentary evidence, accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence and dealt with the appellant in the manner stated above. 11. Mr.Samuel Rajapandian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, advanced five contentions to have the conviction and sentence quashed. The first submission was, that P.W.1 has affixed her Signature in Ex.P-1, while she had impressed her thumb impression in the court record when she deposed as a witness. It was, therefore, obvious that Ex.P-1, could not be the statement of P.W. 1. His next submission was, that P.Ws.2 and 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence since P.W.1 has admitted in cross examination that she had told them about the occurrence, in the village at 05.30 p.m. and thereafter, they accompanied her to the police station. His third submission was that there was discrepancy, about handing over of M.O.1 saree, to the police. Though P.W.1 has stated in the First Information Report that her saree and petticoat were handed over to P.W.9, in her oral evidence, she has deposed that the appellant had taken away her saree. The next submission was, that the medical evidence available will enure in favour of the appellant. If an adult woman like P.W.1 was raped, it must have left certain external injuries on her body, which were conspicuous by their absence. Similarly, no external injuries were found on the appellant. Further, spermatozoa was not detected either in the clothes of the victim or the appellant or in the private parts of the victim. He submitted, that on the totality of evidence if at all, the appellant might have attempted to rape P.W.1, in the event of the prosecution case being accepted. The final submission was that P.W. 1 had a motive to implicate the appellant since Thirumal, the younger brother of the appellant, was not in visiting terms, to the house of P.W.1. On these contentions, I have heard Mr.Manimaran, learned Government Advocate, representing the state. He was emphatic in his submission, that P.Ws.l to 3 had no motive whatever for implicating the appellant falsely in this grave crime. He pointed out the observation of the learned Sessions Judge, that P.W.1 was constrained to affix her thumb impression in her deposition in court, since she was trembling in shock, in the course of rendering evidence. He was emphatic in his submission, that P.Ws.l to 3 had no motive whatever for implicating the appellant falsely in this grave crime. He pointed out the observation of the learned Sessions Judge, that P.W.1 was constrained to affix her thumb impression in her deposition in court, since she was trembling in shock, in the course of rendering evidence. Learned Government Advocate would assert that the medical evidence was totally in favour of the prosecution. He then submitted that even if certain discrepancies are noticeable in the evidence of the witnesses examined, that could hardly affect that basic truth of the prosecution case. He contended that the evidence of P.W.1 alone, if credible, can be acted upon coupled with clinching medical evidence. According to learned Government Advocates this is a clear case of rape and the argument that it may be an attempt, may have to be rejected. 12. I have carefully considered, the rival contentions placed, for my scrutiny. P.W. 1 has been cross examined at very great length. It is apparent from the trend of cross examination, that this rustic victim had been attempted to be bamboozled. She was persistently asked about the difference between a Sub Inspector of Police and an Inspector of Police. Quite often, courts have held that cross examination is a unequal dual between a rustic witness and a refined lawyer. How true that is, easily evident in this prosecution. It is quite true that P.W. 1 has stated in her cross examination that at 05.50 p.m. when she met P.Ws.2 and 3 in the village, she apprised them of the occurrence. It is clear from her evidence, taken in its totality, that soon after crime commission, when she raised a hue and cry, P.Ws.2 and 3 arrived at the scene, and the appellant took to his heels only on seeing them. Soon thereafter, she was escorted to her house, when she was in great shock. It is quite possible, that meticulous, details of crime commission were informed to P.Ws.2 and 3 in the village. On this score, the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be doubted. Even if the extreme position in favour of the accused were to be taken, at best the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 may have to be eschewed from consideration. 13. It is quite possible, that meticulous, details of crime commission were informed to P.Ws.2 and 3 in the village. On this score, the evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be doubted. Even if the extreme position in favour of the accused were to be taken, at best the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 may have to be eschewed from consideration. 13. Learned trial Judge had noticed the demeanour of P.W. 1 in the witness box and has made an observation in his judgment that due to trembling P.W.1 had affixed her thumb impression in her deposition though she has signed in the First information Report. I have perused Ex.P-1, the First Information Report. It does not present any suspicious circumstances. The signature of P.W. 1 is found not only in Ex.P-1 but also in Ex.P-8 wherein she has acknowledged receipt of a copy of Ex.P-1. Exs.P-1 and P-8 were in the custody of the learned Magistrate even at 09.30 p.m. on 1. 1986. The First Information Report has also the trappings of genuineness and I am unable to doubt its genesis. P.W. 1 has stated in Ex.P-1. about the arrival of P.Ws.2 and 3, at the scene on hearing her hue and cry. She has further stated therein, that P.Ws.2 and 3 attempted to apprehend the appellant by chasing him but did not succeed. She was in tears and she was taken by them to her house where she found her mother not available. It is in this content that it is quite probable, that the details of the occurrence were fully told by P.W. 1 to P.Ws.2 and 3, for they had only seen the appellant over P.W.1, when they reached the scene, as soon as they heard the screams of P.W. 1. To my mind, Ex.P-1 cannot be rejected. It is certainly a genuine document. This contains clear details of the commission of offence by the appellant and the contents therein are fully in tune with the oral evidence of P.W. 1. I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of P.W. 1, which is credible and bears total ring of truth. 14. Merely because of a snap answer from P.W. 1 in her cross examination, that she had informed P.Ws.2 and 3 about the incident in the village, I am unable to hold that they could not have witnessed the occurrence. I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of P.W. 1, which is credible and bears total ring of truth. 14. Merely because of a snap answer from P.W. 1 in her cross examination, that she had informed P.Ws.2 and 3 about the incident in the village, I am unable to hold that they could not have witnessed the occurrence. P.Ws.2 and 3 have no motive against the appellant. Further, they do not have any special affinity towards P.W.1. They appear to be independent witnesses. They had taken P.W.1 to her house and thereafter accompanied her to the Police Station, in view of the absence of P.W.l’s mother. That P.Ws.2 and 3 had accompanied her, has been stated by P.W.1 in Ex.P-1, the First Information Report. I have perused their evidence with more circumspection and I am satisfied that they have spoken the whole truth. Even if it be that their versions will have to be eschewed from consideration, in view of the answer of P.W. 1 in her cross examination, even then, the evidence of P.W. 1 alone would suffice to find the appellant guilty of rape. I must reiterate here, my conclusion recorded earlier, that all that P.W. 1 has stated in her cross examination is that she had given all details in extenso to P.Ws.2 and 3 in her village. We cannot also overlook, that when witnesses are put into the box, after two years, their retentive memory is under test and if at all, only vital and material discrepancies, which affect the core of the prosecution case, may have to be taken against them and not each and every discrepancy, which do not affect the basic foundation of the prosecution. 15. The third submission relates to the handing over of M.Os. 1 and 2 by P.W. 1 at the police station. That M.Os. 1 and 2 must have been, handed over at the police station, has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P-1. As I have observed earlier, more than two years later, it may not be possible for a rustic witness to clearly depose as to the time, place and manner in which her clothes were seized after the crime. However, M.Os.1 and 2, do not have a serious bearing in this case, since spermatozoa was not found, on chemical analysis. As I have observed earlier, more than two years later, it may not be possible for a rustic witness to clearly depose as to the time, place and manner in which her clothes were seized after the crime. However, M.Os.1 and 2, do not have a serious bearing in this case, since spermatozoa was not found, on chemical analysis. That P.W. 1 had handed over her saree and petticoat to P.W.9 is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 also, apart from that of P.W.9. Nothing in favour of the appellant can be spelt out on the basis of this submission. 16. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the medical evidence is totally clinching, and against the appellant. Even the evidence of P.W.6, Dr.Sathiavathi alone would suffice to hold the appellant guilty of commission of rape. P.W.6 had examined the victim within about 10 hours of crime commission. She had found a small fresh hymen tear as well as congestion of labia majora. These are injuries, which normally can be attributed, when rape is alleged. Such injuries were seen soon after the crime by the medical officer and that fact clearly portrays, that P.W.1 has spoken the whole truth right from initiation of this prosecution till she was put into the witness box. P.W.6 is categoric, that there was recent evidence of sex act and P.W.1 was not a person accustomed to sexual intercourse. She has also affirmed that there was penetration and her fresh hymen tear cannot be caused by an infection but only by force, may be the male organ or thrust of any object, including a finger. If it was not the intervention of the appellant, that had resulted in the hymen tear, there is no reason why P.W.1 should have falsely implicated the appellant, in this grave crime. After all, it was a matter of her own chastity, which may also affect her future life. The evidence of P.W.6, has further affirmation through the evidence of P.W. 11. P.W. 11 is an Additional Professor of Forensic Science and her opinion is emphatic. The injury present on the private parts of the victim were only due to recent sexual connection or sexual intercourse. She has expatiated by deposing that it was not possible to have sexual connection without? penetration into the vagina. P.W. 11 is an Additional Professor of Forensic Science and her opinion is emphatic. The injury present on the private parts of the victim were only due to recent sexual connection or sexual intercourse. She has expatiated by deposing that it was not possible to have sexual connection without? penetration into the vagina. At this juncture, we cannot overlook explanation to Sec.375, Indian Penal Code which reads as hereunder: "Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary for the offence of rape." The happening was so quick and sudden, that the appellant did not give any opportunity, for serious resistence by the victim. The length of time also was not much, since spontaneously P.W.1 raised a hue and cry, which brought to the scene P.Ws.2 and 3, on whose arrival, the appellant took to his heels. In such a background, absence of injuries either on the victim or on the appellant can be of no consequence. 17. I am unable to visualise any motive whatever for false implication. If Thirumal, the younger brother of the appellant was not in visiting terms to the house of P.W.1, that cannot be a reason for implicating the appellant in this grave crime. No worthwhile evidence has been brought on record to probabilise, that P.W.1 had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. This conclusion is equally applicable to the versions of P.Ws.2 and 3.1 am unable to accept any of the contentions urged by appellant’s learned counsel. 18. It will be necessary to extract the observations of the Supreme Court in one of its recent pronouncements, while considering a case of rape, in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992)3 S.C.C. 204 . The following observations were made: "There are a series of decision to that effect that even in cases wherein there is lack of oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix, a conviction can be safely recorded, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the ‘probabilities factor’ does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a general rule, corroboration cannot be insisted upon, except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. Vide: (1) Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, (1952)1 M.L.J. 440: (1952)2 S.C.J. 46: 55 Crl.L.J. 547: 1952 S.C.R. 377: A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 54, (2) Bharawada Boginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1988)3 S.C.C. 217, (3) Krishnan Lal v. State of Haryana, (1980)3 S.C.C. 159. ‘...38. In Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudene and Toxicology, the following passage is found: ‘Sexual intercourse. In law, this term is held to mean the slightest degree of penetration of the vulva by the penis with or without emission of semen. It is therefore quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains.’ 39. In Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol.4) at page 1356, it is stated. ‘...Even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary.’ 40. In Halsbury’s statutes of England and Wales, (Fourth Edition), Volume 12, it is stated that even the slightest degree of penetration is sufficient to prove sexual intercourse within the meaning of Sec.44 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956. Vide (1) R. v. Hughes, (1841)9 C&K 752, (2) R. v. Lines, (1844)1 Car & Kir. 393 and R. v. Nicholls, (1847)9 LT OS 179. 41. See also Harris’s Criminal Law (Twenty-Second Edition) at page 465. 42. In American Jurisprudence, it is stated that slight penetration is sufficient to complete the crime of rape. Code 263 of Penal Code of Celifornia reads thus: ‘Rape; essentials - Penetration sufficient - The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape, Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime. 43. The First Explanation to Sec.375 of Indian Penal Code, which defines ‘Rape’ reads thus: 44. In interpreting the above explanation whether complete penetration is necessary to constitute an offence of rape, various High Courts have taken a consistent view that even the slightest penetration is sufficient to make out an offence of rape and the depth of penetration is immaterial..." ‘Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.’ 19. On factual basis as well as on legal premise, I am satisfied, that the appellant has been correctly found guilty under Secs.341 and 376, Indian Penal Code. I am also satisfied, that this is not a case of a mere attempt to rape. On factual basis as well as on legal premise, I am satisfied, that the appellant has been correctly found guilty under Secs.341 and 376, Indian Penal Code. I am also satisfied, that this is not a case of a mere attempt to rape. The convictions recorded under both counts will have to be necessarily confirmed. 20. A fervent plea was made by appellant’s learned counsel for reduction of sentence. He pointed out, that the appellant has already served over five years in prison. Taking note of the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was executed, I am unable to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded. The net result is that this appeal, which has no merit, shall stand dismissed.