Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs 500/- in default, to under go further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case in shown is that the victim girl. Punam Kumari was sleeping in her house with her younger brother Sonu Kumar on 19-11-1995 at 10.00 p.m. Her mother had gone to attend Ghar Bhoj irt the house of Kishori Ram. It has been alleged that the appellant came there and gave Rs. 11/- requesting to the father of the victim girl to bring liquor. He went to bring liquor, the accused finding her alone in the house induced her of giving money, kissed her and thereafter in order to rape her began to penetrate his male organ in the private part of the victim girl forcibly and she cried out of pain but the appellant gagged her mouth. Meanwhile her father returned back with liquor and then the appellant went away giving threats of dire consequences if she disclosed it to her father. In the mean time her mother, also returned. On Hulla others also came there. Punam Kumari narrated the entire story to her parents. Since it was late night, the Police could not be approached but on the next day Police came there and recorded her statement. The victim girl was sent to the doctor for medical examination. She was also examined by lady doctor. Dr. Sheela Sharma of Danapur Hospital. On the basis of the fardbeyan of victim Punam Kumari the Police registered this case and after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheets. Thereafter cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the trial concluded with the result as stated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely implicated to this case at the instance of interested persons. 3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 9 witnesses including the victim girl. The Court has also examined Dr. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he has been falsely implicated to this case at the instance of interested persons. 3. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 9 witnesses including the victim girl. The Court has also examined Dr. Sheela Sharma as CW-1 PW-1 is father of the victim girl, Jagan Thakur, PW-2 is Leelavati Devi, mother of the victim girl, PW-3 is Anita Devi, PW-4 is Raghunandan Thakur, PW-5 is Brij Lal, PW-6 is victim girl Punam Kumari, PW-7 is Ram Naresh Singh, PW-8 is Kashi Nath Singh and PW-9 is the Investigating Officer Birendra Pd. Singh PWs 4 and 5 are tendered witnesses whereas PW-3 has turned hostile. 4. PW-6 victim girl, who is the Informant herself has supported the case as narrated by her in fardbeyan. She has stated that it was 10.00 p.m. she was sleeping along with her brother, the appellant came there when her mother was not in the house. The appellant sent his father to bring liquor for him. The appellant woke her up and called near him and also offered some money. He thereafter committed rape on her. During the course of rape she had pain and she cried for help. The appellant gagged her mouth. In the mean time her father came and the appellant fled away threatening her not to disclose it. But she narrated the story to her father. In the mean time her mother also arrived to whom she Informed about the incident. She has also stated that since it was late night she did not go to Police Station. However, next morning Sub-Inspector of Police himself arrived and got her statement recorded. She was sent to Danapur Hospital where her medical examination was done. 5. PW-1, Jagan Thakur has stated that while here daughter was sleeping on Machan along with his son he went to bring liquor on the request of the appellant who had come to his house. When he returned back after taking liquor he saw the appellant rushing out from his house and fled away hurriedly. He found her daughter weeping but she did not tell him about the incident. His wife also arrived. His daughter narrated about the incident to her mother. He has also stated that no neighbour arrived. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. He found her daughter weeping but she did not tell him about the incident. His wife also arrived. His daughter narrated about the incident to her mother. He has also stated that no neighbour arrived. He was declared hostile and was cross examined by the prosecution. However, in his cross examination he has accepted that his daughter told him that appellant committed rape on her. He has also accepted that he had given his thumb impression on the record, fardbeyan of PW-6. 6. PW-2, Leelawati has been declared hostile. PW-9 the Investigating Officer of this case has stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence and sent the victim girl for medical examination to Danapur Hospital where she was examined. He got the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164, Cr PC. He has further stated that he had obtained the report of the lady doctor Sheela Sharma who had examined the victim girl. This witness has also testified the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) CW-1, Dr. Sheela Sharma was posted in Danapur Hospital. She examined the victim girl (PW-6) on being referred to her. She has stated that she did not find any mark of injury or presence of foreign body on the private part of the victim girl. However, according to her she found tenderness in the internal part of her private organ. According to her, the age of the victim girl was 12/13 years. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the offence of rape is not established against the appellant since the victim girl did not identify the appellant during the course of evidence and the other material witnesses. PWs 1 and 2 have turned hostile. 8. The victim girl in her statement has stated that there had been compromise in this case between the parties. This was the reason that the mother PW-2 and other witnesses PWs 3, 4 and 5 gave their statement not supporting the version of the prosecution case as stated by the victim girl. PW-2 had gone out to work in a social function and due to compromise unsupproting, stated that while she returned her daughter did not complain her that she was raped. PW-2 had gone out to work in a social function and due to compromise unsupproting, stated that while she returned her daughter did not complain her that she was raped. The offence of rape not being compoundable the witnesses in view of compromise arrived at between Informant and appellant have intentionally tried to help the Informant by not supporting the case of the prosecution. 9. The victim girl has very vividly given the description of rape committed on her which seems to be truthful and natural. This witness had also named this appellant in her First Information Report to the Police. She has also in her cross examination accepted that there was compromise between the parties. As such in her evidence she has stated that she did not identify the appellant and she named him as told by her father. But since she had already named him in her statement before the Police as such the identity of the appellant has been corroborated and can not be disputed. Her later statement in the Court that she failed to identify the appellant does not discredit her earlier statement relating to the identity of the appellant. 10. PW-1, father of the Informant during his evidence has stated that he was in the house and appellant came to his residence and they had a talk. On his request he went to purchase liquor from a nearby country liquor shop for him, for which appellant gave him money. While he returned he saw appellant rushing from his home. In the house he found her daughter weeping who told him that the appellant has dishonoured her and also threatened her not to disclose about the rape. From his statement it is also clear that she made the complete disclosure of the offence to her mother in detail, when she returned home. It has been further stated by PW-1 that next morning her daughter narrated about the occurrence of rape committed by the appellant to the Police. He has also stated that First Information Report was lodged on her statement. During his cross examination he has also stated that there had been compromise between them. However, he had denied the suggestion that the persons inimical to the appellant instigated him to implicate the appellant falsely. The statement of PW-1 as well fixes the identity of the appellant. 11. During his cross examination he has also stated that there had been compromise between them. However, he had denied the suggestion that the persons inimical to the appellant instigated him to implicate the appellant falsely. The statement of PW-1 as well fixes the identity of the appellant. 11. In view of discussions made above there is adequate evidence to establish the indentity of the appellant Naresh Singh who committed the crime. The doctor, PW-1 has stated that the victim was only 28 kg. in weight and had only 12 teeth both on upper and lower jaw and even her chest was not developed. However, the found tenderness in the inner part of her private organ. She also opined that her age was 12/13 years. However, she did not find any external sign of injury of the private part. 12. The appellant Naresh Singh during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court did not give any reason as to why the victim and his father would implicate him on false charge. No previous enmity between the parties was brought on the record. Though apparently the medical expert had not supported the case of rape but tenderness in the inner part of the private organ coupled with detail of occurrence narrated by the victim girl is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape even in absence of discharge of semen. The Court below has rightly come to the conclusion by its elaborate discussion that the charge of rape has been fully established against the appellant beyond doubt. 13. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts noticed above. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.