JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The respondent Pinja Ram alias Chain Singh, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506-11 of the Indian Penal Code in a Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1998 vide judgment dated 29th September, 1999. The accused has been sentenced: (i) for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000. In case of default in payment of fine accused is to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. (ii) for the offence punishable under Section 506-11 IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1000. In case of default in payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Aggrieved, the accused has filed this appeal against his conviction. Prosecution case : 3. The accused aged about 29 years, at the time of occurrence, is resident of village Kanoohi Darar, Mauza Tihri, Tehsil Khundian, District Kangra. Biasan Devi (PW-3) is also resident of that area. She being childless had adopted Kunta Devi, the prosecutrix (PW-2), daughter of her real brother. Kunta Devi, at the time of occurrence, was studying in class I and was about 8 years of age. On 9th November, 1996 Kunta Devi was playing in the backyard of one Shambhu at village Kanoohi Darar along with other children. At about 2 p.m. the other children left the place and Kunta Devi was alone. Accused lifted Kunta Devi in his lap, took her to a lonely place, removed her salwar and made the girl lie on the ground and sexually assaulted her. The girl felt pain and cried. Accused threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the incident to any person and left that place. On that day Smt. Biasan Devi and her husband Jaffa Ram were away to earn their livelihood. Kunta Devi thereafter came to the house of their neighbour Chandu. Biasan Devi returned back in the evening and brought her to the house. Next two days were holidays in the school on account of Diwali. It was on the fourth day when Biasan Devi was giving bath to Kunta Devi, she noticed some stains of blood on her salwar. She questioned Kunta Devi. Biasan Devi returned back in the evening and brought her to the house. Next two days were holidays in the school on account of Diwali. It was on the fourth day when Biasan Devi was giving bath to Kunta Devi, she noticed some stains of blood on her salwar. She questioned Kunta Devi. Kunta Devi narrated the entire occurrence to Biasan Devi. Biasan Devi found that private part (vulva) of the girl was tender and red. Husband of Biasan Devi being simplton, she sent for Machalu Ram real father of Kunta Devi. After consulting Machalu Ram the first information report was lodged with the police on 22nd November, 1996. 4. Police after investigation of the case sent the accused for trial for offences punishable under Section 376 read with Sections 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on 25th March, 1998 charged the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with Sections 511 and 506 JPC. However, on 11th December, 1998, after recording the evidence, learned trial Judge found that case appeared, to be under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly amended the charges and framed fresh charges punishable under Sections 376 and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. No fresh evidence was led by the prosecution. The defence also did not produce any evidence. Therefore, the case was heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge on the evidence already recorded. 5. The accused, at the trial claimed total innocence and pleaded his false implication. Case of the accused as stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that he has falsely been implicated by Biasan Devi due to land dispute. The learned Trial Judge while appreciating the evidence on record has ruled out false implication. 6. Kunta Devi was examined by (PW-1) Doctor Sunita, Medical Officer Civil Hospital Dehra on 22nd November, 1996. She did not find any injury on the person of Kunta Devi except two boils. One over the right arm and other over the right knee joint. On examination-of the perineum, the pelvic floor and associated structures occupying the pelvic outlet, she did not find any injury over it. Labia majora and labia minora were normal. Vulva and hymen were normal. The girl has not commenced menstruation. One over the right arm and other over the right knee joint. On examination-of the perineum, the pelvic floor and associated structures occupying the pelvic outlet, she did not find any injury over it. Labia majora and labia minora were normal. Vulva and hymen were normal. The girl has not commenced menstruation. In the opinion of Doctor Sunita there was no evidence of sexual intercourse. However, she did not rule out its possibility. She clarifies that if a minor injury is caused to the vagina due to part penetration, the injury can subside within a week without leaving any sign or mark. 7. We have heard Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.C. Mandhotra, Additional Advocate General and have perused the record with the help of the learned Counsel. The conviction is assailed on the grounds: (a) Sexual intercourse/rape neither alleged nor proved; (b) delay in lodging of the first information report; (c) accused was not called upon to explain any evidence or circumstance indicating that accused sexually violated the prosecutrix or committed rape; (d) evidence of prosecutrix, child witness is not corroborated by any other evidence on record; (e) At the most offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and his conviction for the offence under Section 376 IPC is not sustainable; (f) Sexual intercourse/rape neither alleged nor proved: 8. In order to see whether Kunta Devi, the prosecutrix, was sexually assaulted, we may examine the evidence of Kunta Devi, her foster mother Biasan Devi and Doctor Sunita. 9. It is true that Kunta Devi is a child witness. She was 10 years of age when she was examined in the court. The trial Judge, however, was satisfied, after questioning Kunta Devi generally that she was competent witness and understood the sanctity oath. It is the evidence of Kunta Devi that she live with her aunt (Bhua) in village Darad and that accused is also resident of village Dard and she knows him. It is the further evidence of Kunta Devi that she was studying in school situated at village Tihri in standard first at the relevant time. It was Saturday and she had holiday on that day on account of Diwali. She was playing in the back yard of the house of Shambhu along with other children. It is the further evidence of Kunta Devi that she was studying in school situated at village Tihri in standard first at the relevant time. It was Saturday and she had holiday on that day on account of Diwali. She was playing in the back yard of the house of Shambhu along with other children. After some time all these children left to graze their cattle. She was left alone. Accused came there and lifted her to a lonely place, untied and removed her salwar and removed his pent and underwear. Thereafter, he made her lie on the ground and he himself lied upon her. She felt pain at the place from where she urinates (Peshab Wall Jageha Pirh Hui). Blood also came out. Thereafter accused got up and put on his clothes. She cried on which accused threatened her that if she disclosed this incident in her house then he would kill her. She also got up and put on her salwar and went to house of Chandu, as her aunt Biasan Devi and her foster father had gone to work on daily wages. It is further in evidence that she did not disclose anything to Shakuntala. In the evening her aunt (Bhua) Biasan Devi picked her up from the house of Shambhu and took her to their own house. She did not disclose the incident to her Bhua Biasan Devi as the accused had threatened her with life. Next two days were holidays and on the fourth day when she was given bath by her aunt Biasan Devi she (Biasan Devi) noticed blood stains on her salwar for which she was questioned. She thereafter narrated the entire incident. After 5-7 days her real father Machlu Ram came to their house and they all went to the police post Khundian to lodge a report. Police took her to Doctor. Police came to the village and then she pointed out the place where the incident took place. Police also took into possession the salwar and shirt which she was wearing on the day of occurrence. 10. Kunta Devi has been cross-examined, on behalf of accused but without any tangible result. She explains, in the cross-examination, that her clothes used to be changed by her Bhua (Biasan Devi). After bath she also used to comb Kuntas hairs and dress her up for the school. 10. Kunta Devi has been cross-examined, on behalf of accused but without any tangible result. She explains, in the cross-examination, that her clothes used to be changed by her Bhua (Biasan Devi). After bath she also used to comb Kuntas hairs and dress her up for the school. To a question of learned Counsel for the accused she states that she did not disclose about the incident either to the teachers or class mates. She had informed her Bhua (Biasan Devi) alone on the fourth day of the occurrence. At that time, according to her, no one was present in the house. She also admits that incident was disclosed to the Doctor by Biasan Devi when she (Kunta Devi) was medically examined. She denies the suggestion that she has given the statement at the instance of Biasan Devi. 11. As noticed by the learned trial Judge, accused does not dispute the material testimony of this witness in her cross-examination on material aspects. Accused does not dispute that he took Kunta Devi (prosecutrix) in his lap to jt lonely place, removed her salwar and lied over her after removing his pent and underwear. He also does not dispute the testimony of Kunta Devi that she felt pain in her perineum except it is suggested that she has made a false statement at the instance of her Bhua Biasan Devi. She also denies the suggestion that she did not bleed from her private part. The testimony of Kunta Devi is fully corroborated by Biasan Devi her Bhua (PW-3). It is the evidence of Biasan Devi that on the day of incident, a Saturday, she had gone to earn her livelihood. She returned back from her work at about 5 p.m. and collected Kunta Devi from the house of Shakuntla. She found Kunta crying. However, she did not give any reason for this. On the third day when she was giving bath to Kunta she noticed blood stains on her salwar. On her questioning, Kunta disclosed that on Saturday when she was playing along with other children behind the house of Shambhu, she was lifted by accused to a lonely place removed her salwar and his own clothes and then lied over her. She found redness on her private part and she also noticed injury on her elbow joint. On her questioning, Kunta disclosed that on Saturday when she was playing along with other children behind the house of Shambhu, she was lifted by accused to a lonely place removed her salwar and his own clothes and then lied over her. She found redness on her private part and she also noticed injury on her elbow joint. It is her evidence that she sent for Machalu Ram who came after 7/8 days and thereafter they lodged first information report with the police post Khundia. There is nothing material in the cross-examination of this witness. She affirms that she told about the incident to Doctor. She admits that the land of her husband is joint with the accused. However, she denies the suggestion that she had objected to the construction of the house by accused. Shakuntla Devi (PW-4) also corroborates version of Kunta Devi. It is her evidence that on the fateful day when Kunta came to her house in the evening, she was slightly crying but she (Shakuntla Devi) did not bother about it. It is her evidence that Kunta Devi was offered meals by her but she refused. According to Shakuntla Devi, at that time house of her foster mother Biasan Devi was locked as she had gone to earn her wages. 12. It is true that Doctor Sunita (PW-1) did not find any injury over perineum or any other part of body except two boils one over right arm and another over right knee joint. The medico-legal-certificate issued by her is Ex. PW-l/D on record. She explains that if a minor injury was caused to vulva due to part penetration then such injury is likely to subside within a week without leaving any sign or mark. In the cross-examination she admits that it is only in case of full penetration that there would have been multiple serious injuries which could have persisted for two weeks or so. 13. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused strenuously urges had Kunta Devi been subjected to sexual assault or rape there definitely would have been injuries on her perineum. Absence of any injury on perineum shows that Kunta Devi was not subjected to sexual assault as alleged and such absence of any injury proves the innocence of accused. 13. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused strenuously urges had Kunta Devi been subjected to sexual assault or rape there definitely would have been injuries on her perineum. Absence of any injury on perineum shows that Kunta Devi was not subjected to sexual assault as alleged and such absence of any injury proves the innocence of accused. He specifically refers to the testimony of Doctor where she says "when I examined her there was no evidence of rape or attempt to rape. In case rape would have been committed in this case, the injury to vagina would have been multiple and serious which normally should have persisted for two weeks or so". We find, this statement of Doctor is qualified with this remarks that such injury would be only the result of full penetration. 14. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, to constitute rape, does not contemplate complete penetration of penis into private part of the victim. It is now well settled that even partial or slightest penetration of penis within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda is sufficient to constitute a rape within the meaning of Sections 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the act of sexual assault or rape would be complete even without causing any injury to genitals of victim. 15. In State ofU.P. v. Babul Nath, (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 29, their Lordships, interpreting Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code and explanation thereto, observed in para (8) of the judgment as follows : “8. It may here be noticed that Section 375 of the IPC defines rape and the explanation to Section 375 reads as follows: “Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." From the Explanation reproduced above it is distinctly clear that ingredients which are essential for proving a charge of rape are the accomplishment of the act with force and resistance. To constitute the offence of rape neither Section 375 of IPC nor the Explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and ruptrure of hymen. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and ruptrure of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of victim would be quite enough for the purpose of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC. That being so it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual activity on the victim and she was subjected to sexual assault without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature found on her private part by the doctor who examined her." 16. In this case there is unimpeachable evidence of the victim Kunta Devi that accused: (a) made her lie on the ground; (b) thereafter lied over her after removing her clothes and his own pent; (c) she felt pain in her private part and cried. 17. This evidence shows that accused did put his penis into private part of Kunta Devi though there was no complete penetration. Accused withdrew as Kunta Devi felt pain and cried. Thus, rape by the accused was legally complete. This is further strengthened from the fact that Biasan Devi noticed redness in the private part of the victim even on the third day of sexual assault by the accused. Necessary assurance is also furnished from the evidence of Shakuntla to the effect that when victim came to her house she was slightly weeping. Biasan Devi also supports her and stated that when she came to house of Shakuntla to collect her daughter she found her weeping. Argument of the learned Counsel for the accused that there was no sexual assault on the victim and rape was not committed does not stand the test of legal scrutiny. Apparent as it is, even if some minor injury was caused to vulva or any part of genitals its sign would have disappeared in a week or so. 18. Argument of the learned Counsel for the accused that there was no sexual assault on the victim and rape was not committed does not stand the test of legal scrutiny. Apparent as it is, even if some minor injury was caused to vulva or any part of genitals its sign would have disappeared in a week or so. 18. We hardly need to emphasis that testimony of a victim of rape does not require any corroboration. It has to be appreciated on the principles of probabilities. Learned trial Judge had an occasion to see the demeanour of the victim. There is no reason for the victim or her Bhua Biasan Devi to falsely implicate the accused. Conviction for the offence of rape can be based on the sole testimony of the witness if it inspires confidence. We have gone through the testimony of the victim and we find nothing which may dissuade us from accepting her version moreso when necessary assurance, as discussed earlier, is forthcoming from other evidence. The apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. N.K. (Accused), AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1812, observed : "11. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime/There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the court of facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. However, if the court of facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an accomplice would do. Reference may be had to a long chain of decisions some of which are Rameshwar v. State of Raj., 1952 SCR 377 : (AIR 1952 SC 54 : 1952 Cri LJ 547); Sidheswar Ganguly v. State of WB, AIR 1958 SC 143 : (1958 Cri LJ 273); Madhoram v. State of UP., (1973) 1 SCC 533 : (AIR 1973 SC 469 : 1973 Cri LJ 673; State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 : (AIR 1990 SC 658: 1990 Cri LJ 889); Madam Gopal Kakkad, (1992) 3 SCC 204: (1992) AIR SCW 1480, Shri Narayan, (1992) 3 SCC 615 : (1992) AIR SCW 2365 : AIR 1992 SC 2004 : 1992 Cri LJ 3655; Karnel Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 518 : (1995 AIR SCW 3644: AIR 1995 SC 2472); Bodhisattwa Gautam, (1996) 1 SCC 490: (1996 AIR SCW 325 : AIR 1996 SC 922) and Gurmit Singh, (1996 AIR SCW 998 : AIR 1996 SC 1393 : 1996 Cri LJ 1728 (supra). We may quote from the last of the above said decisions where the rule for appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix in such cases has been succinctly summed up in the following words (para 20 of AIR Cri LJ):W "......If evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her statement in material particulars. If for some reason the court finds it difficult to place implicit reliance on her testimony, it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony, short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the backgrounds of the entire case and the trial Court must be alive to its responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations” 19. The contention of the accused that victim was not sexually assaulted, in the circumstances is rejected. (b) Delay in lodging of the First Information Report. 20. The contention of the accused that victim was not sexually assaulted, in the circumstances is rejected. (b) Delay in lodging of the First Information Report. 20. The next contention of learned Counsel for the accused is that there is considerable delay in lodging of the first information report which has vitiated trial. It is true that the occurrence took place on 9th November, 1996 whereas First Information Report was lodged with the police on 22nd November, 1996 and thus there is delay of about 12 days in reporting the matter to the police. The delay is explained by Biasan Devi foster mother of the victim. According to her, her husband is simpleton person, therefore, when she came to know about the incident after three days of the occurrence she sent for Machalu Ram, real father of victim who came after a week and thereafter report with the police was immediately lodged. Machalu Ram appearing as PW-6 testifies that Biasan Devi, his real sister, has adopted Kunta Devi as daughter, as she does not have any issue of her own. It is his evidence that he remains mostly away from his place of residence because of field duties. It is further in evidence that he was called by Biasan Devi after about five days of Diwali regarding the incident. He went to the house of Biasan Devi and thereafter to the police station to lodge the report. This evidence of Machalu Ram, is uncontroverted in his cross-examination. 21. Learned Counsel for the accused vehemently urges that delay remains unexplained and benefit must go to the accused. He submits that Diwali was on 10th November, 1996 and therefore Monday must have been working day. The incident would have been disclosed by the victim to Biasan Devi on 11th November, 1996 though in the first information report it is recorded that the occurrence was disclosed to Biasan Devi on 13th November, 1996. He further contends that house of Machalu Ram is not at a far of distance from the village of Biasan Devi and Machalu Ram could have been contacted within a day or two whereas the first information report was lodged after 12 days of the occurrence. Learned Counsel < relying upon Emperor v. Kh. He further contends that house of Machalu Ram is not at a far of distance from the village of Biasan Devi and Machalu Ram could have been contacted within a day or two whereas the first information report was lodged after 12 days of the occurrence. Learned Counsel < relying upon Emperor v. Kh. Nazir Ahmed, 1945 Privy Council 18; Thulia Kali v. State of Tamilnadu, 1973 AIR SC 501, contends that the first information report in a criminal case being vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence given at the trial. Therefore, the delay in lodging the first information report result in embellishment which is a creature of an after thought and such a report becomes bereft of the advantage of spontaneity. Danger creeps in the introduction of coloured versions, exaggerated account or concocted story a£ a result of deliberation and consultation. 22. In this case we are satisfied that the del&y is satisfactorily explained. This apart prosecution case cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground of delay in lodging of first information report. Learned Counsel for the accused refers to Koja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 (2) Crimes 359, and submits that an inordinate delay in filing the FIR would go to show that the case against the accused is false. We are afraid that the contention is misplaced and cannot be accepted. In that case not only there was an inordinate delay in lodging the first information report but delay in its despatch to the concerned Magistrate was also not satisfactorily explained. The version given by the prosecutrix did not appear to be probable. Her testimony did not inspire confidence. In this context delay of factum of lodging of first information report was taken as one of the factors to acquit the accused. 23. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in our society victims of rape are looked down upon and they carry stigma throughout their life for no fault of their therefore the victim and the parents are hesitant to lodge complaint With the police. It is only after consulting various relatives and leaders of the society that such reports to the law enforcing agency are made. In State of Rajasthan v. N.K. Accused (supra), dealing with delay in lodging first information report in such cases, Their Lordship observed: "15. It is only after consulting various relatives and leaders of the society that such reports to the law enforcing agency are made. In State of Rajasthan v. N.K. Accused (supra), dealing with delay in lodging first information report in such cases, Their Lordship observed: "15. We may however state that a mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground by itself for throwing the entire prosecution case overboard. The court has to seek an explanation for delay and test the truthfulness and plausibility of the reason assigned. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court it cannot be counted against the prosecution. In State of Rajasthan v. Shri Narayan, AIR 1992 SC 2004 : (1992 AIR SCW 2365 : 1992 Cri LJ 3655), this court observed. “True it is that the complaint was lodged two days later but as stated earlier Indian Society being what it is the victims of such a crime ordinarily consult relatives and are hesitant to approach the police since it involves the question of morality and chastity of a married woman. A woman and her relatives have to struggle with several situations before deciding to approach the police........" In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 AIR SCW 998 : AIR 1996 SC 1393 : 1996 Cri LJ 1728 (supra) this Court has held" The courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incidence which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It s only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged." So are the observations made by this Court in Karenel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518 : (1995 AIR SCW 3644 : AIR 1995 SC 2472), repelling the defence contention based on delay in lodging the FIR. In the present case in our opinion the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained” 24. In the present case in our opinion the delay in lodging the FIR has been satisfactorily explained” 24. In this case delay has satisfactorily been explained by the foster mother of victim and her father and even if there is any unexplained delay that will not in itself be sufficient to dismiss the prosecution case : (c) Accused was not called upon to explain any evidence or circumstance indicating that accused sexually violated the prosecutrix or committed rape. 25. The next contention of Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for the accused is that though accused has been convicted for offence of rape but he was not called upon to explain any circumstance which may constitute offence of rape. The argument is to be noticed to be rejected. 26. We have observed that to constitute offence of rape it is neither necessary nor requirement of law that there should be complete penetration of penis into the private part of the victim. Even slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda is sufficient to constitute rape. 27. We have gone through the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the accused was called upon to explain the circumstance appearing against him in the evidence. The accused was asked to explain the circumstance, in terms of question No. 5 that he after removing Salwar of the victim and removing his own pant and underwear lied down over Kunta Devi on the ground and further in terms of question No. 6 that due to the act of accused, Kunta Devi felt pain in her vagina and blood started oozing out of the vagina. These two questions read together clearly indicates that accused was called upon to explain the circumstances which indicated that accused had sexually violated prosecutrix and committed rape. (d) Evidence of prosecutrix, child witness is not corroborated by any other evidence on record. 27. The contention of Mr. Chitkara, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of victim who at the time of occurrence was about eight years of age and at the time of giving testimony in the court was about 10 years and, therefore, conviction on the uncorroborated, evidence of the child witness will be unjust and against the recognised principles of law. He heavily relies upon Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1952 SC 54, to strengthen his argument. There is no scope for dispute that judicial conscience may, in a case of a child witness, look for corroboration for basing conviction on his/ her testimony. At the same time it is not necessary to look for corroboration, simply because the witness is of tender age. The tender age of the child, its demeanor, unlikelihood of tutoring may render corroboration unnecessary. We have already pointed out that the trial Judge after questioning victim Kunta Devi found her to be competent witness who understood the sanctity of oath. It is true that in a case of child witness the court has to carefully consider whether the child was under the influence of any tutoring and if it is found that child was tutored then it would be unsafe to base conviction on the evidence of such a child witness. There is nothing on record to suggest, even remotely, that evidence of Kunta Devi is result of tutoring. In this particular case the circumstances discussed earlier coupled with the testimony of her foster mother Biasan Devi furnishes necessary assurance and corroboration to the testimony of victim. There is no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused : (e) At the most offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and conviction for the offence under Section 376 IPC is not sustainable. 28. Last submission of Mr. Chitkara, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused is that at the most offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC is made out and conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC is not sustainable. Sh. Chitkara submits that it was the own case of prosecution that accused merely attempted to commit rape. He refers us to supplementary statement of victim Kunta Devi recorded by police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex. PW 11/G). This statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 15th February, 1997. In this supplementary statement victim states that blood stains on her salwar were due to injury sustained by her on her arm as the accused was using force on her and she was trying to get herself release and consequently blood from injury on her arm spread on the salwar. In this supplementary statement victim states that blood stains on her salwar were due to injury sustained by her on her arm as the accused was using force on her and she was trying to get herself release and consequently blood from injury on her arm spread on the salwar. This was a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not a substantive piece of evidence. It could only be used to contradict victim Kunta Devi, but we find that this statement was not put to victim Kunta Devi in her cross-examination by the accused. Accused is not permitted to use the statement to show that he merely made an attempt to sexually assault Kunta Devi and did not infact rape her. This document is in-admissible in evidence and cannot be looked into. It is of no assistance to the accused. In any event, as discussed by us, absence of injury on the person of the victim would not mean that victim was not raped. We are satisfied that evidence of Kunta Devi, victim does not suffer from any infirmity. There is nothing in the testimony of Kunta Devi, which is otherwise corroborated by evidence on record, which may render it unfit for reliance. 29. No other point is urged before us. 30. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.