JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises out the judgment dated 27.2.1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Sessions Case No. 34/88 whereby he convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 376 I.RC. and sentenced him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that no offence under Section 376 I.RC. can be said to be made out as from the medical report it is clear and explicit that the hymen of the girl was intact and there were no injury marks on the person of the girl. In this case, no doctor was examined at the trial as the medical report was admitted by the counsel for the accused. According to the medical evidence, the age of the prosecutrix was about 12 years. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Suresh Chand v. The State of Haryana reported in 1976 Cr.LJ 452 and Das Bernard v. State reported in 1974 Cr.LJ. 1974 and has canvassed that at best the offence can fall under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.RC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has canvassed that in a case of a tender aged girl the hymen is deeply situated and with the insertion it does not get ruptured necessarily. Rupture of the hymen must have escaped because of its deep seatedness. He has placed reliance on Brij Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1999(2) R.C.C. 776 and has canvassed that this Court has already taken the view that non-rupturing of the hymen is not a conclusive proof that sexual intercourse/penetration had not taken place. In this regard, the statement of the girl is clear and unambiguous and has not been shaken in cross-examination. 4. I have considered the rival submissions advanced at the bar by both the parties. 5. The fact of sexual assault as has been deposed by the prosecutrix RW. 2 in her statement is clear and unambiguous. She has been descriptive about the events and her cross-examination no where dilutes the testimony given by her. That being the position the fact of sexual assault by the accused appellant on the prosecutrix is a fact which deserves to be held established. 2 in her statement is clear and unambiguous. She has been descriptive about the events and her cross-examination no where dilutes the testimony given by her. That being the position the fact of sexual assault by the accused appellant on the prosecutrix is a fact which deserves to be held established. In the process of assault what offence will be made out is the principal bone of contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. I have considered the cases cited at the bar from the both the sides and I am inclined to hold that it was not always necessary that the hymen should get ruptured in every assault when insertion is made. That being the position, this fact alone is not sufficient to hold that the offence under Section 376 I.PC. is not made out. If this fact is out of consideration then there remains nothing to hold that the offence under Section 376 has not been committed by the appellant. That being the position there is no merit in the appeal. The offence is held to be made against the accused appellant. 7. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The accused is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. The trial court would issue necessary warrant against the accused for serving out the remaining sentences.Appeal dismissed. *******