ORDER : 1. The respondent was charged with an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal code. The case of the prosecution is that on 15th April, 1990 at about 10-00 a.m. respondent committed rape of a young girl aged about 10-12 years. She and the respondent were resident of the same village. She had gone to forest to collect fuel sticks. In the forest the rape is alleged to have been committed by the respondent. The girl disclosed this fact to her mother after 4 days whereafter the report was lodged with the police and investigation proceeded. The prosecutrix P.W.1 explained that she did not disclose the incident earlier to her mother for the fear of being beaten by her. Prosecutrix was examined by doctor Mrs. Mulchandani who issued the certificate opining that her vaginal examination showed that penis has entered in her vagina. The Sessions Court on examination of the evidence on record, in particular, the evidence of prosecutrix and the medical evidence of P.W.3 Dr. Mulchandani, and corroborating evidence of P.W.2 who was also gone to forest with P.W.1 but had run away on finding that the respondent was rushing towards them when unfortunately foot of prosecutrix was punctured on account of a thorn which she was removing and at that stage the respondent was able to grab her and drag her towards bushes and thereafter the offence of rape is said to have been committed. The evidence has been examined in detail by the Session Court. The Court also considered the submissions that it was a case of mere attempt to commit rape, this plea of the defence was rejected. The respondent was found guilty of the offence under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. In the appeal that was filed by the respondent before the High Court challenging his aforesaid conviction and sentence, his involvement in the incident was not challenged. 200/- and in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. In the appeal that was filed by the respondent before the High Court challenging his aforesaid conviction and sentence, his involvement in the incident was not challenged. The High Court also found that at the relevant time prosecutrix was aged about 10-12 years; she had gone to forest to collect fuel wood; accused as substantiated by prosecution, caught prosecutrix while she was collecting wood along with her friend including PW2 Indira, made her to lie down and committed intercourse and that it was brought on record from the testimony of prosecutrix and her mother that the injury was constantly bleeding for 5 days. The High Court also found that delay in lodging F.I.R. was properly explained. Regarding the medical evidence, the impugned judgment of the High Court notices that : "PW3 Dr. Mrs. Mulchandani in her examination has stated that multiple lacerations were present on vulva. Laceration on hymen was also present. At the time of examination she could not see any bleeding from the injury. She did say that vaginal examination shows that penis had entered the vagina. However, in cross-examination she said that definite opinion could not be given as to whether the hymen was ruptured or intact." 3. Despite holding that the aforesaid facts had been proved by the prosecution, the High Court, in rather too brief an order, sets aside the finding of the Sessions Judge. The only reasons given in the impugned judgment by the High Court are :- "Taking into account this medical evidence, it appears that the accused made an attempt to commit rape. In case of actual rape or complete inserting of penis, it would have certainly result in rupture of hymen of a girl of tender age of 10 or 12. In view of this, according to us the appellant has made an attempt and hence is liable to be punished with the aid of Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. the finding in this regard as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained." 4. The State is in appeal. In view of this, according to us the appellant has made an attempt and hence is liable to be punished with the aid of Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. the finding in this regard as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained." 4. The State is in appeal. There is hardly any discussion in the impugned judgment for reversing the well considered judgment of the Sessions Court wherein on detailed appreciation of evidence it was found that the offence of rape had been proved to the hilt against the accused. Except what is noticed hereinbefore, there is no other discussion in the impugned judgment for the conclusion that the accused appears to have made an attempt to commit rape and the finding of rape could not be sustained. The Sessions Court had extensively discussed the statement of the prosecutrix which was clearly and unambiguously corroborated by the medical evidence of PW3 and the report prepared by her on examination of prosecutrix. On the examination of the said evidence the learned Sessions Judge had concluded as follows : "Apart from this evidence on record, there is a clear and unambiguous medical evidence to bear out the version of P.W.1 Sangita. Dr. (Mrs.) Mulchandani has deposed that on vaginal examination she found multiple lacerations present on vulva and laceration on hymen was also present, and the age of the injuries was approximately 4 to 5 days and on this vaginal examination she had opined that penis has entered the vagina. In cross- examination, she has admitted that she is unable to give her opinion whether hymen was ruptured or was intact." "When Dr. (Mrs.) Mulchandani has noticed multiple laceration present on vulva and there was also laceration to the hymen and when there is evidence of P.W.1 Sangita that the accused inserted his male organ into her private parts, the said medical evidence clearly corroborated the version of P.W.1 Sangita." 5. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, provides in explanation that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. It would include the partial and incomplete penetration as well. From evidence the penetration stands fully established. 6. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, provides in explanation that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. It would include the partial and incomplete penetration as well. From evidence the penetration stands fully established. 6. Recently in State of Rajasthan v.Om Prakash ( 2002 (5) SCC 745 ) a bench of this Court, in which one of us (Y.K. Sabharwal, J) was a member, considering the effect of such a crime on the mind of the child laid down the sensitive approach which deserved to be adopted in these cases. That was a case of rape of a young girl aged 8 years. In the present case the age of the girl was 10-12 years. In Om Prakash's case too, adopting a hyper-technical approach, the High Court had set aside the conviction of the accused. Reversing the judgment of the High Court and restoring that of the trial court, this Court said:- "It is necessary for the courts to have a sensitive approach when dealing with cases of child rape. The effect of such a crime on the mind of the child is likely to be lifelong. A special safeguard has been provided for children in the Constitution of India in Article 39 which, inter alia, stipulates that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the tender age of the children is not abused and the children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. In the present case, the victim at the time of occurrence of rape was a child aged eight years. The accused was a youth aged 18 years." It was further observed that : "Cases involving sexual molestation and assault require a different approach - a sensitive approach and not an approach which a court may adopt in dealing with a normal offence under penal laws." 7. It is unfortunate that one of the contention urged on behalf of the respondent, in support of the judgment under appeal, was that such incidents are usual in villages. We hope that is not so. But if it is true, then it deserves to be sternly dealt with. It is unfortunate that one of the contention urged on behalf of the respondent, in support of the judgment under appeal, was that such incidents are usual in villages. We hope that is not so. But if it is true, then it deserves to be sternly dealt with. Regarding vulnerability of a girl child in Om Prakash's case, it was said :- "Child rape cases are cases of perverse lust for sex where even innocent children are not spared in pursuit of sexual pleasure. There cannot be anything more obscene than this. It is a crime against humanity. Many such cases are not even brought to light because of the social stigma attached thereto. According to some surveys, there has been a steep rise in child rape cases. Children need special care and protection. In such cases, responsibility on the shoulders of the courts is more onerous so as to provide proper legal protection to these children. Their physical and mental immobility call for such protection. Children are the natural resource of our country. They are the country's future. Hope of tomorrow rests on them. In our country, a girl child is in a very vulnerable position and one of the modes of her exploitation is rape besides other modes of sexual abuse. These factors point towards a different approach required to be adopted. The overturning of a well-considered and well-analysed judgment of the trial court on grounds like non-examination of other witnesses, when the case against the respondent otherwise stood established beyond any reasonable doubt was not called for............" 8. We have minutely examined the evidence. In our view, there was no valid ground for the High Court to reverse the well considered judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and without even proper re-appreciation of evidence. It may be noticed that the accused has not challenged the judgment of the High Court whereby reversing the trial court he was convicted for an attempt to commit rape and the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years was imposed on him. 9. For the aforesaid reasons we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court and allow the appeal accordingly. We direct that the respondent be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence awarded to him by the Court of Sessions.