JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 14/15.1.1992 Tarsem Kumar appellant committed rape on Mamta aged about 8 yeas in the school. The accused was apprehended at the spot. The matter was reported to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered on the statement of Smt. Kareshni Devi PW-7. ASI Pale Ram and SI Beer Singh PW- 14 conducted the investigation in this case. The accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented before the illaqa magistrate. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the illaqua magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. On commitment, the case was entrusted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. 2. A prima facie case under Section 376 Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined HC Amrit Lal as PW-1, C. Surja Ram as PW-2, Dr. Samrat Harsh as PW-3, Constable Mukesh Kumar as PW-4, Mamta as PW-5, Shri Kuldip Jain, JMIC, Kurushetra as PW-6, Smt. Kareshni Devi as PW-7, Kulwant Singh as PW-8, Pale Ram as PW-9, Constable Amarjit as PW-10, Surender Singh SHO as PW-11, Baljeet Kaur Headmistress as PW-12, Dr. Rani Shone as PW-13, Beer Singh SI/SHO as PW-14. 4. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Sr. P.C. to explain the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied simplicitor and pleaded false implication. The appellant was called upon to lead evidence in defence but he did not lead any evidence in defence. 5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred. 6. Shri A.S. Chahal, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective. 6. Shri A.S. Chahal, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the learned trial Court on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective. He submitted the the complaint has connected a false story that her daughter has been raped by the appellant. He submitted that if the appellant has forcibly intercourse with a girl of 8/10 years then there must have been injury on the penis of the appellant but no injury was found by Dr. Ranju Soni. He further contended that the prosecutrix was not known to the appellant earlier and there was a marriage party and from there the appellant could not entice or forcibly take her to the school. He also contended that there are material discrepancies between the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother. He also pointed out that prosecutrix has improved the version on each and every point and introduced a story that the appellant had threatened her with dire consequences that he is terrorist. He contended that, if the appellant has threatened the prosecutrix that he is terrorist then the prosecutrix must have narrated this version to her mother and others. He also submitted that in case, it has been proved that the appellant was the person who has committed this offence then a case under section 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code is made out and not under Section 376 Indian Penal Code as there was no injury to the penis of the appellant and the girl is aged about 9 years, then it can simply be said that it is an attempt to commit rape and not rape. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that Mamta prosecutrix is to be discarded on the ground that she was child witness is without any any basis. 9. When the case is based on the evidence of a child witness, it puts the court its own guard to scrutinise the evidence of a child witness with great care and caution. 10. 9. When the case is based on the evidence of a child witness, it puts the court its own guard to scrutinise the evidence of a child witness with great care and caution. 10. In Baby Kandayanathil v. State of Kerala, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2275, the Apex Court has observed that when a child witness gives answers fearlessly, intelligently and boldly and gives minute details of the occurrence and withstood the cross-examination, the credibility of a such child witness cannot be discarded on the ground of being a child. In para 4, the Apex Court has held as under :- "The learned trial Judge has put preliminary questions to each of the witnesses and satisfying that they were answering questions intelligently without any fear whatsoever, proceeded to record the evidence. In the chief examination, each of the witnesses has given all the details of the occurrence. There has been a searching cross-examination and the witnesses withstood the same. We have also gone through the evidence and we do not see any reason to doubt their evidence. They are the most natural witnesses who had been present in the house at the night time. Both the courts have accepted their evidence and we see no ground to interfere. There are no merits in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant who is on bail shall surrender and serve out the sentence and the bail bond stands cancelled." 11. In Panchhi and others v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2726, in para 11, their lordships of the Apex Court have held as under :- "Shri R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel, contended that it is very risky to place reliance on the evidence of PW-1 being a child witness. According to the learned counsel, evidence of a child witness is generally unworthy of credence. But we do not subscribe to the view that the evidence of a child witness would always stand irretrievably stigmatized. It is not the law that if a witness is a child his evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring." 12. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring." 12. Similar view has been taken Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 482 and State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Fakira Dhiwar, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 768. 13. In the instant case, Mamta prosecutrix was 9 years old. She has been cross-examined at length on behalf of the appellant. She has faced the cross-examination boldly and fearlessly and has given minute details of the occurrence that on the day of occurrence, she was present at her uncles house. Toni was with her. She has further deposed that the appellant asked her that she has been called by her mother. Thereafter, he took her with him on the pretext that he was to purchase Biri. He should tell him the shop. She took her to the shop of Jagira which was found closed. The appellant gagged her mouth and took her near the school. He threatened her by saying that he is in possession of a knife and is terrorist. He also assaulted with knife. He took her to the nearby Bara where parali was lying. He removed her salwar and put his male organ in her vagina after removing his pant and underwear. She cried with pain. On hearing her alarm, her mother Kareshni, her uncle Ajmer and one Gurmej also reached at the spot. 14. The version of Mamta, prosecutrix has been fully corroborated by the version given by her mother Krishni as well as the medical evidence given by Dr. Ranju Soni, PW-13. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to assail the conviction and sentence of the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix has been tutored by pointing out towards her cross-examination in which she has stated that her uncle had shown the appellant today but before putting this question, the witness has replied that he had seen the appellant first time today after the occurrence. By mere saying that the appellant had been shown to her by her uncle, the case of the prosecution does not become doubtful. 16. When evidence of Mamta and her mother Krishni is scanned, it struck nothing put truth. By mere saying that the appellant had been shown to her by her uncle, the case of the prosecution does not become doubtful. 16. When evidence of Mamta and her mother Krishni is scanned, it struck nothing put truth. Furthermore, Mamta and her mother have no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. There is nothing on the record that there was any enmity between Mamta and the appellant and appellant and Krishni etc. 17. The only point which has been seriously contested by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code is made out as there was no injury on the male organ of the appellant and only offence under section 376 read with section 511 Indian Penal Code is (sic). 18. In Modls Taxt Books of Medical Jurisprudence and Taxicology (21st Edn Page 369), it has been reported that :- "Thus to constitute the offence of rape it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rapture of hymen. Partial penetration of the penis within the Labia Majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is quite sufficient for the purpose of law. It is, therefore, quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains." In Parikhs Taxt Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the following passage is found : "Sexual intercourse : In law, this terms 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." In Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. It is, therefore, quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains." In Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice (Vol. 4) at page 1356, it is stated :- "......even slightest penetration is sufficient and emission is not necessary." In Halsburys 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 Section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act, 1956." In American Jurisprudence, it is stated that : "Slightest penetration is sufficient to complete the crime of rape." Code of 263 of Penal Code of California reads thus :- "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." 19. In view of these text books, in order to constitute the offence of rape, slightest penetration of the male organ in the vagina of the prosecutrix is sufficient for the completion of the offence of rape. 20. In the instant case, as per the version given by Mamta, appellant entered his male organ in the vagina. Dr. Ranju Soni has medically examined Mamta prosecutrix. From vaginal examination, she has found as under :- "Vulva is slightly swollen, blood present introitus. Hymen is slightly torn, and congested. It bleeds on touch." 21. From the medical examination, it shows that the male organ was put by the appellant in the vagina, as a result of which hymen was slightly torn and was congested. Even the blood was present introitus. Therefore, the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code is made out and not under Section 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code as alleged by the learned counsel for the appellant. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and surety bonds stand cancelled. He be taken into custody to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence. Appeal dismissed.