MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J. This appeal by accused Babu Ram is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-4-1999 passed by Sri S. Chandra, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad whereby he convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. The Court further directed that amount of fine after realization shall be paid to the victim of rape. 2. Admittedly, accused Babu Ram was posted as a constable at P. S. Pakwara, District Moradabad in the year 1997. P. W. 1 Jai Pal Singh s/o Baldeo Singh a resident of village and P. S. Pakwara was residing in the house of Raja Ram Ruhela. Accused Babu Ram was also a tenant of Raja Ram in the same house. On 1-9- 1997 there was no power supply in the evening. Consequently, Jai Pal Singh alongwith his wife and daughter Km. Meenakshi aged about 10 years and his landlord Raja Ram Rehula were all sitting on the roof of the house. Constable Babu Ram was also sitting on the roof of his room. Meenakshi came down to urinate. It was about 8. 30 p. m. that power supply was restored, constable Babu Ram also came down on the ground floor. Babu Ram caught hold the girl and committed rape on her. On account of severe pain, she cried out which attracted her parents. They too came down. The accused dressed himself and ran away. There was profuse bleeding from the private part of the girl. 3. P. W. 1 Jaipal Singh prepared a written report of the incident and reached police station alongwith his daughter. He handed over his written report to the local police and lodged FIR at 10. 00 p. m. on the same night. 4. P. W. 7 S. I. Ompal Singh took up investigation of the case and interrogated the informant and his daughter. The girl was sent to District Hospital for medical examination. 5. Km. Meenakshi was examined by Dr. Ranjana at 1. 30 a. m. on 2-9- 1997 who found hymen fresh torn. Tear was also found at 6o clock position 0. 2 cm. x 0. 2 cm. The injury was bleeding on touch. The girl was sent to District Hospital for medical examination. 5. Km. Meenakshi was examined by Dr. Ranjana at 1. 30 a. m. on 2-9- 1997 who found hymen fresh torn. Tear was also found at 6o clock position 0. 2 cm. x 0. 2 cm. The injury was bleeding on touch. She collected vaginal swab and sent the same for examination. Vagina was found to be red and congested. 6. Dr. G. K. Jain got the X-ray done of right elbow joint and right wrist joint and gave his report. 7. P. W. 6 S. I. Chandrapal completed investigation and submitted charge-sheet under Section 376/511 IPC. 8. After committal of the case, the accused was charged under Section 376 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 9. The prosecution in support of its case examined P. W. 1 Jaipal Singh, the father of prosecutrix and one of the eye-witnesses, P. W. 2 Meenakshi, the victim of rape, P. W. 3 G. K. Jain, radiologist, P. W. 4 Dr. Ranjana, lady doctor who examined Kr. Meenakshi. On 2-9-1997, P. W. 5 H. C. Ashok Kumar, who prepared chik report and made entry in G. D. , P. W. 6 S. I. Chandrapal P. W. 7 S. I. Ompal Singh are I. O. of the case. 10. Accused Ram Babu in his statement given under Section 313 Cr. P. C. admitted that he was also a tenant in the house owned by Raja Ram Ruhela alongwith Jaipal Singh. He further admitted that he was posted as constable at P. S. Pakwara on 1-9-1997. He pleaded alibi and his false implication on account of enmity. According to him, he was posted at police check post Bhusani crossing alongwith Constable Anil Kumar and was not present on the spot as alleged by prosecution. 11. No evidence was led in defence. 12. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the entire evidence on record, trial Court believed the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated above. 13. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 14. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A. G. A. and perused the record. 15. The appellant was admittedly posted as a Constable at P. S. Pakwara on the impugned date. 13. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 14. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned A. G. A. and perused the record. 15. The appellant was admittedly posted as a Constable at P. S. Pakwara on the impugned date. He was admittedly a tenant of Raja Ram Ruhela and father of the girl (Jaipal Singh) also resided there as a tenant. It has come in the evidence of the father and daughter that Babu Ram had shifted to that house about a month prior to the incident. Therefore, Babu Ram was well known to the informant and members of his family. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the judgment on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and only an attempt was made to commit rape. The trial Court erred in placing reliance on the testimony of the father and daughter and the medical evidence on record does not support the prosecution story. On the other hand learned A. G. A. supported the judgment and contended that the appellant committed rape on a minor girl aged about 10 years and the trial Court rightly believed the prosecution witnesses and convicted him. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 16. Taking into consideration, the entire submissions made on behalf of the parties and the entire evidence on record including the medical evidence and the circumstances of the case also, I find that contention of appellants learned counsel is not well founded and cannot be accepted. It is true that the prosecution examined the father and his daughter, only to prove charge of rape against the appellant and no independent witness was examined. According to the report, lodged by father of the girl, the parents of the girl and landlord reached the place of occurrence after hearing shriek of the girl. First of all, it may be mentioned that the number of witnesses is not material as has been held in several cases by the apex Court and a finding of conviction can be recorded on the basis of solitary testimony of the prosecutrix. In the instant case, landlord Raja Ram Ruhela expired during pendency of the case in the Court below. Therefore, out of the four witnesses present on the spot, two were examined P. W. 2 Km. Meenakshi fully supported the prosecution version. In the instant case, landlord Raja Ram Ruhela expired during pendency of the case in the Court below. Therefore, out of the four witnesses present on the spot, two were examined P. W. 2 Km. Meenakshi fully supported the prosecution version. She disclosed her age as 12 years on 18-1-1999, when her statement was recorded in the Court. She was a student of Class VI. According to her, on 1-9- 1997 at about 8. 30 p. m. she and her parents along with Raja Ram Ruhela were present on the roof on account of power failure. She came down to attend the call of nature. In the meantime, power supply was restored. When she came out from the bathroom, she was caught by Babu Ram and made to lay on the Takhat lying in the veranda. She was undressed by the accused and then he tried to penetrate his penis in her private part. She added that on account of this action of the accused bleeding started and she felt severe pain. She cried out and her parents as well as landlord reached there. Accused left her and ran away. She narrated the incident to her parents and after sometime was taken to the police station. She disclosed that she was medically examined and her blood stained kachhi, was taken by her father, which was deposited in the police station. She was crossed examined extensively but nothing material could be elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. She gave out in clear words that she came down to attend call of nature first and then accused followed her. She remained in the bathroom for about five minutes. When she came out of the bathroom and turned towards stairs, she was dragged by the accused who threatened to kill her. The girl added that kachhi was taken out by the accused and then he committed rape on her. She clarified in her cross-examination that accused had caught her both hands with his one hand. 17. P. W. 1 Jaipal Singh too fully supported prosecution story and corroborated the testimony of his daughter on material points. He gave out that Meenakshi was about 10 years old at the time of incident. He was also cross-examined at length but I find nothing in his cross-examination to discard his testimony. 17. P. W. 1 Jaipal Singh too fully supported prosecution story and corroborated the testimony of his daughter on material points. He gave out that Meenakshi was about 10 years old at the time of incident. He was also cross-examined at length but I find nothing in his cross-examination to discard his testimony. Both father and daughter denied that there was exchange of hot words about 10-15 days prior to this incident between mother of Meenakshi and wife of the accused. As stated above, accused pleaded alibi and stated that he was on duty alongwith constable Anil Kumar. Contrary to this, learned Counsel for the appellant accused gave different suggestions to Jaipal Singh and Km. Meenakshi. The informant denied this suggestion of the defence that appellant is Jatav by caste, and as such he did not like him as a tenant in the same house and falsely implicated. I find from perusal of the record that informant stayed at his house for about one and half hours after the incident. The FIR was lodged on the same night at 10. 00 p. m. It means the incident was reported to the local police promptly and the accused was named therein. Further medical examination also took place on the same night at 1. 30 a. m. 18. So far as the age of girl is concerned, P. W. 1 Jaipal Singh, father of the girl mentioned in his report that Km. Meenakshi was about 10 years old on 1-9-1997. The statement of the father and daughter were recorded in the Court on 18-1-1999 i. e. , after about 17 months. In the month of January, 1999, Meenakshi was a student of Class VI and her father disclosed her age as 11- 12 years. P. W. 3 Dr. G. K. Jain, Radiologist found that Epiphysis at lower end of right radius and ulna had not fused together with their shaft and pisci form had appeared. He gave out that fusion is complete at the age of 13 years. Therefore, in view of testimony of the father of the girl and the medical evidence on record, it may be safely held that the girl was not more than 12 years on the date of incident of rape. 19. It was urged vehemently that the appellant did not succeed in committing rape and merely an attempt was made. Therefore, in view of testimony of the father of the girl and the medical evidence on record, it may be safely held that the girl was not more than 12 years on the date of incident of rape. 19. It was urged vehemently that the appellant did not succeed in committing rape and merely an attempt was made. I find that this contention of the appellant has no legs to stand. The explanation to Section 375 IPC provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. The law is well-settled on the point that even slightest penetration of penis into vagina without rapture hymen would constitute rape. Reliance was placed on the following decisions : (1) Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Nawal Dube and another, 1992 JIC 593 (SC) ; 1992 SCC (Criminal) page 598. (2) Ranjeet Hazarika v. State of Assam, 1998 SCC (Criminal) page 1725. 20. In the incident case, Dr. Ranjana found that hymen was torn and it was fresh. Moreover, there was bleeding on touch. She further gave out that injury on private part was caused by any blunt object including male penis. It is, therefore, obvious from the medical evidence also that the accused tried to penetrate his penis in the private part of the girl but on account of her cry and arrival of the witnesses he did not succeed. If there was no penetration, there could be no bleeding and underwear of the girl would not have been stained. Even if there was partial penetration that will constitute offence of rape. It is well-settled that the corroboration of the testimony of the victim of rape is not always necessary and the Court should not insist on it. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion of the evidence on record and arguments advanced on behalf of appellant, I see no valid and good grounds to set aside the finding of the trial Court that it was the appellant and none else who committed rape on a girl aged below 12 years on the impugned date. In my opinion, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 376 IPC. 22. It was urged on behalf appellant that the appellant is in Jail since 1-9-1997 and he was never granted bail. In my opinion, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 376 IPC. 22. It was urged on behalf appellant that the appellant is in Jail since 1-9-1997 and he was never granted bail. An affidavit was filed by Smt. Usha Devi, wife of the appellant to the effect that she has got four children-two sons and two daughters and all are minors. The appellant has been in Jail for the last 6 years and as such, he deserves sympathy of this Court. The appellant disclosed his age as 31 years on 5- 3-1999 when his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Now he is 35 years old. On the one hand, reduction in the period of sentence has been prayed on behalf appellant on the ground that he has got four minors children including two daughters. During pendency of the appeal, appellants father Sukh Lal, also died and the appellants wife has been living with her brothers in District Badaun. On the other, I find that appellant, who was posted as a Constable at Police Station Pakwara itself and who was expected to protect the life and property of the citizens residing in his jurisdiction, committed this heinous crime and tried to satisfy his lust of sex by raping a girl below 12 years of age. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to reduce the term of imprisonment. Consequently, I hold that this appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376 (2) IPC and the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court are confirmed. He is in jail. He is directed to serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed. .