JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The appellant seeks to challenge the order dated 20.2.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Koraput-Nabarangpur-Malkangiri-Rayagada, Jeypore in Sessions Case No.172 of 1999 convicting him under Sections 376/511 and 506 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC and rigorous imprison¬ment for one month for the offence under Section 506 IPC, both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. This is a case which reveals as to how a man for his lust loses his rationality and conscience. The appellant, it is alleged, attempted to rape is own minor daughter. Bereft of unne¬cessary details, the short facts are that the informant and the victim girl aged a little less than twelve years were the wife and daughter respectively of the appellant. The informant gave birth to three daughters and two sons through the appellant, the victim girl being the eldest. The appellant was addicted to liquor and invariably each day he used to return dunk to his house and assault his wife and children. It so happened that on 23rd February, 1999 the appellant quarreled with the informant and threatened to assault her. Being enraged the informant left for her father’s place leaving her children. In that night, the victim girl, her sisters and brothers slept on the floor of their house after taking their meals. The appellant returned home a little later and asked the victim girl to serve food. The victim girl served dinner to her father and arranged his bed. The appel¬lant slept on a cot. One of the daughters of the appellant went to the house of a neighbour, Hanu by name. In the night the appel¬lant approached the victim girl to come and sleep with him on the cot but the victim girl declined. Thereafter the appellant by applying force lifted the victim girl from the floor and made her lie down on the cot. He removed her underwear and when the victim daughter protested, the appellant threatened to stab her by knife. he gagged her mouth by putting a cloth and tried to have forcible intercourse with her, but then there was difficulty in penetration. The victim daughter struggled and tried to escape from the clutches of her father and in the process she fell down on the floor. The appellant then repeated his action on the floor. he gagged her mouth by putting a cloth and tried to have forcible intercourse with her, but then there was difficulty in penetration. The victim daughter struggled and tried to escape from the clutches of her father and in the process she fell down on the floor. The appellant then repeated his action on the floor. Having no other way out, the victim daughter pinched the thigh of her baby brother who started crying. Hearing the cries of the baby, a neighbour, namely, Premabati shouted and thereafter the appellant left the victim. The victim girl thereafter went to the house of Premabati with her brother and wanted to sleep there. At that time one Surunda came to the house of Prembati. Premabati then asked Surunda to take the victim girl to his house. On the following morning the victim girl went to her mother and narrated the entire incident to her. Thereafter a meeting of the community was convened and on being questioned the appellant said that as the victim daughter was not born to him, he had done as alleged. Thereafter FIR was lodged on 2.3.1998 though the alleged incident took place on 23rd/24th of February, 1998. On the basis of the FIR, G.R. Case No.63 of 1998 was registered for alleged commis¬sion of offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC and the appellant faced his trial. During investigation the investigating officer had examined the witnesses, seized the underwear and a Chadar (Ext.1), sent the victim girl for medical examination on 2.3.1998 and so also the appellant, collected the required samples and on completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. During the trial prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1 was the informant, P.W.2 was a witness to seizure, P.W.3 was a radiographer, P.W.4 was the victim girl. P.W.5 was the Ward member of the locality, P.W.6 was the doctor who had examined the victim and P.W.7 was the investigating officer. 5. The trial Court after discussing the evidence of the witnesses and perusing the medical reports arrived at the finding that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellant only under Sections 376/511 and 506 IPC and therefore convicted him under the said Sections and sentenced him as stated above. 6. 5. The trial Court after discussing the evidence of the witnesses and perusing the medical reports arrived at the finding that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the appellant only under Sections 376/511 and 506 IPC and therefore convicted him under the said Sections and sentenced him as stated above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the statement of the appellant under Section 311 CrPc argued that the wife of the appellant, namely, the informant was a woman of doubtful character. She had illicit relationship with others and when the appellant protested, she foisted such a false case. It was also forcefully argued by him that as the medical evidence would show, the victim girl was not sexually assaulted. The allegations levelled against the appellant were all false and frivolous. An agreement was also advanced that the prosecution case should be disbelieved only on the ground of delay which has not been sufficiently explained. 7. Learned counsel for the State, at the other hand, relying upon the injury report, the oral evidence of the doctor and other materials, submitted that the allegations levelled against the appellant were correct and in fact the appellant had tried his level best to ravish his own minor daughter. It was submitted that the crime committed by the appellant was also confessed by him before the community members. He further submit¬ted that the delay has been properly explained, inasmuch as in such type of cases where a minor daughter was attempted to be ravished by her own father, in a down-trodden community some delay in lodging the FIR would naturally occur and the same should be ignored. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, being the final Court of facts, I perused the evidence both oral and documentary. The victim girl though was less than twelve years, was examined in the case as P.W.4. the Court below took all precautions before recording her evidence and only after being satisfied that she understood and was capable of giving rational answers and knew the implication of oath, recorded her evidence after administering oath. P.W.4 has vividly described the overt-act committed on her by her father. She unambiguously stated that though the appellant tried to rape her, there was no penetration. She tried to escape and fell down on the floor. P.W.4 has vividly described the overt-act committed on her by her father. She unambiguously stated that though the appellant tried to rape her, there was no penetration. She tried to escape and fell down on the floor. She also stated that even on the floor the appellant repeated his attempt to rape her. Though she was cross-examined at length, nothing could be elicited from her statement to disbelieve her. 9. The legal position is no more res intengra that the solitary testimony of the victim can form the basis of conviction of the accused if such testimony inspires confidence and is reliable, vide decision of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 21 OCR (SC) 323 (Surjan and others V. State of M.P.). In the decision reported in (1997) 12 OCR 283 *(Bhikari Panda v. State of Orissa) it was observed as follows :- “There is no tehebrosity in the position of law that where the testimony of a victim of sexual assault inspires confidence and is found to be reliable, in absence of any corroboration, Court would be justified to accept and act upon her testimony for recording a finding of guilt against the accused. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the victim is not requirement of law but a guidance of prudence, under given circumstances. It must not be overlooked that a woman or girl subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of anther person’s lust and it is improper and undesirable to test her evidence with certain amount of suspicion. Ours is a tradition bound unpermissive society. No self-respecting woman or girl would come forward to make a humil¬iating statement against her and involve a person falsely in such an offence. Courts, therefore, while judging her evidence should make a realistic approach without insisting upon corroboration, else justice will be a casuality.” 10. As regards submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to delay, I find that there was a delay of seven days in lodging the FIR. The informant P.W.1 has clearly explained such delay. According to her, on coming to know about the incident from the victim girl P.W.4, out of shame she could not disclose it to anyone. She took her daughter, the victim, to the house of her sister. The informant P.W.1 has clearly explained such delay. According to her, on coming to know about the incident from the victim girl P.W.4, out of shame she could not disclose it to anyone. She took her daughter, the victim, to the house of her sister. But when the incident was spread, a Panchayat meeting was convened and thereafter she reported the matter to police. In a case where a tender-aged girl is raped and she disclosed it at the earliest possible opportunity to her mother and others, it was but natural for the mother to try to protect the honour of the girl. But then when the matter was spread, it was informed to police. Thus the delay of seven days, taking into consideration the relationship of the victim and the accused, their social status and other circumstances, was not fatal to the prosecution case. 11. The doctor who had examined P.W.4, the victim girl, was examined as P.W.6. He has specifically deposed that the hymen of the victim girl was intact. There was no tear nor any fresh bleeding and only a little finger was admissible. He came to the conclusion that there was no sign or symptom of rape. The state¬ment of the doctor is also corroborated by the medical report, Ext.6. 12. After perusing the evidence, both oral and documentary, more particularly the evidence of P.W.4, the victim girl, I am satisfied and convinced that the statement of P.W.4 was reliable. In consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, if the statement of the victim is trustworthy, conviction can be based on her sole testimony. Considering the present case on the touchstone of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, I find that the conclusions arrive at by the Court below are just and proper and I do not find any reason to differ from the order of conviction and sentence. As would be evident from the judgment of the Court below, the appellant has been convicted under Sec¬tion 376/511 IPC. As has been held by him, there was no sign of rape on the victim girl. Section 511 IPC stipulates punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other punishment. As would be evident from the judgment of the Court below, the appellant has been convicted under Sec¬tion 376/511 IPC. As has been held by him, there was no sign of rape on the victim girl. Section 511 IPC stipulates punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other punishment. According to the said Section whoe¬ver attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprison¬ment for life or, as the case may be, one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. Section 376 IPC stipulates the punishment for rape and provides that any person committing rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years. 13. In the present case, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC. Out of the said sentence, the appel¬lant has already suffered imprisonment for more than five and half years as submitted by the learned counsel for both sides. According to me, the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant by now would be just and proper sentence to the appellant and would commensurate with the offence under Section 376/511 IPC. So far as the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 506 IPC, after going through the materials on record I find that the said offence is not made out and I therefore set aside the conviction and sentence under the said Section. 14. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 506 IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. 14. The Jail Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 506 IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said offence. The conviction of the appellant under Section 376/511 IPC is confirmed, but the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him. Appeal allowed in part.