Honble GARG, J.–This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 1/99, by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376(2) IPC and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months SI. (2). The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 11.8.1998 at about 9.40 PM, PW 4 Hazari lodged a written report Ex.P/1 with the Police Station Chittorgarh before PW 7 Ganpat Singh, SHO of that Police Station stating inter-alia that his daughter Nirmala, PW1 (hereinafter referred to as the child prosecutrix) was coming from the field three days back and on the way, the accused appellant picked the child prosecutrix PW Nirmala and took her towards the mines and therefore, committed rape with her. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/1 that the above incident was told on that day i.e. on 11.8.1998 and, thereafter, the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala was taken to the hospital, where she was admitted. On this report Ex.P/1, PW7 Ganpat Singh chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/2 and started investigation. During investigation, site plan Ex.P/2 was prepared and the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala was got medically examined for the purpose of age as well as for ascertaining whether rape was committed with her or not by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari (PW8), Dr. Radheyshyam Ladha (PW11) and Dr. Krisna Mehta (PW12). The X- ray report about age is Ex.P/10, where it has been stated that the age of the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala on the date of occurrence was between 7 to 8 years. The medical examination report in respect of rape is Ex.P/13, which shows that three injuries were found on the person of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala. The accused appellant was got arrested through arrest memo Ex.P/7 on 12.8.1998. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 9.4.1999, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Chittorgarh framed charge for the offence under Section 376 (2) IPC against the accused appellant. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 9.4.1999, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Chittorgarh framed charge for the offence under Section 376 (2) IPC against the accused appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence, two witnesses were produced by the accused appellant. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1 Chittorgarh through judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under section 376(2) IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia:- 1. That the delay of three days in lodging the report was not found fatal to the prosecution story. 2. That reliance on the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala was placed by the learned trial Judge. 3. That the statement of the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala is further corroborated form the medical evidence. 4. That the plea of defence that the case was false one was out rightly rejected by the learned trial Judge. 5. That prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 376(2) IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Chittorgarh, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal. (3). In this appeal, the following submission have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant:- (1) That from reading the medical evidence as well as the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala, no case of rape is made out and at the most if the statement of the child prosecutrix is taken for granted as correct statement, the case does not travel beyond the offence under section 376/511 IPC. (2) That the report was lodged with delay and therefore, prosecutrix story becomes doubtful. (4). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Chittorgarh. (5). (2) That the report was lodged with delay and therefore, prosecutrix story becomes doubtful. (4). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 Chittorgarh. (5). I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. (6). Before appreciating the above contentions, first medical evidence of this case has to be seen, which is found in the statements of PW 8 Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari, PW 11 Dr. Radheyshyam and PW 12 Dr. Krishna Mehta. (7). From perusing the X-ray report in respect of age Ex.P/10, medical examination report in respect of rape Ex.P/13 and the statements of PW 11 Dr. Radheyshyam and PW12 Dr. Krishna Mehta, the following facts emerged:- (i) That breast of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala were not found developed. (ii) That no auxiliary and public heirs were found. (iii) That her vagina did not admit any finger. (iv) That her hymen was not torn up, but three was swelling on it. (v) That there was reddishness on the right side of her vagina (3mm x 2 mm). (vi) That puss was also coming out from her vagina. (vii) That the following there injuries where found on her person:- (i) Abrasion 2 mm x 1 mm above Rt. hand. (ii) Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm on right elbow. (iii) Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on Lt. hand. (viii) That the age of the child prosecutrix was assessed between 7 to 8 years on the basis of physical and other examination including X-ray report. (ix) That the medical examination report Ex.P/13 has been proved by both the doctors. (8). The ossification test was got conducted by Dr. Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari (PW8) and he has also stated that the age of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala was between 7 to 8 years and he has proved the report Ex.P/10. (9). Thus, from the statements of PW8 Ramesh Chandra Maheshwari, PW11 Dr. Radheyshyam and PW12 Dr. Krishna Mehta, the facts stated above in para 7 stand proved meaning thereby on the date of occurrence, the age of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala was between 7 to 8 years and she received three injuries and there was reddishness also on her vagina. (10). Radheyshyam and PW12 Dr. Krishna Mehta, the facts stated above in para 7 stand proved meaning thereby on the date of occurrence, the age of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala was between 7 to 8 years and she received three injuries and there was reddishness also on her vagina. (10). Now, the evidence of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala has to be examined critically. (11). Before examining her statement, appreciation of evidence of child witness and legal position in respect of child witness has to be seen. (12). It is well settled that although legally there is no bar to accepting the uncorroborated testimony of a child witness yet prudence required that Courts should not act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child whether sworn or unsworn. This was so held by Their Lordship of the Privy Council in Mohamed Sugal Esa Mamasan Rer Alalah vs. King (1). The same view was taken by Their Lordship of the Honble Supreme Court in Rameshwar Kalyan Singh vs. State of State of Rajasthan (2) and later on, in so many cases. (13). As to the nature and extent of corroboration, which should be required, it may be stated here that it did not mean that the corroboration as to the identity must extend to all circumstances necessary to identify the accused with the offence, yet there has to be independent evidence which make it reasonably safe to believe the witnesss story that the accused was the one who committed the offence. (14). The law has also cast duty on the Court while recording the evidence of the child witnesses, the competency to testify depends on the witnesss ability to understand questions put to him and to give rational answers to those questions. Once a witness is found to be a competent witness, even if he is not competent witness to take an oath or if there is an omission to take an oath that will not invalidate proceedings or render inadmissible the evidence. The rule generally is in favour of admission of evidence though the weight to be attached to it will naturally be a matter for consideration by the Court. There is always competency unless the court considers otherwise. (15). Keeping in mind the above legal position, the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala is being examined. (16). The rule generally is in favour of admission of evidence though the weight to be attached to it will naturally be a matter for consideration by the Court. There is always competency unless the court considers otherwise. (15). Keeping in mind the above legal position, the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala is being examined. (16). Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that before recording the statement of the Child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala, some preliminary questions were put to her by the learned trial Judge to verify whether she was in a position to understand the sanctity of oath or not and after putting some preliminary questions, the learned trial Judge observed that the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala did not understand the sanctity of oath fully and, therefore, no oath was administered by her. (17). In this respect, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (3), may be referred to, where a minor girl was not administered oath and it was held that there is no legal bar in belying upon her testimony without oath. (18). The child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala in her statement recorded in Court has stated that when she was returning to home from the field, her Kaki PW 10 Mohini was with her, but she was proceeding ahead to her and thereafter, the accused appellant came and called her, but she refused and, thereafter, the accused appellant picked her ad took her near pattias and made her lie down there and thereafter, he lifted her gagri and then he put off his pent and slept over her and thereafter, he put his penis into the place from where she used to pass urine and thereafter, he told her not to say anything about this to anybody else. Thereafter, she went to her house, but she did not tell anything about this even to her mother PW 2 Dhakhi and after 2-3 days when her mother PW 2 Dhakhi was cleaning her anus, at that time, the hand of her mother PW 2 Dhakhi touched her vagina, as a resulted of which, she felt pain and on being asked how the pain had developed, she narrated the whole story to her mother PW 2 Dhakhi and on that day, her father PW 4 Hazari was not in the village. In cross-examination, she admits the following facts:- (i) That since the accused appellant used to perform the job of patti in her well, therefore, she knew him. (ii) That when the accused appellant called her, she was not in a position to make hue and cry and her mouth was pressed by the accused appellant. (iii) That the accused appellant put his penis into her vagina and remained in that position for near about one minute and during that period, he was sitting over her but did not move. (iv) That no substance like water came out form his penis. (v) That at the time of occurrence, she was not wearing underwear. (vi) That thereafter, the accused appellant went to his house. (vii) That there was blood in her vagina by which her clothes were stained. (19). PW2 Dhakhi is the mother of the child prosecutrix and to whom the child prosecutrix has narrated the whole story and she has stated that the child prosecutrix told her that the accused appellant put his penis into her vagina. (20). Another witness is PW 3 Modiramji to whom the whole story was also narrated and he was also stated the same story. (21). PW 4 Hazari is the father of the child prosecutrix and he has also stated the same story and he has further stated that since on the day when the child prosecutrix narrated the whole story to PW 2 Dhakhi, he was not in the village, therefore, the report was lodged after coming to the village. (22). PW10 Mohini has also stated the story in the same manner. (23). The question for consideration in the above facts and circumstances is whether the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala on the point that the accused appellant has committed rape with her should be believed or not. (24). In my considered opinion, if the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala is read as a whole, the fact that the accused appellant had put his penis into her vagina is well established and since she was child 7-8 years and her hymen was not torn up meaning thereby after putting his penis into her vagina for about one minute, the accused appellant went away after leaving her is also well established. The fact that the accused appellant put his penis into her vagina is further established from the medical evidence where reddishness was found on her vagina. The fact that semen was not discharged by the accused appellant is also well established. (25). Not only this, the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala received three abrasions and this fact also goes to show that she put up resistance against the act done by the accused appellant and this fact also corroborates her statement on the point that the accused appellant put his penis into her vagina against her will. (26). The statement of the child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala that the accused appellant put his penis into her vagina further gets corroboration from the statements of other witnesses also, namely, PW 2 Dhakhi PW 3 Modiramji, PW 4 Hazari and PW 10 Mohini. (27). Thus, the statement of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala that the accused appellant put his penis into her vagina and therefore, the committed the offence of rape appears to be worth reliable and inspires confidence as it is corroborated by medical evidence as well as by other evidence which is found in the statements of PW 2 Dhakhi, PW3 Modiramji, PW 4 Hazari and PW 10 Mohini and therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1 has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of the child prosecutrix PW 1 Nirmala. (28). It may be stated here that to constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis with emission of semen and rupture 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 the law. Even in India, it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape without producing any injury either to the genital part of victim or to the male organ. But, in the present case, reddishness was found on the vagina of the child prosecutrix and from this point of view also, only penetration in the present case was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape. In this respect, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Prithvi Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (4), may be referred to. (29). But, in the present case, reddishness was found on the vagina of the child prosecutrix and from this point of view also, only penetration in the present case was sufficient to constitute the offence of rape. In this respect, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Prithvi Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (4), may be referred to. (29). Furthermore, since the victim (child prosecutrix PW1 Nirmala) was 7-8 years old, therefore, no question of penetration in full sense arises and by putting the penis into her vagina, the offence is complete and it is possible that when accused appellant would have tried to put his penis with force into her vagina, bleeding started and matter ended. (30). Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the offence of rape was not committed by the accused appellant, but at the most offence does not travel beyond Section 376/511 IPC fails and stands rejected. On point of delay (31). In Indian women are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults and if the prosecutrix happens to be a married person she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less than promptly does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of societys attitude towards such women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than gives comfort and sympathises with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessary indicate that her version is false. In this respect, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Karnel Singh vs. State of MP (5), may be referred to. (32). In sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool though that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Delay in filing FIR would not be fatal the prosecution case if delay in properly explained. In this respect, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (6) may be referred to. (33). It is only after giving it a cool though that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Delay in filing FIR would not be fatal the prosecution case if delay in properly explained. In this respect, the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh (6) may be referred to. (33). Keeping in mind the above observations made by the Honble Supreme Court and looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case,since on the day when the whole incident was narrated by the child prosecutrix PW Nirmala to her mother PW 2 Dhakhi, the father of the child prosecutrix, namely, PW 4 Hazari was not in the village, therefore, if after coming to village, he lodged the report with delay, such delay cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. (34). Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused appellant with regard to delay in lodging the report also fails and stands rejected. (35). For the reasons stated above, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh convicting the accused appellant for the offence under section 376(2) IPC are liable to be confirmed, as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Bheru Lal is dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order dated 16.5.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh.