Judgment :- This is an appeal made by the appellant/sole accused in a case of sexual assault before the trial Court wherein he was charged, tried and found guilty under S.376(2) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo 3 months S.I. 2. The gist of the prosecution case as spelt out by the available materials could be stated as follows: P.W.1 Padma was residing at Door No.18, B Block, M.S.Nagar, Waltax Road, Chennai, as a tenant under P.W.3 Mallika. The daughter of P.W.1 Premavathy, a child of 8 years old was doing her III Standard in the Corporation School at Kondithope. On the date of occurrence namely 20.1.1997 at about 18.00 hours, when she went outside for ablutions, she raised alarm uttering "help, help". On hearing this, P.Ws.1 and 3 rushed and witnessed the occurrence namely the appellant/accused causing sexual assault on the child. P.W.1 proceeded to C3 Police Station and gave a complaint marked as Ex.P1. On the strength of the same, P.W.7 Pandian, Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.116/97 under S.376 of I.P.C. Ex.P7 Express F.I.R. was despatched to the concerned Magistrate's Court. The Investigation Officer took up the investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence, made an inspection, prepared the observation mahazar, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Along with a medical memo, P.W.2 victim was sent for medical examination to Stanley Hospital. She was medically examined by P.W.5 Dr.Dheenadhayaparan at about 2.30 A.M. on 21.1.1997. He medically examined P.W.2 victim and has given the wound certificate marked as Ex.P4. When the victim was enquired by P.W.5 Doctor, she informed that she was alleged to have been injured with the genital organs by some known person at 6.30 P.M. on 20.1.1997 near the address given by her namely her residence. The Investigation Officer recovered M.Os.1 to 3 clothes from P.W.2. At about 10.40 A.M. on 21.1.1997, the accused was arrested. His statement was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The accused was brought to the Police Station, where M.Os.4 to 6, the clothes worn by him at the time of occurrence were recovered under Ex.P3 Mahazar. P.W.7 examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. For the purpose of medical examination, the accused was sent to the Stanley Hospital with a requisition under Ex.P8. The accused was brought to the Police Station, where M.Os.4 to 6, the clothes worn by him at the time of occurrence were recovered under Ex.P3 Mahazar. P.W.7 examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. For the purpose of medical examination, the accused was sent to the Stanley Hospital with a requisition under Ex.P8. P.W.6 Dr.Gururaj, on receipt of the direction, medically examined the accused as to the potency. The accused was aged about 20 years, and the certificate to that effect is marked as Ex.P5. P.W.6 has given the medical examination certificate under Ex.P6 and has opined that there was nothing to suggest that the individual was impotent. On completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer laid the charge sheet under S.376(2) of the I.P.C. against the appellant/accused. 3. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and marked 10 exhibits and 6 material objects. After the evidence of prosecution was over, the accused was questioned under S.313 of Cr.P.C. as to that part of the evidence which is incriminating and prejudicial to his interest, and the accused denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. After consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty under S.376(2) of IPC and awarded the punishment as referred to above. 4. Arguing for the appellant with vigour and vehemence, the learned Counsel Mr.K.Kannan raised the following points: The prosecution in order to prove the charge levelled against the accused has mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.Ws.1 and 2 have not identified the accused, but they have categorically spoken to the effect that they did not know the person who committed the offence. But, the lower Court has relied on the evidence of P.W.3 to find the accused guilty. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.3 would indicate that she could not have seen the occurrence at all, since according to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 was in her house. P.W.3 has stated that she did not see the face of the accused, but the backside of the head. Apart from that, she has stated that she went over to inform to P.W.1 about the occurrence. Under such circumstances, she could not have seen the appellant at all. Hence, the lower Court should have outright rejected the testimony of P.W.3. P.W.3 has stated that she did not see the face of the accused, but the backside of the head. Apart from that, she has stated that she went over to inform to P.W.1 about the occurrence. Under such circumstances, she could not have seen the appellant at all. Hence, the lower Court should have outright rejected the testimony of P.W.3. Barring her evidence, there is nothing available on the side of the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. P.W.2, the victim has stated that there was oozing of blood, and she removed the same by her clothes, but her clothes were not handed over to the police at that time. Though the occurrence has taken place at 6.00 P.M., according to the prosecution, the complaint was given at about 11.30 P.M. after nearly about 5 « hours delay, when the police station was situated very nearby. The medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution case, because according to the prosecution, the rape act was complete, but no external injuries were found on the vagina of the victim, according to the medical evidence. The investigation would reveal that it was a place where the lorry is used to be parked, but no independent witness was examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution, and thus, from the evidence adduced, there was nothing to indicate that it was the accused, who committed the offence or there was anything to make out nexus between the appellant and the crime. Added further, the learned Counsel that even assuming the prosecution has brought forth some evidence before the trial Court, that would make out a case under S.376 r/w 511 IPC or 354 IPC and definitely not a case under S.376 IPC, and hence, the appeal has got to be allowed. 5. Added further, the learned Counsel that even assuming the prosecution has brought forth some evidence before the trial Court, that would make out a case under S.376 r/w 511 IPC or 354 IPC and definitely not a case under S.376 IPC, and hence, the appeal has got to be allowed. 5. Countering to the above contentions of the appellant's side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr.O.Srinath would urge that the lower Court was perfectly correct in finding the accused guilty under S.376(2) of IPC; that the lower Court has elaborately discussed the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and relied on the evidence of P.W.3; that a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.3 would clearly be pointing to the effect that she was present at the time of occurrence and she has seen the occurrence and the accused running from the place of occurrence and no doubt would arise in her evidence; that the clothes worn by the victim girl and the accused all were recovered in the presence of the witnesses procedurally and subjected to chemical analysis; that semen was detected in M.O.5 lungi worn by the accused at the time of occurrence, while in the clothes worn by the victim girl, blood was detected; that the potency test has been proved so far as the accused was concerned; that P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the sexual assault made; that it is true that the Doctor has opined that there was no external injury, but has given a clear report under Ex.P4 stating that there was vaginal discharge found present, and in such circumstances, even though external injuries were not found and the hymen should have been in tact, the definition of rape under S.376 of I.P.C. does not require a complete act, but a penetration would be sufficient to constitute the offence; that the lower Court was perfectly correct in finding the appellant/accused guilty under S.376(2) of IPC, and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be sustained. 6. After careful consideration of the rival submissions, the Court is of the firm view that there is no substance in this appeal. 7. The case on hand relates to a sexual assault on a young girl of 8 years old doing III Standard. 6. After careful consideration of the rival submissions, the Court is of the firm view that there is no substance in this appeal. 7. The case on hand relates to a sexual assault on a young girl of 8 years old doing III Standard. The appellant/accused was subjected to medical examination, and it found that he was aged 20 years, and thus, there is nothing to indicate that he was impotent. His potency was proved properly. P.W.1, the mother of the victim has given a complaint on the strength of which a case has been registered by P.W.7 under S.376 of I.P.C., and the investigation was taken up. All the three witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3 have clearly spoken as to the place of occurrence as near by their residence. It is pertinent to note that the observation mahazar and the rough sketch were not disputed by the appellant at any point of time. P.W.1 gave the complaint, on the basis of which the case was registered, while P.W.2 is the victim of sexual assault. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly reveal that they could not identify the accused, but they could clearly speak about the sexual assault. The fact of sexual assault committed on the person of P.W.2 has been clearly spoken to by her, and she was subjected to medical examination. The report as found under Ex.P4 would clearly reveal that though there was no external injuries, the vaginal discharge was found present, and the clothes worn by her were subjected to analysis and found to contain blood as per the report given. The lower Court has rightly relied on the evidence of P.W.3. On hearing the alarm, according to P.W.3, she rushed to the place, which is not away, but nearby. She has categorically spoken that she witnessed the accused lying on the victim while committing the sexual assault, but she could not see the face, but the backside of the head, and at that time, when raising the voice, she found the accused running from the site of occurrence. A close scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.3 would clearly reveal that she has seen the accused committing the sexual assault and further proceeding from the spot. A close scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.3 would clearly reveal that she has seen the accused committing the sexual assault and further proceeding from the spot. It is pertinent to note that P.W.3 is an independent witness, and no circumstance or reason is brought forth by the appellant's side why should could come before a Court of law to give evidence like this, in particular in a case of sexual assault on a child of 8 years old. The lower Court was perfectly right in relying on the evidence of P.W.3. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant's side that P.W.3 could not have seen the occurrence has got to be rejected outright. 8. Within a short point of time, the accused was arrested. His statement was recorded. That apart, he was subjected to medical test, and all the clothes were subjected to chemical analysis. The report under Ex.P10 would clearly indicate that M.O.5 lungi that was worn by the appellant/accused contained semen as well as blood also. This part of the chemical analysis coupled with the evidence brought forth by the prosecution would be indicative of the fact of sexual assault committed by the accused. Thus, by the available evidence, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed sexual assault on the victim namely a girl of 8 years old. At this juncture, the Court is of the view that the delay that was caused in giving an information to the police cannot be given much weight because of the explanation tendered by P.W.1. P.W.1 has also given an explanation to the Court below that she was searching for her husband to take steps in that regard. The contention of the appellant's side that no independent witness has been examined, since it was a place where the lorry is used to be parked cannot be a reason to reject the prosecution case. It is settled position of law that when the prosecution in a case of sexual assault bring forth the evidence of prosecutrix and it is being corroborated by the medical evidence, no independent evidence is necessary. Hence, the contention put forth by the appellant's side in that regard has got to be rejected. It is settled position of law that when the prosecution in a case of sexual assault bring forth the evidence of prosecutrix and it is being corroborated by the medical evidence, no independent evidence is necessary. Hence, the contention put forth by the appellant's side in that regard has got to be rejected. Therefore, the lower Court was perfectly correct in finding the appellant/accused guilty under S.376(2) of I.P.C. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where the minimum punishment of 7 years R.I. could be given in view of the age of the victim girl namely 8 years. However, the sentence of imprisonment alone awarded by the trial Court has got to be reduced to 8 years R.I. 9. Therefore, the sentence of 10 years R.I. alone imposed by the Court below on the appelant is modified, and the appellant/accused shall undergo R.I. for 8 years under S.376(2) of I.P.C. With this modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.