JUDGMENT - BHOSALE D.B., J.:-The appellant was charged and tried for an offences punishable under sections 354, 376, 506 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") for committing rape on his own 11 years old daughter Ku. Geeta on 15-2-1999 in his house at about 11-00-11-30 a .m., when the wife of the appellant had gone out for labour work. In Session trial No. 147 of 1999, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal found the appellant guilty of the offence charged with and, therefore, convicted him under sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for six month and seven years respectively. Hence this appeal. 2. The prosecution case as it emerges from the evidence of the prosecutrix stated briefly is that on 15-2-1999 at about 11.00 a.m. the prosecutrix Geeta and her younger brother Ravindra were at home. The appellant returned home at about 11.00 a.m. and asked the Geeta to serve meal for him. After lunch, the appellant asked Geeta to bring a quilt and to lay it on the floor. In the meanwhile, younger brother Ravindra had left the house. The appellant closed the door and lied on the quilt with Geeta. She was wearing skirt and body-frock at the relevant time. She was not wearing knicker. It seems that the appellant thereafter forcibly penetrated his private part into the private part of Geeta, and gave two jerks. Geeta could not offer resistance as a result thereof, she suffered pain and, therefore, requested the appellant to allow her to go for urination. While leaving her the appellant made her to swear that she would return after the urinating. Geeta while urinating had bleeding from her private part and, therefore, went to her mother Baby (P.W. 2) who at the relevant time was working at the house of one Babarao, and narrated her the evil act of the appellant. Baby P.W. 2 took her to the house of one Mayabai (P.W. 3) kept her there and went to Police Station Shirpur and lodged First Information Report. Baby (P.W. 2) was thereafter asked by the police to bring Geeta and accordingly Geeta was taken to the Police Station. Geeta was sent for medical examination to the primary Health Centre Shirpur and from there she was sent to the Hospital at Yavatmal. There Geeta was examined by Dr. Baby (P.W. 2) was thereafter asked by the police to bring Geeta and accordingly Geeta was taken to the Police Station. Geeta was sent for medical examination to the primary Health Centre Shirpur and from there she was sent to the Hospital at Yavatmal. There Geeta was examined by Dr. Abhay Jawale (P.W. 6). Her vagina slides, blood group was collected by the Doctor which was handed over to Police Constable. The Investigation Officer (P.W. 5) sent those articles alongwith the clothes of Geeta to Chemical Analyser. During investigation, the appellant after his arrest was also sent for medical examination. His blood sample, semen, sample and pubic hair were also collected and sent to Chemical Analyser. On completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate first class, Wani, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session, Yavatmal. 3. The appellant pleaded false implication and claimed to be tried. The defence propound by the appellant during trial was that Baby P.W. 2 the mother of prosecutrix and his wife, had filed complaint under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against him and he was in jail in connection with that case for quite sometime. P.W. 2 Baby had at that time gone to Adilabad and stayed there with another person. He denied the paternity of Ravindra. According to him, his wife Baby (P.W. 2) was leading adulterous life and any how she wanted to get rid of him. It is in this backdrop according to the appellant, Geeta has falsely implicated him at the instance of her mother (P.W. 2). 4. The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined six witnesses consisting of prosecutrix Geeta (P.W. 1), her mother Baby (P.W. 2) two neighbours Doctor and Investigating Officer. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal by his judgment and order dated 18-11-2000 convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of prosecutrix Geeta (P.W. 1) supported by the evidence of her mother, neighbours and doctor. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I have meticulously gone through the depositions of all the witnesses and the Exhibits proved by the prosecution to substantiate its case. The conviction is mainly based on the evidence of prosecutrix Geeta (P.W. 1) supported by the evidence of her mother, neighbours and doctor. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I have meticulously gone through the depositions of all the witnesses and the Exhibits proved by the prosecution to substantiate its case. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and reappreciated the entire evidence. 5. At the very outset, I would like to consider the evidence of Geeta (P.W. 1). Mr. Kasat, learned Counsel for the appellant, has criticized her evidence mainly on the ground that she has deposed in the present case against her father at the instance of her mother (P.W. 2). He further submitted that the hymen of Geeta was torn by P.W. 2 by inserting finger in her private part only with a view to falsely implicate the accused. In support of his submission he invited my attention to the admission given by Geeta, in her cross that her mother used to say to the appellant that either he should die or go behind bar. He also invited my attention to the admission of the doctor (P.W. 6) that hymen could be torn by inserting finger. In the light of these submissions I examined the evidence of the prosecutrix. At the outset, I found her testimony free from contradiction inconsistencies and omissions. In so far as sexual assist is concerned it would be advantageous to quote the relevant portion from her examination-in-chief to better appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The relevant portion of her deposition as recorded by the trial Court reads thus: "Incident took place at about 12.00 noon. My father asked me to serve the differ. I served the meal to the accused. Accused took his lunch. Thereafter accused asked me to bring mattress (bothri) and to lay down it. Accused closed the door of the house from inside. I asked the accused why he closed the door. Accused lied myself down on the ground of the mattress. I had not worn the underpant. There was skirt, shirt and body frock on my body. Accused had tied the lungi to his waist. Accused took my both legs besides. Accused penetrated his penis in vagina. There was pain to me. Accused gave 2 jerk to me. Accused lied myself down on the ground of the mattress. I had not worn the underpant. There was skirt, shirt and body frock on my body. Accused had tied the lungi to his waist. Accused took my both legs besides. Accused penetrated his penis in vagina. There was pain to me. Accused gave 2 jerk to me. I told to the accused that I have to go for urinal purpose. Accused told that I will not return, therefore, I should take oath of God. I took oath of the God. Then I went for urinal in my bathroom. I sat for urinal purposes. At that time one stain blood fell down from my vagina. I went to my mother who was present at the house of one Babarao I narrated the incident while weeping to my mother. My mother hidden myself at the house of Mayabai. Then myself and my mother came to police Station shirpur to lodge report." 6. Most of the cross was devoted to elicit from Geeta that she has falsely implicated the appellant at the instance of her mother (P.W. 2) and that the alleged incident did not occur. The suggestion was made to the witnesses that the relationship between her mother and appellant was not cordial on account of his addiction to liquor and that he use to frequently beat her mother under the influence of liquor. The complaint was lodged under section 498-A, I.P.C. by the mother (P.W. 2) of the prosecutrix against the appellant and in connection with that he was arrested and behind bar for quite sometime. According to the appellant, during the period of his arrest. Baby (P.W. 2) along with her children had gone to Adilabad and stayed there for long time. Geeta in her cross has admitted this and has stated that after they returned from Adilabad, they did not find any change in the attitude of the appellant. In this back drop the suggestion was made to the witnesses in the cross-examination that her mother used to say that appellant should either die or go behind bar. Geeta has admitted that suggestion also but she has stoutly denied that she had lodged false report against her father at the instance of her mother. In this back drop the suggestion was made to the witnesses in the cross-examination that her mother used to say that appellant should either die or go behind bar. Geeta has admitted that suggestion also but she has stoutly denied that she had lodged false report against her father at the instance of her mother. In my view, the strained relationship between husband and wife will not have any significance in the present case or it would not affect the testimony of the prosecutrix as nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination so as to discard her evidence or to disbelieve her testimony in respect of sexual assault on her. In so far as the act of committing rape is concerned in the cross-examination some suggestions were made to the witnesses which she has stoutly denied. She has also denied a categoric suggestion that before going to the Police Station her mother had inserted her finger in her vagina and, therefore, she sustained injury. It has come in her evidence that her menstrual period had not started at the relevant time. Geeta was about 13 years old when her testimony was recorded in the Court. 7. Mr. Kasat, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that there was unreasonable delay in lodging F.I.R. and that has not been explained by the prosecution satisfactory and therefore it supports defence propounded by the appellant. I have noticed that the alleged occurrence of the incident was at 12.15 p.m. on 15-2-99 whereas, the F.I.R. was lodged at 00-40 hours on 16-6-1999. The distance between the village where the offence occurred and the Police Station was about 20 k.m P.W. 2 Baby has stated that she lodged F.I.R. in the evening on 15-6-1999. P.W. 5 P.S.I. has categorically stated that the F.I.R. was lodge in the evening, whereas the offence was registered on 16-6-1999 at 00.40 hours. Having regard to this explanation in my opinion there was no unreasonable delay in lodging F.I.R. 8. It has been observed that though all sexual assaults on a female children are not reported and do not come to light, yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. Having regard to this explanation in my opinion there was no unreasonable delay in lodging F.I.R. 8. It has been observed that though all sexual assaults on a female children are not reported and do not come to light, yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of rape and are not able to offer resistance particularly when such assault is committed by father or any other adult male member in the family. This is perhaps due to an influence of her relation with them. In such cases of sexual assault even if there is lack of oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix, a conviction can be safely recorded, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic or serious infirmity, and the "probabilities factor" does not render it unworthy of credence. It is now well settled that corroboration cannot be insisted upon, in a case of sexual assault, except from the medical evidence. In the case in hand the evidence of prosecutrix was found reliable. However, it requires further scrutiny in the light of the defence propounded during her cross-examination. 9. P.W. 2 Baby, mother of Geeta, corroborates the testimony of Geeta. She has stated that at the relevant time she had gone for labour work at one Babarao's field where Geeta at 1.50 p.m. approached her and disclosed the alleged occurrence. From there she was taken to the house of one Mayabai (P.W. 3) The incident was reported to Mayabai as narrated by Geeta. Thereafter, P.W. 2 Baby went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. In the cross-examination, she has fairly admitted her strained relations with her husband on account of his addiction to liquor and beating. She has also admitted that she had filed complaint against the appellant under section 498-A, I.P.C. and that he was arrested and was in jail for three to four months. However, she has stoutly denied that she had illicit relations with any one at village Adilabad. She has denied the suggestion that son Ravindra was not born from the appellant. Her testimony was challenged mainly on the ground that she is a woman of loose character, her relation with the appellant was not good and any how she wanted the appellant to go behind bar. She has denied the suggestion that son Ravindra was not born from the appellant. Her testimony was challenged mainly on the ground that she is a woman of loose character, her relation with the appellant was not good and any how she wanted the appellant to go behind bar. Even if, it is assumed that to be true, it is inconceivable that a mother would use her daughter of 11 years old to teach her husband a lesson or to take revenge or to get rid of him would go to the extent of causing injury to her daughter of 11 years by inserting a finger through her hymen. It is not only improbable but, in my opinion, it is impossible to tutor a girl of 11 years to state falsehood about a sexual assault, which had not been actually committed only with a view to falsely implicted any one much less a father. Such evidence of a victim would not remain free from contradictions inconsistencies and omissions and moreover would not get corroboration from the medical evidence. The evidence of prosecutrix and her mother get corroboration from the evidence of Mayabai (P.W. 3) and Chandrabhaga (P.W. 4) in so far as disclosure of the alleged incident by Geeta to her mother Baby (P.W. 2) is concerned. Nothing could be elicited from their cross-examination so as to disbelieve them. In my opinion, the evidence of the prosecutrix in so far as immediate disclosure of the occurrence to her mother (P.W. 2 ) and other two witnesses (P.W. 3) and (P.W. 4) is concerned, it stands corroborated. The testimonies of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, who are independent witnesses are in my opinion reliable and worthy of credence. 10. In so far as medical evidence and Chemical Analysis evidence is concerned Mr. Kasat learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the evidence of doctor and medical certificate does not support the prosecution case. He submitted that the prosecutrix did not have any external injury either on her private or any other part of her body. He further submitted that her medical examination was conducted after more than 24 hours and still there was a fresh bleeding present which supports the defence theory that the injury was caused by inserting a finger by (P.W. 2) Baby Mr. He further submitted that her medical examination was conducted after more than 24 hours and still there was a fresh bleeding present which supports the defence theory that the injury was caused by inserting a finger by (P.W. 2) Baby Mr. Kasat, learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the medical certificate to contend that the Doctor could not give exact opinion in respect of the sexual intercourse that when it had been committed prior to her medical examination. My attention was further invited to the Chemical Analyser's report to contend that no semen was detected on the clothes of prosecutrix which, according to Mr. Kasat supports defence theory. 11. P.W. 6 Dr. Abhay Madhukar Jawale examined Geeta on 16-6-1999 at 4.30 p.m. Dr. Jawale has categorically stated that on medical examination of Geeta, he found her hymen was completely torn, bleeding was present and her vagina was admitting one finger. Thus, from the medical evidence, it is clear that Geeta was not only subjected to indecent assault but there was sexual activity and she was subjected to sexual assault. Almost similar situation had arisen before the Apex Court in the case of (State of U.P. v. Babul Nath)1, 1994(6) S.C.C. 29 , wherein in paragraph 7, the Supreme Court held thus: "According to the evidence of lady doctor a finger could be easily inserted inside her private part which otherwise was not possible in the case of a child aged 5 years because according to the Medical Jurisprudence by Modi 21st Edn. p. 376 in a girl under 14 years of age the vaginal orifice is usually so small that it will hardly allow the passage of the little finger through her hymen. In the present case if the girl aged 5 years was not subjected to sexual intercourse the finger could not have been easily inserted in her private part as observed by the lady doctor." In view of the observations made by the Apex Court, I have no hesitation in holding that Geeta was subjected to sexual assault and tearing of her hymen was the result of forceful penetration of penis by the appellant inside her private part. 12. In is true that the doctor in his cross-examination has stated that a fresh bleeding was present and that the hymen could be ruptured by inserting finger inside the private part. 12. In is true that the doctor in his cross-examination has stated that a fresh bleeding was present and that the hymen could be ruptured by inserting finger inside the private part. The doctor has, however, explained in cross that in what situation bleeding would not stop or a fresh bleeding would be present even after more than 24 hours. The Doctor has categorically stated that bleeding would not stop if while tearing of hymen artery or vein is cut. He has further stated that, in the case of prosecutrix Geeta, her vein was cut. That seems to be the reason why fresh bleeding was present even on 16-6-1999 at 4.30 p.m. 13. No injuries, either on the private part or on the person of the prosecutrix were noticed by the Doctor but that by itself would not be sufficient to infer that no sexual assault was committed by the appellant on his daughter as tried to be contended by Mr. Kasat, learned Counsel for the appellant. It could be because Geeta did not offer any resistance to her father or that she did not understand what her father was exactly doing. A girl of 11 years would hardly understand anything about sexual intercourse or assault. Furthermore it has come in the evidence of Geeta that the appellant had given only two jerks and had let her go. In the circumstances the absence of injuries would not in any way affect the prosecution case. Similarly, merely because doctor could not state the exact time of sexual assault on Geeta that would not destroy the prosecution case. The testimony of prosecutrix , which otherwise stands corroborated by medical evidence, in my view is sufficient to constitute an offence of rape, as defined under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. It would be advantageous to notice section 375 and the explanation attached thereto of the Indian Penal Code which defines rape. The explanation provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. From the explanation, it is distinctly clear that to constitute the offence of rape neither section 375 of I.P.C. nor the explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private part of the prosecutrix. The explanation provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. From the explanation, it is distinctly clear that to constitute the offence of rape neither section 375 of I.P.C. nor the explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private part of the prosecutrix. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt of penetration into the private part of the victim would be quite enough for the purpose of section 375 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. This position of law is made clear by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Babul Nath (cited supra). That being so, in the present case, absence of semen either in the private part of the prosecutrix or semen stains on her clothes would not affect the prosecution case and the act of the appellant would be sufficient to constitute offence under section 376 of I.P.C. Similarly, Apex Court in (Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and another)2, 1992(3) S.C.C. 204 , has held that "it is not necessary to enter into any nice discussion as to how far the male organ has entered in the vulva or pudenda of the prosecutrix, since it is made clear that there was penetration attracting the provisions of section 375 of the I.P.C." In other words, the Supreme Court has held that even slightest penetration of penis into vagina without rupturing the hymen would also constitute rape. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the appellant accused has committed rape on his daughter Geeta and is liable to be punished under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Perusal of Chemical Analyser's report indicates that skirt of Geeta had only blood stains and no semen was detected by the Analyst. For the reasons recorded in the earlier paragraph, in my opinion, this would not help the appellant to contend that he did not commit rape as defined under section 375 of I.P.C. Furthermore, in the present case, it could be inferred that there was no emission of semen. For the reasons recorded in the earlier paragraph, in my opinion, this would not help the appellant to contend that he did not commit rape as defined under section 375 of I.P.C. Furthermore, in the present case, it could be inferred that there was no emission of semen. The prosecutrix in her evidence has stated that after two jerks, she was allowed to go for urination and while allowing her to go the appellant made her to swear that she would return. This is sufficient to infer that there was no emission of semen. Absence of reference to emission of semen in the evidence of Geeta, therefore, would not effect the prosecution case. 16. In the result the criminal appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----