JUDGMENT R.N. Biswal, J.— This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 26.9.1998 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Balangir in Sessions Case No. 8 (b)/l of 1998 wherein he convicted the accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) of I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder to undergo R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year. 2. Bereft unnecessary details the prosecution case is that on 25.9.1997 at about 10.00 A.M. while P.W.2, a minor girl of about 8 years old was playing along with her friends-P.W.4 and one Chenkidi @ Pratima in front of the house of Sisir Babu in Kansaripada of Balangir town, the accused came there and asked them to go with him to a nearby tank wherefrom he assured to bring lotus flower and give them. While P.W.4 and Chenkidi did not agree to it, P.W.2 proceeded with him towards that tank. On the way, he took her to a nearby bush on the backside of the R.I. office, spread his napkin under the bush, undraped the Chadi of P.W.2 and lifting his own Lungi up, thrust his penis to her vagina. Out of pain when P.W.2 cried he closed her mouth with his hand and committed rape on her. Thereafter he told her that he would give lotus flower to her in the evening hour and that she would not disclose the incident to any one. At about 11.00 A.M. when P.W.I, the mother .of the victim came to the place where the victim was playing she found her absent there. On query. Chenkidi, Smt. Padmini Achari (P.W.5) and P.W.4 informed her that the accused took her towards Malpada tank. While proceeding to that tank in search of the victim, on the way P.W.-l found her coming crying. When questioned, she narrated the entire incident before her. On the same date at 1.30 P.M. P.W.I, her brother and the victim (P.W.2) went to Town Police Station. Balangir where P.W.I orally reported the incident before the I.I.C. who reduced the same into writing, treated it as F.I.R. and directed the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.10) to investigate into the case. In course of his investigation P.W.10 seized the Chad! On the same date at 1.30 P.M. P.W.I, her brother and the victim (P.W.2) went to Town Police Station. Balangir where P.W.I orally reported the incident before the I.I.C. who reduced the same into writing, treated it as F.I.R. and directed the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.10) to investigate into the case. In course of his investigation P.W.10 seized the Chad! (M.O.I.) of P.W.2, the Lungi of the accused (M.O.II), examined the witnesses, sent the victim and the accused to the hospital for their medical examination, arrested the accused and forwarded him to Court, seized the vaginal swab collected by the doctor from the victim, sent the M.Os. I and II to the Deputy Director, RFSL, Ainthapali, Sambalpur for chemical examination, collected the X-ray plates of the victim and the accused from the A.D.M.O., District Headquarters Hospital, Balangir, sent them to the Superintendent of V.S.S. Medical College, Burla for determination of their age, and after completion of investigation finding a prima facie case against the accused, submitted Charge Sheet against him. The plea of the accused is complete denial of his involvement in the crime in question. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses of whom P.W. 1 is the informant and mother of the victim, P.W.2 is the victim herself. P.W.3 is a witness to the seizure of the Chadi of the victim. P.W.4 is Muna Pandey, a friend of the victim with whom she was playing in front of the house of advocate Sisir Babu, P.W.5 is the witness from whom P.W.I knew that the victim had gone towards the tank with the accused, P.W.6 is the doctor who examined the victim, P.W.7 is another doctor who examined the accused, P.W.8 is a witness to the seizure of Lungi from the accused, P.W.9 is the Assistant Professor of V.S.S. Medical College, Burla who after examining the X-Ray plates determined the age of the victim and the accused to be 8 and 18 to 20 years respectively and P.W.10 is the I.O. The defence did not choose to examine any witness. 3. On assessing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court held that the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) I.P.C. was established against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, convicted and sentenced him thereunder as mentioned earlier. 4. 3. On assessing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court held that the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f) I.P.C. was established against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, convicted and sentenced him thereunder as mentioned earlier. 4. Being aggrieved with this order of conviction and sentence, the accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant) while undergoing imprisonment, preferred this appeal from jail. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court committed error in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) I.P.C. on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim, a child. It is an established principle of law that conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix. if it is found to be cogent, reliable and beyond reproach. Only because a witness is a child, his or her evidence cannot be brushed aside altogether. Such evidence can be relied upon if it is found that she or he did not depose being tutored by others. 6. In the case at hand, it transpires from the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 who were aged about 8 and 10 years respectively that on the date of occurrence while they along with one Chenkedi were playing near the house of advocate Sisir Babu, the appellant came there and asked them to accompany him to the village tank so that he would bring lotus flowers from the tank for them. P.W.4 and Chenkidi refused to go with him, while P.W.2 accompanied him towards the tank. It further transpires from their evidence that on that date P.W.2 had put on a Chadi only. Nothing could be elicited from them during cross-examination to shake their credibility. P.W.1 in her evidence stated that on the date of occurrence P.Ws. 2, 4 and Chenkidi were playing together in front of the house of advocate Sisir Babu while she was engaged in cooking in her house. When she searched P.W.2 for bath, she was not found. On query, P.W.4 and Chenkidi told her that the appellant took her towards the tank on the assurance that he would give her lotus flower. This part of her evidence could not be shaken during cross-examination so as to dub her as a liar. So, from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 it is established that while P.Ws. On query, P.W.4 and Chenkidi told her that the appellant took her towards the tank on the assurance that he would give her lotus flower. This part of her evidence could not be shaken during cross-examination so as to dub her as a liar. So, from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 it is established that while P.Ws. 2, 4 and Chenkidi were playing in front of the house of advocate Sisir Babu, the appellant came there and took P.W.2 towards the tank side alluring her to give lotus flower. 7. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W. 1. the mother of the victim that P.W.2 was aged about 8 years at the time of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.9, the Assistant Professor, FMT, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla shows that he examined three X-Ray plates of P.W.2 and determined her age to be 6 years. The age determined by ossification test may vary up to two years on either side. In the present case, the age of the victim may vary up to 8 years or 4 years. But when P.W.I, mother of the victim herself deposed before the Court on oath that at the time of occurrence the age of the victim was 8 years, taking her evidence and the evidence of P.W.9 into consideration, it can be safely held that the victim was aged 8 years. This view is fortified from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who stated that the latter was a student of Class-III at the time of alleged occurrence. So for the purpose of Section 376 (2) (f) I.P.C., P.W.2 was below 12 years of age at the time of occurrence. 8. Now it is to be seen whether the appellant committed rape on the victim. It transpires from the evidence of the victim (P.W.2) that the appellant took her towards the tank on the pretext that he would bring lotus flower there from and give the same to her. But instead of taking her to the tank, he took her to the back side of the R.I. office, spread his towel on the ground, made her lie over it, removed her pant and he himself becoming naked when tried to insert his penis into her vagina she tried to shout, but he gagged her mouth by his hand. But instead of taking her to the tank, he took her to the back side of the R.I. office, spread his towel on the ground, made her lie over it, removed her pant and he himself becoming naked when tried to insert his penis into her vagina she tried to shout, but he gagged her mouth by his hand. Due to the act she sustained pain in the vagina, and cried. Then the appellant gave her two slaps and asked her to go back to her house. He also asked her not to disclose the incident before any one. According to the evidence of this witness, the occurrence took place in a ‘Bhaijaintia Puja Day’ as against the evidence of P.W.4, who stated that it took place on a ‘Jalhni Osa Day’. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that since the day of occurrence differs from witness to witness it casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. In this regard the trial Court held that P.Ws.l and 5 deposed that the occurrence took place in the month of Dassehara. Both ‘Janhi Osa’ and ‘Bhaijaintia Puja’ fall during Dashara time and in or about the month of September. The victim and her mother (P.W.4) stated that the occurrence took place in a Thursday and the same was found correct on verification of the English calendar. So, the trial Court rightly held that the occurrence took place on 25.9.1997. 9. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that after hearing from P.W.4 and Chenkidi that P.W.2 had gone with the appellant towards the tank side, she proceeded towards it and on the way found her coming crying. She disclosed the entire incident before her. Then P.W. 1 brought her to her house and on verification, found her Chadi to be stained with semen and blood and her private part injured. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.6, the Lady Doctor who examined the victim on 25.9.1997 at about 4.45 P.M. that the inner side of labia minora was found to be red, congested and swollen. Bruise of size 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. Red in colour was found present over left side perineum just below the vaginal orifice of the victim. She further found one linear scratch abrasion of 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the medial side of calf muscle of left leg of P.W.2. Bruise of size 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. Red in colour was found present over left side perineum just below the vaginal orifice of the victim. She further found one linear scratch abrasion of 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the medial side of calf muscle of left leg of P.W.2. P.W.6 further stated the vaginal orifice admits hardly the tip of the finger. So, penetration is not possible. During the cross-examination, it was elicited from her that the injuries found on the person of the victim could also be possible, by coming in contact with any rough surface. 10. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as found from the evidence of P.W.7, the doctor there was no matting of pubic hair of the appellant and no foreign material or injury was found on his private part, and as per chemical examination report neither blood nor semen as found on his lungi, M.O.II. Again as found from the evidence of P.W.6 the vaginal orifice of the victim hardly admitted the tip of the little finger and as such, penetration was not possible. So according to the learned counsel for the appellant medical evidence falsifies the allegation of rape on the victim. P.W.7 examined the appellant on 28.9.1998 at 11.10 A.M. The occurrence having been taken place on 25.9.1997 at 10 A.M. in absence of any evidence to the contrary it can be safely presumed that the appellant took bath in the meantime. Matting of pubic hair and presence of foreign body on or near the private part of appellant could not be found after taking bath. Moreover, to constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be emission to semen or that foreign body must be present on or around the male organ. Absence of injury on the person of the aggressor cannot be a circumstance in each and every case to demolish the allegation of rape. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that if there was full penetration the hymen of the victim must have ruptured; but it was found intact by the doctor. So the allegation of rape cannot be believed. To bring home the charge of rape it is not necessary to prove that there should be complete penetration and rupture of hymen. So the allegation of rape cannot be believed. To bring home the charge of rape it is not necessary to prove that there should be complete penetration and rupture of hymen. In small children the hymen being situated high up on the canal is not usually ruptured in partial penetration. In the decision of Paribhusan Behera and others v. State of Orissa1, this Court in a Division Bench held as follows : “To constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there should be complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Partial penetration within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum with or without emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration is sufficient to constitute the offence of rape as defined in the law. The depth of penetration is immaterial in an offence punishable under Section 376, I.P.C.” 11. Just after the occurrence P.W.2 narrated the entire incident before her mother (P.W. 1). It transpires from the evidence of P.Ws.l, 2 and 4 that there was no prior enmity or animosity between the appellant and P.W. 1’s family. Before recording the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 the trial Court tested their capability of giving rational answers and found that they were capable of understanding questions and giving rational answers. Since there was no prior enmity, there was no reason for P.W.I to make P.W.2 a scapegoat to falsely allege against the appellant that he committed rape on her at the risk of tarnishing her image and prospect of her future marriage. No corroboration beyond the statement of P.W.2 to her mother and the medical evidence is necessary to bring home the charge against the appellant. 12. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that from the evidence on record it can at best be said that the appellant attempted to commit rape on the victim, but did not commit it. So at best he would be liable for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) read with Section 511, I.P.C. In support of his submission he relied on the decision in Jagdish Pd. Sharma v. State2, wherein their Lordships converted the order of conviction and sentence under Section 376, I.P.C. to one under Section 376, read with Section 511, I.P.C. In that case the alleged victim was aged 3-1/2 years. Sharma v. State2, wherein their Lordships converted the order of conviction and sentence under Section 376, I.P.C. to one under Section 376, read with Section 511, I.P.C. In that case the alleged victim was aged 3-1/2 years. There was no injury to labia majora and labia minora. There was not even swelling or redness on both of them and vulva. Of course there was a small- tear in hymen of the alleged victim. Again, as per the C.F.S.L. Report, the blood of the victim was of ‘A’ group and that of the appellant (accused) was ‘B’ group, but ‘AB’ group of blood was found on the underwears of the appellant and the victim. Moreover, human blood of ‘A’ group was found on the Pyzama’ of the appellant. So, their Lordships seriously doubted the veracity of the prosecution witnesses so far as the rape was concerned. As such, the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. was converted to one under Sections 376/511, I.P.C. But in the present case, as stated earlier, the inner side of the labia minora of P.W.2 was found red in colour, congested and swollen, a bruise of size 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. of red colour was also found on the left side of the perineum just below the vaginal orifice. Moreover, there was a linear scratch of 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the medial side of calf muscle of the left leg of the victim, P.W.2. Furthermore, it is found from Ext. 16, the Chemical Exami-nation Report that human blood was found on the Chadi (M.O.I) of the victim. So the decision cited above is not applicable to the present case. Reiterating the same submission, the learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the decision of this Court in State of Orissa v. Sukadev Pradhan3, where the order of conviction for the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. as passed by the trial Court was challenged by the State on the ground that conviction ought to have been made under Section 376, I.P.C. instead of 354, I.P.C. In that case there was no injury on the vagina and its surrounding of the victim, a girl of nine years old. So, this Court denied to convert the order of conviction for the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. to Section 376, I.P.C. The case at hand is quite distinguishable from that case. So, this Court denied to convert the order of conviction for the offence under Section 354, I.P.C. to Section 376, I.P.C. The case at hand is quite distinguishable from that case. Again the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad v. Lingisetty Sreenu4. In that case the victim was a dumb girl and was aged about 14 years at the time of occur-rence. She gave her evidence through signs, which were interpreted by the principal of a dumb school. There was no evidence that there was penetration of the penis in the vagina or that at least the accused put his penis on the private part of the victim. So the order of conviction for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. was converted to one under Section 354, read with Section 511, I.P.C. The case in hand is quite distinguishable from that case. 13. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction as has been passed by the trial Court. The minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 376 (2)(f) I.P.C. being R.I. for ten years, the order with regard to imposition of sentence also does not warrant interference. Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. Appeal dismissed. 1. 1995 Cri.L.J. 1561. 2. 1995 Crl.L.J. 2501. 3. 1987 Cri.L.J. 605. 4. 1997 Cri.L.J. 4003.