JUDGMENT The appellant/accused was convicted under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5001-. The appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as accused. 2. The facts are as follows One Ramdas Borkar lives at village Bothali along with his two daughters and two wives. On the date of the incident in the evening, Ramdas's wife Vasudha had cooked rice. She took the cooked rise to the house of Durgabai - her neighbour. The accused was at the house of Durgabai. Along with Vasudha her daughter prosecutrix had also gone to the house of Durgabai. The accused who was at the house of Durgabai called prosecutrix to him, made her sit on his lap and later said that they would go home. Prosecutrix, therefore, left along with the accused. After some time Vasudha came back home. She did not find prosecutrix at home. She therefore, went to the house of the accused who also lives in the neighborhood. Accused and prosecutrix were not found at home. She, therefore, returned home. Prosecutrix came after some time. She was weeping. She asked prosecutrix as to why she was weeping. Initially prosecutrix was reluctant to tell anything; therefore Vasudha went to the house of accused and questioned him as to where he had taken prosecutrix. Accused said that he had taken her to the hotel of one Balu. Prosecutrix thereafter said that she was not taken to the hotel but was taken near the Samaj Mandir. She then narrated the incident to her mother. She told that the accused had tried to insert his penis into her vagina. A report of the incident was, therefore, lodged with the Police and the accused was arrested. 3. The Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) committed the case to the court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions framed charge, to which accused pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him as stated above. 4. 3. The Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) committed the case to the court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions framed charge, to which accused pleaded not guilty. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him as stated above. 4. Prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses whom include PW-l prosecutrix - the victim, PW-2 Durgabai - the neighbour, PW-3 Vasudha - the mother, PW-4 Ramchandra - the Medical Officer, PW-5 RllPchand - Headmaster of the school, PW-6 Pradip - the panch on the spot panchanama, PW-7 Ramdas - the father of the victim, PW-8 Dhanraj Bawane - head constable - who took the victim to the hospital, PW-9 Deorao - the station diary in charge and PW-10 Dilipkumar the Investigating Officer. 5. PW-l Prosecutrix - the victim is said to be only eight years old. She tells her age to be 8 and studying in 2nd standard. PW5 Rupchand - the headmaster - states that prosecutrix is student of his school and her date of birth is recorded as 3-11-1997 in the school register. He states that he had taken the entry of the date of birth On the basis of the Certificate of the Gram-panchayat. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the Certificate (Exh.35) issued by school and in any case there is no serious challenge to this fact. The victim is, therefore, proved to be less than 16 years of age. 6. PW-l Prosecutrix is the victim of the crime. She was not given the oath, as the judge found that she did not understand sanctity of oath. Before we turn to the evidence of PW1, it would be necessary to look into evidence of PW-3 Vasudha and PW-2 Durga. 7. PW-3 Vasudha - the mother states that in the evening she had taken cooked rice at the house of PW-2 Durgabai and her daughter accompanied her. She states that the accused who also lives in the neighbourhood was sitting at the house of Durgabai. She also further states that the accused called her (daughter) and took her in his lap and said to prosecutrix that they would go home. It is also stated by PW-3 Vasudha that the accused then took prosecutrix with him. It is also stated that after she came home, she did not find prosecutrix home. She also further states that the accused called her (daughter) and took her in his lap and said to prosecutrix that they would go home. It is also stated by PW-3 Vasudha that the accused then took prosecutrix with him. It is also stated that after she came home, she did not find prosecutrix home. She goes on to depose that she went to house of accused but both of them were not at home. PW-2 Durgabai, who is neighbour as well as relative of the accused also corroborates the version of PW-3 Vasudha that accused was at the home of Durgabai and took prosecutrix with him. This evidence leaves no manner of doubt that accused took prosecutrix with him and he did not take prosecutrix at her home or at his home. It is in this back ground that the evidence of PW-l is to be looked into. 8. PW -1 has stated that accused took her near Samaj Mandir, made her lie down, removed her knicker and then tried to gag her mouth but she shouted. She also states that accused had inserted his penis in to her private part. She further states that accused gave her threat that he would kill her if she tells the incident to anybody. He further goes on to depose that she went home weeping. She further states that her mother enquired with her as to where she had gone and she told her mother that she had gone at the house of accused as was told by the accused to her. She also states that her mother then took her to the house of accused and enquired with the accused as to where he had taken prosecutrix, upon which accused is said to have taken her to the hotel of Balu. She also states that prosecutrix then told her that she was not taken to the hotel of Balu. She further goes on to state that she then narrated the incident to her mother and father and then she was taken to the Police Station. She also states that she was medically examined. Further she states that she was feeling pain in vagina. Though the evidence was not given on oath, it appears from evidence that she has not faltered any where and gives the exact version as to what had happened. She also states that she was medically examined. Further she states that she was feeling pain in vagina. Though the evidence was not given on oath, it appears from evidence that she has not faltered any where and gives the exact version as to what had happened. She admits in cross-examination that there used to be quarrel between her mother and step-mother and accused used to take side of her stepmother. She also admits that there was a dispute between her father and the accused. It is also suggested to PW-3 Vasudha that the accused used to take side of step-mother but Vasudha denies. She candidly said in the cross-examination that there is no reason for her to implicate the accused falsely and defame her own daughter. A very different suggestion is given to PW-7 Ramdas that there was quarrel between him and the accused over distribution of irrigation water through the channel. He denies the said suggestion and specifically says that the field of accused is very far away from the field of Pandurang Borkar. It is, therefore, apparent that the different suggestions are given to different witnesses. Neither Ramdas nor his wife, admit that their relations with accused were ever strained. On the other hand, PW-2 Durgabai who is relative of accused also positively states that accused was at her home and took prosecutrix with him. Prosecutrix was taken away by accused with the consent of Vasudha - the mother of the victim. Had the relations really been strained, Vasudha would not have allowed her daughter to go with the accused. It is tried to be elicited from the witness that there are houses around and street lights around. There are houses around but that does not mean that everybody keeps a watch on what was going on outside. PW-3 Vasudha clearly says that on the date of the incident, there was no electric supply in the village and there was, therefore, total darkness. In view of this, it may be that nobody may have noticed these two near the Samaj Mandir. There is, therefore, no possibility of accused having been falsely implicated in the matter. The evidence of PWs-l, 2, 3 and 7 is quite inspiring. 9. There is no injury on the person or private part of victim as is clear from the medical certificate (Exh.36). There is, therefore, no possibility of accused having been falsely implicated in the matter. The evidence of PWs-l, 2, 3 and 7 is quite inspiring. 9. There is no injury on the person or private part of victim as is clear from the medical certificate (Exh.36). There was no blood or spermatozoa found on the knicker of the victim. The victim has, however, positively stated that she suffered pain in the vagina and in any case there is no charge of actual sexual intercourse but charge is only of attempt. In view of this, even if no spermatozoa or blood was found that makes no difference. The accused was rightly held guilty of offence under Section 376 read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code. I see no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.