JUDGMENT By Court - Sole appellant Anand Karji @ Soma Karji stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(f)/511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for ten years, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 1996. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that informant Gunakar Kundu used to sell eggs, patties, etc. on a handcart in village-Mahulsai. As per informant on the date of occurrence 21.11.1995 at about 6.30 P.M., the appellant came to his handcart and asked him to pack egg, chart and patties of Rs. 14/- and to send the victim Bulbul Kundu to his residence to bring home the plate and money. The informant accordingly sent the victim with the appellant. As further stated when the daughter of the informant came back after half hour, she narrated to him weeping that she was abused sexually by the appellant. The informant reported the matter to village pradhan Jagarnath Munda. 3. Thereafter, the matter was reported to police. The statement of the informant was recorded. The victim was sent for medical examination at Chaibasa. The police finally submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under •Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was charged on 15.10.1996 to which he pleaded not guilty. However, after trial he was convicted for the offence charged and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the medical report does not support the allegation of rape. Mr. R.C. Khatri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, frankly submitted that the appellant has remained in custody right from 22.8.1995 and already served the period of sentence. It is further submitted that the medical report not supporting the allegation of rape, should have been considered by the trial Court. According to Mr. Khatri, only on oral allegation by the victim, the conviction has been made. Therefore, the order of conviction dated 23.12.1999 deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed these contentions asserting therein that the appellant has committed rape on a child below ten years of age. 6. I have gone through the materials on records. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses in support of the prosecution case. P.W.1. is the informant, who has supported the allegation. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed these contentions asserting therein that the appellant has committed rape on a child below ten years of age. 6. I have gone through the materials on records. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses in support of the prosecution case. P.W.1. is the informant, who has supported the allegation. According to him, victim Bulbul Kundu came back weeping and narrated the incident to him in what manner the appellant has tried to forcibly penetrate his male organ in the private parts of the victim. P.W. 2 Dr. Neeru Jha found tenderness on the private parts of the victim. The vagina did not allow even one finger. She has opined that the victim was aged about six to seven years. Though she did not find any sign of rape because there was no rupture of hymen. The learned counsel for the appellant has stressed upon this point that as there was no rupture, the offence of rape could not be completed. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are hearsay witnesses of the occurrence. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have caught hold of the appellant. P.W.7 is the victim. She was examined after tested on 4.5.1999 by the trial court. She has specifically mentioned in her statement that when she went along with the appellant to bring money and plate, she was confined in the room and subjected to sexual abuse by the appellant by rubbing his penis in her private parts. During cross-examination, she has denied this suggestion that the appellant was falsely implicated. 7. On careful consideration of the evidence available on record, I find that the' prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubts that the appellant has tried to sexually assault the victim Bulbul Kundu (P.W.7) in the evening of 21.11.1995. The manner in which the appellant has sexually abused the victim has been proved beyond doubts. Accordingly, I find and hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under Section 376(2) (f)/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. 8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I find that the present appeal has got no merit. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court against the appellant are hereby confirmed. 8. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I find that the present appeal has got no merit. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court against the appellant are hereby confirmed. Since, the appellant has already served the period for which he was sentenced, the Office is directed to issue release order, if he is not required in any other case.