JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. The appellant was charged with committing rape on a minor girl of eight years, but found at the end of the trial guilty of attempting to commit the said offence. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentenced under Section 342/376/511 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) to suffer rigorous imprisonment of five years and six months with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in the judgment dated 27-6-2000 in ST 17 (WT/A) of 1999, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The prosecution version in brief is that the victim is the daughter of the informant Smt. Kajal Ghosh (P.W.1). The appellant is her close neighbour. He was aged 24 years at the time of the alleged occurrence. On 18-2-1999 Kajal Ghosh left for her place of work at 9.30 a.m. at Arundhuti Nagar Neramac Food Processing Centre, leaving her 8 year old daughter alone in the house. She returned home at 6.30 p.m. in the evening and came to know from her daughter that at about 11 a.m. the appellant called the girl to his house on the pretext of sending her to a shop for buying bidi for him. He gave her Rs. 5. When she returned to his house with a packet of bidi and the balance of Rs. 1 in her hand, the appellant suddenly grabbed, disrobed and raped her. 3. The mother, shocked as she was by such nasty, and inhuman act by her close neighbour, immediately informed the matter to her neighbours viz. Pankaj Dey (P.W.-2), Shyamal Dutta Gupta (P.W.-3), Smt. Sipra Ghosh (P.W.-4), Tinku Dey (P.W.-5). Kajal Deb (P.W.-7), Laxmi Ghosh (P.W.-9), Anima Das (P. W.-10), Matilal Pal (P. W.-11) and Debashish Dey (P. W.-13). On the following day i.e. 19-2-1999 she formally lodged a first information report (FIR) which was written by Pankaj Dey (P.W.-2) as per her dictation. The criminal investigation into the said offence was thus set in motion. 4. During the course of investigation the victim girl was medically examined on 20-2-1999 by Dr. Sukumar Debnath (P.W.-15) of the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Agartala. He did not find any marks of violence on the body or private parts of the victim. Her hymen was intact and vagina was normal. Her vaginal swab was collected and examined by Dr. 4. During the course of investigation the victim girl was medically examined on 20-2-1999 by Dr. Sukumar Debnath (P.W.-15) of the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Agartala. He did not find any marks of violence on the body or private parts of the victim. Her hymen was intact and vagina was normal. Her vaginal swab was collected and examined by Dr. D. P. Chakraborty (P.W. 16) but no spermatozoa was found. P. W.-15 examined the appellant and found him capable to perform sexual intercourse. The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code by Sri. Bikash Debbarma, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Agartala (P.W.-14). According to the said statement the appellant committed rape on her. However, at the end the investigation police officer submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 342, 354,376 and 511 IPC. Charge was framed against the appellant under all the above provision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge following which the trial had commenced. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove the charges against the appellant. The victim was examined as P.W.-6. Her deposition before the learned trial Court is fully consistent with what she stated to the learned judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5) of the Cr. P.C. (Ext.r-3). After knowing from her daughter about the said occurrence the shocked mother informed the neighbours immediately and all of them corroborated her before the trial Court saying that they were informed about the heinous act of the appellant on the minor girl. Thus, there was no delay on the part of the informant to communicate to her neighbours about the occurrence. Of the neighbours aforementioned Mr. Kajal Deb (P. W.-7) is himself a lawyer who personally and privately examined the victim girl. She stated what happened to her without any inconsistency and contradiction. Her clear statement is that on the pretext of sending her for buying bidi the appellant brought her to his house, disrobed her and rubbed his penis against her vagina. In her statement to the judicial Magistrate she further stated that while rubbing, certain white liquid came out from his penis which had spoiled her pant. The appellant took out the pant and washed it in water. The pant was later seized. In her statement to the judicial Magistrate she further stated that while rubbing, certain white liquid came out from his penis which had spoiled her pant. The appellant took out the pant and washed it in water. The pant was later seized. As a minor girl of 8 years old can hardly say what amounts to rape or penetration, the learned trial Court, appreciating the opinion of the medical experts came to hold that the alleged act by the appellant did not amount to rape, though the same was an attempt to commit rape. Finally, the trial Court found the charges under Sections 342, 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC well proved. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the appellant made a brief submission that the materials on record undoubtedly project a case of attempt to commit rape on the minor girl by the appellant, but considering his age it is possible to take a view that he could not resist his sudden impulse for sex. In such a situation a lenient view regarding sentence is called for in the interest of justice for an erring young man. 7. Per contra, Mr. Ghosh, learned Additional P.P. submitted that the above offence assumes more magnitude and seriousness when the background fact that the appellant had played trick to bring her to his house taking the opportunity of her loneliness is considered. It needs no argument to say that a girl of 8 years old cannot have her sex organs developed to cause in the appellant any impulse for sex. Mr. Ghosh has drawn my attention to the part of the statement of Mr. Kajal Deb (P.W.-7) who is an advocate and had no enmity against the appellant. According to the said witness the appellant is a very ill reputed person in the locality and many criminal cases including a murder case were pending against him, It is the submission of Mr. Ghosh that such a person does not deserve any leniency in a case, such as this, where an infant girl was subjected to his lust. 8. I have considered the above submissions on the anvils of the impeccable evidence of the victim her mother and other neighbours. Ghosh that such a person does not deserve any leniency in a case, such as this, where an infant girl was subjected to his lust. 8. I have considered the above submissions on the anvils of the impeccable evidence of the victim her mother and other neighbours. Indisputably, the victim girl was the only eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and, therefore, she was the source of information to her mother and other witnesses. A closer scrutiny of her statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr. P.C. her deposition before the learned trial Court and her version to her mother would immediately inspire confidence about the truth of her allegation. It is not expected of her or any girl of her age to know what precisely amounted to penetration or rape. As the medical experts did not find any violence on her body or private parts and no spermatozoa was found in her vaginal swab it is to be understood that there was no penetration. In a line of decisions it has been held that the vaginal passage of a girl of 8 to 10 years old would not permit the penis of a robust man of 24 years without any injury. Though the victim is truthful when she stated that the appellant rubbed his penis against her vagina causing discharge of semen which had spoiled her pant, the same did not amount to rape as there was no penetration but only attempt. In State v. Udhelal 1996 Cri LJ 3202 (MP) the accused had made an attempt on a 8 or 10 year old girl for sexual intercourse and for that the girl was lying down and accused was over her in a position preparatory to sexual assault. In the meantime, mother of the girl appeared in the scene when the accused ran away. It was held by the trial Court that the case against the accused was not proved and, therefore, he was acquitted. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal. It was held that findings of the trial Court were perverse and unreasonable and for that reason the same were set aside and accused was held guilty under Section 376/511 IPC. In the case on hand the victim girl was disrobed and appellant was over her rubbing the penis against her vagina. This certainly amounted to attempt to commit rape. It was held that findings of the trial Court were perverse and unreasonable and for that reason the same were set aside and accused was held guilty under Section 376/511 IPC. In the case on hand the victim girl was disrobed and appellant was over her rubbing the penis against her vagina. This certainly amounted to attempt to commit rape. It is to be noticed at this stage that except mere denial, no specific defence case was projected to explain why a neighbour's minor girl or her mother would make an allegation against the appellant with whom they had no enmity. This circumstance places the prosecution story on a stronger foundation. But I do not think that considering the entire gamut of the occurrence, it is possible to segregate a part of the same to constitute a separate offence under Section 342 IPC for separate punishment. The entire activity noticed above was planned to commit rape and, therefore, only one offence was in the mind of the appellant. though he was not successful to commit rape, all preparations culminated into an attempt to commit the offence of rape. The chain of events lead to the attempt only as aforesaid, not any other distinct and separate offence under Section 342 IPC. Thus, the conviction under Section 342 is unsustainable. 9. This appeal, therefore, to the extent it challenges conviction under Section 376/511 IPC has no merit and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed which 1 hereby do with the modification that the appellant shall stand convicted under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code only with reduced sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, in consideration of his age and other attending circumstances. The conviction and sentence under Section 342 IPC is set aside and quashed. 10. Subject to above the appeal is dismissed.