Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under -Convicted under Section sentenced to 376 of the IPC undergo R. I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer R. I. for 2 months. 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act")undergo R. I. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to suffer R. I. for two months. with further direction that the custodial sentences shall run concurrently. The corresponding judgment dated 29/4/1994 passed by Sessions Judge, designated as Special Judge (under the Act), at Narsinghpur, in Special Criminal Case No. 83/ 93, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION story, in short, may be narrated as under - (i) The prosecutrix (PW6) is member of a Scheduled Tribe. At the relevant point of time, she was a girl of only 8 years of age. The appellant was well known to her in view of the fact that house of her father namely Imrat was situated in front of the appellants house in village Singhpur Chhota. (ii) On 14/2/1993, Ramleela was being staged in the village but Imrat had gone out of station. At about 8 p. m. , while going along with the appellant, his sister Jijjan and son Mantholi to witness ramleela, the prosecutrix had to stop in the transit to answer call of nature. Although, her companions continued to proceed towards the destination yet, after a while, the appellant left the company of jijjan and Mantholi on the pretext that he was going to bring Beedi. He then returned to the spot where the prosecutrix was performing the office of nature. He physically lifted her and took her to a place near Babul tree; made her to lie down and subjected her to sexual assault. Consequently, the prosecutrix fainted and blood started oozing out from her vagina. After regaining consciousness, she started vomiting. Wearing bloodstained garments, she returned home and narrated the incident to her mother Sumantra Bai (PW7 ). However, the FIR (Ex. P-1) could be lodged on 17/2/93 only upon return of Imrat from other village. Accordingly, a case under section 376 of the IPC and 3 (1) (xii) of the Act was registered. After regaining consciousness, she started vomiting. Wearing bloodstained garments, she returned home and narrated the incident to her mother Sumantra Bai (PW7 ). However, the FIR (Ex. P-1) could be lodged on 17/2/93 only upon return of Imrat from other village. Accordingly, a case under section 376 of the IPC and 3 (1) (xii) of the Act was registered. (iii) The prosecutrix was immediately sent to hospital at Kareli for medical examination but due to non-availability of lady doctor in the hospital as well as in the nearby public health centres, she was taken to Jabalpur where on 20/2/93, she was examined by dr. Seema Choudhary (PW4) at Elgin Hospital. The medical expert categorically opined that an attempt was made to commit sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. (iv) The appellant was apprehended on 22/2/1993 and was also subjected to medical examination. Dr. D. S. Choudhary (PW5)found that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. ( 3. ) ON being charged with the offences punishable under Section 376 of the ipc and Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, the appellant pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity with Sumantra Bai (PW7 ). . ( 4. ) TO bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including Village Pradhan Siyaram Kaurav (PW2), Patwari Ramdayal Dhurve (PW3) and Investigating Officer A. R. Bharve (PW1) whereas the defence was sought to be proved by calling two witnesses namely Premlal (DW1) and Ram prasad (DW2 ). ( 5. ) EVEN though Siyaram Kaurav (PW2) did not support the statement of sumantra Bai (PW7) to the effect that before lodging the FIR, matter was reported to him yet, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, proceeded to convict the appellant of the offences charged with and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. ( 6. ) LEGALITY and propriety of impugned convictions have been assailed on the following counts :- (a) Absence of independent corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix. (b) Delay in lodging the FIR. (c) Absence of definite medical opinion as to rape. (d) Probability of the defence. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while inviting attention to the corresponding incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that the convictions in question are well merited. ( 7. (b) Delay in lodging the FIR. (c) Absence of definite medical opinion as to rape. (d) Probability of the defence. In response, learned Panel Lawyer, while inviting attention to the corresponding incriminating pieces of evidence, has submitted that the convictions in question are well merited. ( 7. ) THE prosecutrix (PW6), in her sworn testimony, vividly described as to how she was subjected to sexual assault by the appellant, As per her statement, it was the appellant only who had called her for being taken with Jijjan and Mantoli to enjoy performance of Ramleela. She further deposed that the appellant, observing that she had stopped to urinate at the end of the lane in the transit, had asked jijjan and Mantoli to proceed ahead. According to her, the appellant caught hold of her from behind; gagged her and pressed his male organ into her vagina with the results that she lost consciousness; started vomiting and bleeding profusely per vagina and feeling severe pain all over her body. ( 8. ) IT also came in the statement of the prosecutrix (PW6) that after regaining consciousness, she had treaded painfully upto her house and narrated the entire incident to her mother Sumantra Bai (PW7 ). The mother duly corroborated the version of the daughter. According to her, the prosecutrix had gone with the appellant at about 8 p. m. and had returned home all alone at about 9 p. m. She also testified that underwear and Salvar of the prosecutrix, who was also vomiting, were soaked with blood coming out of her vagina. Both the prosecutrix and Sumantra bai were cross-examined at length but nothing significant could be elicited so as to render their evidence doubtful. ( 9. ) THE defence of false implication due to enmity was also not convincing in the face of inconsistency between the trend of cross-examination and the nature of defence evidence. To elucidate, it may be pointed out that in the cross-examination of Sumantra Bai (PW7), suggestion was made to the effect that she was ill-disposed towards the appellant whereas Premlal (DW1) and Ram Prasad (DW2) told about a quarrel between Sumantra and wife, of the appellant only. Moreover, the cause of enmity was also not explained by the appellant in his examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, the cause of enmity was also not explained by the appellant in his examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This apart, even if it is assumed that the relations between the appellant and Sumantra were strained, probability of the defence would not be established as no mother would prefer to bring forth a false charge of rape on her 8 year old daughter to wreak vengeance. ( 10. ) ADMITTEDLY, Mantoli is younger to prosecutrix. It is true that the prosecution did not examine Jjjanbai but the corresponding order recorded on 24. 02. 1994 indicates that she was given up as a won over witness. The non-corroborative evidence of Siyaram Kaurav (PW2), the Village Pradhan also did not assume any significance in view of the well-settled proposition of law that no corroboration is necessary to act upon evidence of the prosecutrix (Rameshwar vs. State of rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 relied on ). Furthermore, the following observations made by the Apex Court in respect of the mother of prosecutrix in that case apply with full force to Sumantra (PW7) also - "the next question is whether, the mother can be regarded as an "independent" witness. So far as this case is concerned, I have no doubt on that score. It may be that all mothers may not be sufficient independent to fulfill the requirements of the corroboration rule but there is no legal bar to exclude them from its operation merely on the ground of their relationship. Independent merely means independent of source, which are likely to be tainted. In the absence of enmity against the accused there is no reason why she would implicate him falsely. It is true the accused suggested that they were on bad terms but that has not been believed by anyone". ( 11. ) ACCORDINGLY, the contention as to absence of independent corroboration does not deserve acceptance. It is not in dispute that the police station is situated at a distance of nearly 8 kms, from the place of alleged occurrence. The delay of nearly 60 hours in lodging the FIR was explained by Sumantra (PW7) by stating that it was only after return of her husband Imrat that the decision to take action against the appellant was taken as the reputation of the family and career of the prosecutrix were at stake. The delay of nearly 60 hours in lodging the FIR was explained by Sumantra (PW7) by stating that it was only after return of her husband Imrat that the decision to take action against the appellant was taken as the reputation of the family and career of the prosecutrix were at stake. This cogent and credible explanation was rightly considered as sufficient to treat the delay as inconsequential (State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash AIR 2002 SC 2235 referred to ). ( 12. ) ADVERTING to the medical evidence, it may be observed that the learned trial judge, in the light of oral testimony and forensic evidence on record, had proceeded to even disagree with the categorical medical opinion to the effect that rape on the prosecutrix was only attempted. The relevant extracts of the medical report (Ex. P-1. 9) prepared by Dr. Smt. Seema Choudhary (PW4) may be reproduced as under -No external injury on any private part of the body. No injury on vulva. In vagina, slight laceration at 6 O Clock position of 1/2". Slight bleeding present. Examination per vagina could not be done as only one finger could be introduced. Opinion - A person may have tried the intercourse. ( 13. ) IT is well-settled proposition of law that even slightest penetration of penis into vagina without rupturing the hymen would constitute rape (See. Madan Gopal kakkad vs. Naval Dubey (1992) 3 SCC 204 ). ( 14. ) ALTHOUGH; the medical expert admitted that an object other than the male organ could also cause the vaginal laceration yet, no specific suggestion was made that it was an injury by a piece of stick. Still, learned counsel for the appellant has invited attention to the fact, as admitted by the prosecutrix (PW6), that while being dragged, she sustained an injury in her urethra that had come into contact with a stick. However, as reflected in the spot map (Ex. P-7), the Babul tree was situated at a distance of 8 feet from the place of occurrence. Besides this, the veracity of testimony of a young girl of 8 years, who had no earlier experience of a sexual assault, could not be examined by reading the admission in isolation. (Madan Lal vs. State of Jandk (1997) 7 SCC 677 referred to ). Besides this, the veracity of testimony of a young girl of 8 years, who had no earlier experience of a sexual assault, could not be examined by reading the admission in isolation. (Madan Lal vs. State of Jandk (1997) 7 SCC 677 referred to ). In this view of the matter, the admission made by the prosecutrix as to cause of bleeding injury was, therefore, of no avail to the defence. Nevertheless, it was not possible to conclude safely that there was a partial penetration within the labia majora or vulva or pudenda. ( 15. ) CONSEQUENTLY, in addition to the offence of outraging modesty of a girl belonging to a Scheduled Tribe punishable under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, the appellant was liable to be convicted for the attempt of rape on her. However, double-punishment for the offences comprising sexual assault upon the same individual would be violative of Section 71 of the IPC. ( 16. ) COMING to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that reduction of term of the custodial sentence to the period of 1 year and 8 months already undergone by him would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. But, the fact of the matter is that offence of rape upon a girl under 12 years of age, in absence of any adequate and special reasons, is punishable with a minimum punishment of 10 years R. I. In this view of the matter, the prayer does not deserve acceptance. ( 17. ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned conviction under section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act is hereby affirmed but the consequent separate sentence is set aside. However, the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 is converted to one under Section 376 read with 511 of the IPC and instead of R. I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, he is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a term of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default to suffer R. I. for two months. ( 18. ) THE appellant Motilal Gwal is on bail. He is directed to surrender to his bail bonds for undergoing the remaining part of the sentence thus modified as per the warrant on record. Appeal allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.