JUDGMENT :- 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31st March 2008 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 71 of 2006 by the Special Judge, Bhandara, present appeal is filed. Appellant has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Incident occurred on 27.5.2006 at about 12.00 pm. During the relevant period, prosecutrix had come to her grand-mother’s place at Paoni along with her mother. On 27.5.2006 while she was playing with some children, appellant asked her to bring Bhaji (cooked vegetable) from her grand-mother’s place in a bowl which he gave to prosecutrix. When prosecutrix brought cooked vegetable, appellant carried her to bed; made her lie and after removing her underwear and his underwear, he committed rape on prosecutrix. He threatened prosecutrix that he would kill her if she disclosed incident to anybody. Prosecutrix returned crying and reported incident to her mother Pratibha who took her to Police Station where oral report was lodged. Prosecutrix was referred for medical examination. 3. On the basis of report, Crime No. 76/2006 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. SDPO Avinash Rajurkar recorded statements of prosecutrix and her relatives. Clothes of accused and complainant were seized. Prosecutrix was referred to Rural Hospital, Paoni for examination and report. Samples of blood, pubic hair and seminal fluid of accused were sent to chemical analyser for opinion and report. C.A. Reports are at exhibits 30, 31 and 32. After investigation was over, charge-sheet against appellant came to be filed. 4. Learned Special Judge framed charge under Section 3 (1) (xii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. It was read over and explained to him in vernacular. Appellant denied charge and claimed to be tried. His defence is that there was quarrel between his father and grand-mother of prosecutrix 2-3 days before lodging of report. A false report was lodged against him in order to settle score. Learned Special Judge after recording evidence and hearing parties, held appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid. A false report was lodged against him in order to settle score. Learned Special Judge after recording evidence and hearing parties, held appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 5. Regarding the incident of rape as alleged, the evidence led by the prosecution consists of deposition by prosecutrix (PW 2), aged about 11 years and her mother Pratibha (PW 1). It appears from deposition of Pratibha (PW 1) that while she was taking lunch at about 12.30 in the noon on the day of incident in her house, her daughter (prosecutrix) came inside with a bowl and told her mother that Pramod (appellant) wanted “Bhaji” (cooked vegetable). Therefore, PW 1 gave curry in a bowl for the accused (known and residing in the neighbourhood). When her daughter returned back, she was crying and told that Pramod had bolted door from inside; dragged her and removed her clothes; accused removed his clothes and raped her. P.W. 1 then approached Police Station along with her daughter. It appeared from evidence of prosecutrix (P.W. 2) that on 27.5.2006 at about 12.00 noon she was playing with a girl near holyfig tree. At that time, accused (appellant) had called her and asked her to bring “Bhaji” (cooked vegetable) for him. When she carried Bhaji from her house to the house of accused, he had asked her to keep in the middle room on bed and then asked her to keep it in the kitchen room. At that time, he held her left hand, pushed her on cot, forcibly removed her nicker, removed his pant and then raped her. He also threatened her that if she disclosed the said incident, he would kill her. Thereafter she went to her house crying and informed everything to her mother. She also went to hospital with her mother and approached Police Station and informed of the incident to police. Reports and FIR are at exhibits 17 and 18. Thereafter investigation into the incident of rape started. 6. Learned Advocate for appellant submitted that evidence of prosecutrix suffered from omission and contradiction. Learned Advocate for appellant submitted that according to prosecutrix, she stated to police that accused had asked her to keep bowl over a cot in the middle room and then in kitchen, but nothing was mentioned in her police statement. 6. Learned Advocate for appellant submitted that evidence of prosecutrix suffered from omission and contradiction. Learned Advocate for appellant submitted that according to prosecutrix, she stated to police that accused had asked her to keep bowl over a cot in the middle room and then in kitchen, but nothing was mentioned in her police statement. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that variances in particulars as to minute details of the incident as contended cannot be fatal to the prosecution evidence. The prosecutrix was deposing on 3.3.2008 about incident which occurred on 27.5.2006 and there were no major discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence of prosecutrix so as to throw away the case particularly when the prosecutrix in the course of her cross-examination gave details and description of the incident as follows: “I was in the room for about half an hour. I was crying loudly. The accused dragged me by holding my hand from the door upto the bed which was nearly ... It is true that at the time of rape by the accused, there was bleeding from my private part. My nicker was stained with blood. The blood-stained nicker was shown to my mother and also to the doctor. It is true that there was injury on my private part.” The details of the incident were brought on record by learned Advocate who represented accused in the trial Court. The submission is advanced by learned Advocate on the ground that genesis of the incident is suppressed by the prosecution as there was enmity between accused and family of the prosecutrix. No such case appears to have been made out on record to blame the prosecution. 7. In the present case, the prosecution also relied upon evidence of Dr Kukade (PW 4) who had occasion to examine appellant Pramod, aged about 22 years. Doctor found that his body was well developed; mustache; pubic and auxillary hair were present. More particularly, on 28.5.2006 smegma was found absent upon examination of penis and he was found capable of performing sexual intercourse (vide certificate exhibit 22). Dr Kukade (PW 4) also deposed that the prosecutrix was examined by Dr Sawaimul on 27.5.2006 and it was found that her pubic and auxillary hair were not developed, breasts were not well developed. Labia majora was found completely covering the labia minora and she was not capable of performing intercourse. Dr Kukade (PW 4) also deposed that the prosecutrix was examined by Dr Sawaimul on 27.5.2006 and it was found that her pubic and auxillary hair were not developed, breasts were not well developed. Labia majora was found completely covering the labia minora and she was not capable of performing intercourse. Slight inflamation was seen over upper margin of labia manora. Vulva was intact, no tear of hymen was seen (vide exhibit 23). The admission by doctor in cross-examination that smegma can be washed away after bath or that inflammation over labia minora could be possible due to scratching merely brings on record possibility. But these admissions would be of no consequence in view of trustworthy and reliable evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 about the incident of rape attempted on minor girl child. Report from chemical analyser dated 7.10.2006 (exhibit 3) corroborated the evidence as torn quilt seized from the spot was found with small human blood stain in the middle portion. 8. The trial Court appears to have appreciated the entire evidence in its totality to conclude guilt for the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Victim was 11 years old girl, her evidence appears quite natural and trustworthy. She was crying after the incident of attempted rape by the accused (appellant) and was bound to inform her mother about it soon after the incident. Evidence of her mother (PW 1) lends assurance to the testimony of prosecutrix (PW 2) as also requisite corroboration. In medical certificate also we can find corroboration i.e. Observation of Dr Kukade as to absence of smegma on examination of penis of the accused. Medical observation about slight inflammation seen over upper margin of labia minora. The legal position is well settled that testimony of prosecutrix in such case or rape or attempted rape as the case may be, can be accepted even without corroboration in material particulars. She stands on higher pedestal than even an injured witness in criminal trial. As injured has injury to his physical body, but prosecutrix do suffer physically, psychologically and emotionally. A minor girl child residing in the neighbourhood cannot be treated like vulnerable object or prey by anybody to attempt such heinous crime of rape. On the background of facts considered in the light of principle stated above. 9. As injured has injury to his physical body, but prosecutrix do suffer physically, psychologically and emotionally. A minor girl child residing in the neighbourhood cannot be treated like vulnerable object or prey by anybody to attempt such heinous crime of rape. On the background of facts considered in the light of principle stated above. 9. The basic challenge in this appeal is that the evidence of prosecutrix who is a child witness should not have been accepted by the trial Court particularly in the absence of adequate corroboration. It has also been indicated that the sentence is harsh. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has urged that the testimony of prosecutrix, a girl of 11 years old particularly in case of this nature does not require corroboration if the testimony of victim is credible. It is also pointed out that the victim had immediately after occurrence told her mother about the incident and, therefore, her evidence is of considerable importance. 11. Since the age of the victim was 11 years at the time of incident, the appropriate conviction would have been under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code if conviction would have been for rape. Under Section 376 (2) (f) the permissible sentence is life imprisonment with minimum of ten years. 12. Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows:- “Punishment for attempting to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment - Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.” 13. In Panchii and ors v. State of UP reported in (1998) 7 SCC 177 , it was observed by the Apex Court that the evidence of a child witness cannot be rejected outright, but the evidence must be evaluated carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell her and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. The Court has to assess as to whether the statement of the victim before the Court is the voluntary expression of the victim and that she was not under the influence of others. The trial Court has found the evidence of prosecutrix cogent, credible and had grain of truth. The evidence of victim appears to be free from any influence. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly relied upon the evidence of the victim. Additionally, it would be appropriate to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 54. At para 25 it reads as follows:- “Next, I turn to another aspect of the case. The learned High Court Judges have used Mt Purni’s statement to her mother as corroboration of her statement. The question arises, can the previous statement of an accomplice, or a complainant, be accepted as corroboration?” The answer was, it was to be treated as corroborative. 14. Therefore, the trial Court, as noted above, has rightly held the appellant guilty. Coming to the question of sentence, according to me in the facts and circumstances of the present case, five years’ custodial sentence instead of eight years would be sufficient. Rest of the part of sentence need not be modified. 15. Appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant is maintained. However, instead of eight years, it is directed that appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the part of sentence imposed by the trial Court is maintained. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.