JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.02.2004 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam Division, against the appellant/accused in S.C.No.111of 2002. 2. The appellant was tried for the offence under Section 3761 PC, he was found guilty for the said offence, convicted and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 ,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred this appeal. 4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows: PW.1 , who was aged 12 years on the date of incident is the victim. P.W.2 Kongarani Narayanamma is her mother and P.W.4 Kongarani Ramudu is her father. They are residents of Gollala Thallavalasa village in Bheemunipatnam police station limits in Visakhapatnam District. 5. The appellant Kongarani Ramudu, who was aged 23 years on the date of incident, is also resident of the same village. 6. On 14.12.2001 at about 10.00 a.m. P.W.1 the victim girl took she buffaloes as usual for grazing. While she was watching the she buffaloes grazing at Obulagedda, the appellant came there at 1.00 p.m. and asked P .W.1 to assist him to lift the heap of sticks. He took her into a casurina tope of Marepalli people, where a wooden "attic' (arapa) is situated. When the appellant asked P.W.1 to sit there, she refused to sit, whereupon the appellant caught hold of her legs and pulled her down. Immediately P.W.1 got up and started running away from the place. The appellant chased her, caught hold of her, forcibly lifted her and placed her on the attic. Thereafter, he removed her under-wear and also his pant and committed sexual intercourse on her forcibly. When P.W.1 raised cries, he pressed her mouth with a towel. After committing rape, the appellant went away leaving P.W.1 there itself and thereafterP.W.1 came to her house and informed the incident to her brother (P.W.5), who was aged 15 years. By that time, her parents went to Thagarapuvalasa and both of them informed P .W.6 Kongarani Sanyasappadu, who is their close relative about the incident. P.W.6 in turn advised them to wait till the arrival of their parents. After the arrival of their parents, P. W.1 informed the incident to them. 7. By that time, her parents went to Thagarapuvalasa and both of them informed P .W.6 Kongarani Sanyasappadu, who is their close relative about the incident. P.W.6 in turn advised them to wait till the arrival of their parents. After the arrival of their parents, P. W.1 informed the incident to them. 7. After knowing about the incident through P.W.1, P.W.4-father of P.W.1 went to the house of the appellant and questioned the father of the appellant about the highhanded act of the appellant. The father of the appellant replied P .W.4 to do whatever he likes. On that P.W.4 approached the village elders and informed them about the incident. The elders advised P.W.4 to bring P.W. 1 and 2and also sent a word to the father of the appellant to look into the matter. However, in the meanwhile, P.W.4 thought that if the matter is pending with the elders, it will be delayed without any action against the appellant and therefore decided to report the matter to the police. Thereafter, he went to the Bheemili Police Station, along with P.W.1 with the assistance ofP.W.3AkramaniAppalanaidu where P.W.1 lodged a report with police. Basing on the report of P.W.1, a case in Crime No.363 of 2001 under Section 376 IPC was registered against the appellant. The offence was initially investigated into by P .W.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, and subsequently it was taken over by P. W .16, the Circle Inspector of Police, who after completing the investigation filed charge sheet. The Sub-Inspector of Police sent P.W.1 to Government hospital, Bheemili, for conducting medical examination where P.W.12 Dr.M.Kiranmayi examined P.W.1. Subsequently, at 4.00p.m.on 16.12.2001 the appellant surrendered at Circle Office, Bheemili, and since the appellant stated that she was wearing the clothes at the time of incident, the Inspector of Police seized the clothes in the presence of mediators and sent the appellant to Government Hospital, Bheemili, where P. W.8 Dr.S.V.L.N.V.Perumal examined the appellant and issued certificate regarding the potency of the appellant to commit sexual intercourse. 8. During the course of trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined PWs 1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and marked Mos 1 to 7. The appellant did not propose to examine any defence witnesses and marked any documents on his behalf. 9. 8. During the course of trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined PWs 1 to 16, marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and marked Mos 1 to 7. The appellant did not propose to examine any defence witnesses and marked any documents on his behalf. 9. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 3761 PC and sentenced him as mentioned above. 10. PW.1, the victim girl, who was found to be a child witness, was considered by the learned trial Judge as a competent witness after conducting preliminary examination she stated in her evidence about the appellant calling her to help him to lift the bundle of sticks over to his head, taking her to the attic situated in the land of Maripalli people, asking her to sit down, catching holding her legs pushing her down when she refused to sit, chasing her when she tried to ran away, taking her to the attick forcibly, making her to fell on the ground, removing her nikker, separating her legs, removing his clothes, pressing her breast, inserting penis into her vagina forcibly, closing her mouth with a towel and committing rape on her against her will. She also spoke about the noticing white colour liquid fell on her vagina. She further stated that after completing his act the appellant left her there itself. Thereafter she went weeping to her home by taking she buffaloes, informed her brother (P .W.5) and also spoke the subsequent events including her lodging report, examination by a Medical Officer etc. facts. 11. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, the parents of the deceased, P.W.5the brother of the deceased discloses about P. W.1 informing them about the incident, raising dispute before the elders and ultimately lodging report by P.W.1 with the police. 12. P.W.3 is a relative of P.W.1 and his evidence reveals about P.W.2 informing him about the appellant committing rape on P .w.1 and thereafter P.Ws 1,4 and others going to Police Station, Bheemili, where PW.110dged report. 13. P.W.6 deposed before the trial Court about P.Ws. 12. P.W.3 is a relative of P.W.1 and his evidence reveals about P.W.2 informing him about the appellant committing rape on P .w.1 and thereafter P.Ws 1,4 and others going to Police Station, Bheemili, where PW.110dged report. 13. P.W.6 deposed before the trial Court about P.Ws. 1 and 5 coming to his house, and P. W.1 , who was weeping, informed him about the appellant committing rape on her and thereafter his advising P. Ws. 1 and 5 to wait till the arrival of their parents. 14. P.W.7 is said to be an elder in the village who initially approached P .W.4 and his evidence indicates that he and other elders stated to P.W.4 that the appellant did not listen to the words of his parents and the elders and, therefore, it is better to do whatever he likes. 15. However, what all stated by P .Ws. 2 to 7 is only based on the information conveyed by P.W.1, they being not the witnesses to any part of the incident in question, their evidence in the strict sense is not helpful to the prosecution to prove the incident in question. However, their evidence if taken as a whole reveals the circumstances leading to lodging of report by P. W.1 against the appellant in the Police Station, Bheemili. 16. PW.8 the doctor, who examined the appellant, stated in his deposition that after examining the appellant, he was of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that the individual is not capable of performing sexual intercourse and the individual is habituated for sexual intercourse and to that effect he issued EX.P.2 certificate. 17. One of the important witnesses is P.W.12 Dr.M.Kiranmayi, who examined P .W.1, the victim girl, on the requisition issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bheemili Police Station. She stated in her deposition before the trial Court that she examined P.W.1 with the consent of parents and her findings are: 1. No external injury and perineuim healthy 2. Public hair not present 3. Vagina admitting one finger and there is mild congesion 4. Perspeculem examination pervix healthy, vaginal smear obtained and preserved and sent for RFSL. 5. Examination of breast - there is no external injury 6. Nails took for specimen and sent for RFSL. She issued EX.P.9 preliminary report basing on the physical examination of P.W.1. Public hair not present 3. Vagina admitting one finger and there is mild congesion 4. Perspeculem examination pervix healthy, vaginal smear obtained and preserved and sent for RFSL. 5. Examination of breast - there is no external injury 6. Nails took for specimen and sent for RFSL. She issued EX.P.9 preliminary report basing on the physical examination of P.W.1. Subsequently, after receiving report from RFSL, Visakhapatnam, basing on the samples forwarded by her, she gave her final report stating that there is evidence of sexual intercourse with P.W.1. She also stated in her evidence that P.W.1 is aged 12 years. 18.lt is basing on the above stated evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding of conviction under Section 376 IPC, which is assailed in this appeal. 19. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the victim girl was only aged about 12 years, according to the prosecution, on the date of offence, she had not attained puberty, the evidence of P.W.12, the doctor who examined P .W.1, clearly indicates that there were no external injuries on the bodyofP.W.1 as well as on her private parts, the final opinion of P.W.12, which was given after receiving RFSL report, to the effect that there was sexual intercourse with P.W.1 cannot be accepted in the absence of noticing any injuries on the body and private parts of P.W.1. Contending as such, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant. 20. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P. W.1, who was aged only 12 years on the date of incident, is trustworthy and is reliable, the same is corroborated by medical evidence, the RFSL report indicates that semen and spermatozoa were detected on items forwarded to the RFSL, Visakhapatnam, mere absence of injuries on the body of P.W.1 including on her private parts can not be the basis for coming to a conclusion that there was no sexual intercourse with P.W.1 and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court have to be confirmed in this appeal. 21. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsel. Perused the judgment of the trial Court, depositions of witnesses and other material papers. 22. 21. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the counsel. Perused the judgment of the trial Court, depositions of witnesses and other material papers. 22. The prosecution in this case by examining P.W.13, the Head Master of Z.P.High School, Tallavalasa, where P.W.1 studied, proved that P. W.1 was aged 12 years as on the date of incident. P.W.13 stated that P. W.1 studied in Z. P. High School, Tallavalasa. He issued Ex. P .12 transfer certificate of P. W.1 showing her date of birth as 10.6.1991. The evidence of P. W .13 is not at all disputed by the appellant. More over, he admitted in his 313 Cr.P.C. examination that P.W.1 was aged 12 years on the date of incident. The important question requires consideration is whether there is any bitter enmity involving serious motive justifying false implication of the appellant. 23. The testimony of P. W.1 , who was aged 12 years and not even attained majority, and also the evidence of P.W.5 her brother and P.Ws. 2 and 4 her parents cannot be doubted. P.W.1 had categorically spoken to the fact of commission of rape on her by the appellant. Absolutely there is no material to show that there was enough motive for the parents of P.W.1 to falsely implicate the appellant in a grave charge of rape involving their own daughter. Therefore, a close scrutiny of material facts spoken by the witnesses as well as the circumstances of the case do not suggest that P.Ws. 2 and 4 the parents of the victim girl might have resorted to falsely implicate the appellant even at the cost of the future of P .W.1 as well as the reputation of their family. 24. There is no dispute about the proposition that the conviction can be solely based on the testimony of the prosecutrix if no taint is attached to such testimony and it inspires the confidence of the court. Similarly to constitute the offence of rape even slightest penetration 'is sufficient. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that the appellant I inserted his male organ into the vagina of P.W.1 and emited semen. P.W.1 was only a girl, aged 12 years and it was not possible to offer much resistance and therefore it is quite unlikely that she would sustain any external injuries. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that the appellant I inserted his male organ into the vagina of P.W.1 and emited semen. P.W.1 was only a girl, aged 12 years and it was not possible to offer much resistance and therefore it is quite unlikely that she would sustain any external injuries. Similarly, the absence of injuries on the private parts and no evidence indicating rupture of hymen do not rule out the possibility of commission of sexual intercourse. The injury on the private parts of the victim girl I depends upon the extent of penetration while I committing rape. However, if after slight penetration, the appellant emited semen on the vagina of P.W.1, there is no possibility of P.W.1 sustaining any visible injury on her private part or rupture of hymen. 25. It was also contended that the incident said to have committed at 1 p.m. whereas the report was lodged at 10 p.m. and there was delay in lodging the FIR on account of which the material evidence of the prosecution has to be doubted. There is absolutely no force in the contention, in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, which indicates the events which happened from the occurrence of the incident till lodging of the report which is referred in the foregoing paragraphs, the delay is properly explained by the prosecution. Further the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2,4 and 5 being free from infirmities and inspires confidence the delay of few hours is inconsequential. 26. For the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that the finding arrived at by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicting the appellant is based on evidence and reasoning and if does not call for any interference in this appeal. The sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant is also commensurate with the gravity of offence committed by the appellant and the sentence also does not require to be reduced in this appeal. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in S.C.No.111 of 2002, on 20.2.2004 by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Anakapalle.