Judgment The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 18.1.2005, passed by Sri N.K. Srivastava learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 19/2004, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Prevention of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Atrocities Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also imposed fine of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and failing which he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. And the appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs 5,000/- and if he fails for the same he will have to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months more and sentences will run concurrently except the sentences of fine amount in both counts, will run consecutively. The fine amount on way of compensation if recovered will be paid to the prosecutrix Samita Bara P.W. 1 which will be used in the welfare of the minor prosecutrix Samita Bara P.W. 1 specially in her study. 2. Counsel of the appellant submits that he has filed an I.A. application i.e. I.A. No. 262 of 2009 for considering the appellant as Juvenile. It is further submitted that in another case I.e. G.A. No. 656 of 2002 arising from Gumla P.S. Case No. 211 of 2002 under Section 25(1-b)a/26 Arms Act the appellant has been declared Juvenile accepting his date of birth as 18.12.1985 by the order dated 1.4.2003 passed by A.C.J.M., Gumla, the said order has been annexed as Annexure-1 in the aforesaid I.A. application. 3. Perused the aforesaid order dated 1.4.2003 (contained in Annexure-1). In my opinion when the appellant has been declared juvenile accepting his date of birth 18.12.85 by the Court of A.C.J.M. in another case and neither the informant nor the State of Jharkhand has challenged the said order before any higher court, the said order has become final in respect of the date of birth of the appellant. Counsel of the State has not disputed this fact. Therefore accepting the date of birth of the appellant as 18.12.85 and the date of occurrence of the present case being 29.10.2003, it can be said that the appellant was Juvenile on the alleged date of occurrence. Counsel of the State has not disputed this fact. Therefore accepting the date of birth of the appellant as 18.12.85 and the date of occurrence of the present case being 29.10.2003, it can be said that the appellant was Juvenile on the alleged date of occurrence. Accordingly the I.A. No. 262 of 2009 is allowed. 4. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant Sam ita Bara P.W. 1 aged about 14 years daughter of Bijay Bara of village Chaha P.S. and District-Gumla stated before the Gumla police on 30.10.03 at about 11.30 P.M. that when she was washing utensil in her house and she was alone in the house as her mother and father had gone for cutting of the grass in the meantime her village neighbour Birendra Singh alias Bilu Singh came there and demanded water for drinking. The prosecutrix went inside the house to bring the water. The appellant also followed her and caught her inside the house and forcibly got down on the Chauki and thereafter forcibly committed rape on her. After commission of the rape, the appellant threatened her that if she tells anybody this fact, she will be killed by him. Her mother and father returned back in the evening but the prosecutrix did not tell them due to fear in the said evening but on the next morning she disclosed the said matter to them. Thereafter, on the same day at about 11.30 A.M. this case was lodged and after investigation, I.O. submitted the charge-sheet against the sole appellant. 5. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he pleads his innocence and further states that he by religion is Hindu and the informant is Christian. He has further stated that 5-6 months earlier a Kali Idol was stolen from a temple and later on the same was recovered from the well of Somra Oraon who was punished in a Panchayati and he has implicated the appellant in this false case of rape with the help of the informant. 6. The prosecution has been examined 11 witnesses to prove this case. P.W. 1 is Samita Bara the victim girl. 6. The prosecution has been examined 11 witnesses to prove this case. P.W. 1 is Samita Bara the victim girl. She has stated the prosecution case and there is nothing to disbelieve her evidence except some minor contradictions which are bound to occur when a minor girl faces a trained cross-examiner who is well versed of the law. In my opinion the prosecutrix will not falsely implicate the appellant for rape with her, as a girl of tender age will never expose herself to such type of scandal which are going to affect her whole future. 7. From the records I find the Doctor Sakuntala Pandey P.W. 10 had examined Samita Bara the victim girl on 30.10.2003 as the occurrence was of afternoon of 29.10.2003. According to her opinion:- "Age of the girl is about 14-16 years X-ray done for confirmation of age, signs and symptom of sexual intercourse present." 8. The counsel of the appellant submits that as per prosecution case if the occurrence is true then the Doctor should have found injuries on the body of the victim girl and also on her private part but in cross-examination the Doctor has stated that the sign of tear and redness of virgin remains 6-10 days if the victim is virgin but she did not found recent tear neither any trace of spermatozoa inside the vaginal swab. There is no sign of injury of external body. As per prosecution case if the occurrence is true then the doctor P.W. 10 should have found injuries on the other part of the body also. 9. I find from the evidence of Doctor P.W. 10 that she has stated before the court that she has found the hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured, laceration of vagina present, vagina was painful on touch, on vaginal swab examination, spermatozoa not found. There was sign and symptom of sexual intercourse. In my opinion as per definition of rape only penetration of male organ into the female organ is sufficient to constitute the offence and it is not required that spermatozoa should be found. So even if a spermatozoa dead or live was not found by the Doctor during the examination of the victim girl, it makes no difference. 10. In my opinion as per definition of rape only penetration of male organ into the female organ is sufficient to constitute the offence and it is not required that spermatozoa should be found. So even if a spermatozoa dead or live was not found by the Doctor during the examination of the victim girl, it makes no difference. 10. Accordingly on the basis of the aforesaid discussion I find this is a case in which prosecutrix have clearly stated about the commission of rape by the accused and stood the testimony very well which is done at length. I further found that her evidence is corroborated by Medical evidence as stated by the Doctor (P.W.10). 11. After considering the evidence of P.W. 1 the victim girl (minor) and the evidence of the Doctor (P.W. 10) I am absolutely convinced that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, I do not feel necessary to discuss the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. Thus I find the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused appellant. 12. The accused belongs to forward class and the prosecutrix is member of Scheduled tribe and belongs to weaker section of the society so I find the appellant Birendra Singh @ Bilu Singh is guilty of committing offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly the conviction passed by the trial court is hereby affirmed. So far the sentences are concerned, as the appellant has been found to be Juvenile on the date of the Occurrence and as such giving him the benefit of the provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the sentences awarded by the trial court are hereby quashed. 13. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant namely Birendra Singh @ Bilu Singh as he is in jail custody, is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.