JUDGMENT 1. - Accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kishangarhbas, Alwar, whereby he has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 376 (2) (f) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo 10-years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo two years additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefs facts of the case are that on 16.02.2002 a written complaint was lodged by one Smt. Savita (PW- 2), along with her husband Dhanni Ram and father-in-law Umrao, with the averments that at about 1.00 P.M. when she was cooking food, her daughter viz. Manisha, aged about 6-7 months was on the cot. Accused-appellant came in her house and took the baby girl on the pretext of playing her. After lapsed of 15-20 minutes, he brought the baby girl, smeared with blood and robbed the girl on cot and ran away. Accused appellant has committed rape with the baby girl. Hence, this written complaint. 3. The Police after investigation submitted a challan against the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Section 376 of the I.P.C. Accused denied the charge levelled against him and claimed for trial. 4. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited Exhibits P-1 to P-17. 5. The trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence of the prosecution and the documents convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as material and evidence available on record. 7. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant pleaded that no rape can be committed on a baby girl of 6-7 months of age and when the accused was playing with the baby girl, she sustained injury on the vagina because of falling on 'jangla, therefore, the accused has falsely been implicated in the commission of offence. No case of rape has been established against him. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the judgment and pleaded that on the basis of the oral evidence it has been established very well that it was the accused, who took away the girl and subjected her to sexual intercourse and due to that she was found smeared with blood. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State supported the judgment and pleaded that on the basis of the oral evidence it has been established very well that it was the accused, who took away the girl and subjected her to sexual intercourse and due to that she was found smeared with blood. It was the accused, who himself dropped the girl on the cot in the presence of her mother. 9. The statement of PW-2 Smt. Savita (the mother of girl) clearly reveals that it was the accused, who took away the girl in her presence and after 15-20 minutes he brought the girl, smeared with blood and dropped on the cot. 10. The said statement of Smt. Savita (PW2) finds corroboration from the version given by Dhani Ram (PW- 2) and Banshi Ram (PW-4), which clearly reveals that accused appellant took away the baby girl and when he brought back her she was smeared with blood. The blood was oozing out from her private parts. 11. PW-8 Dr. Amar Singh, who examined the baby girl in his statement has specifically stated that in his opinion rape was committed on the baby girl about which he gave the report Exhibit P-12. So also the statement of Dr. Mahendra Gupta, who found injuries on the private parts of the baby girl. Along with the statements, the recovered articles i.e. blouse and payajama, Exhibit P-7 and Exhibit P-8 of the girl were found smeared with blood. The 'kachha' of the accused was recovered, vide Exhibit P-1 on the same day from the possession of the accused, which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence. On chemical analysis report, it was found that the blood stains on these recovered articles i.e. blouse, payajama and kachha were of the same blood group. 12. From the evidence produced by the prosecution and discussed here-in-above, the only conclusion is coming is for the guilt of the accused, who subjected the baby girl to sexual intercourse. Though, it is not possible to have the complete sexual intercourse with the baby girl, but the injury report, evidence and the remaining of the baby girl with the accused clearly show that the accused has committed a crime with the girl. Though, it is not possible to have the complete sexual intercourse with the baby girl, but the injury report, evidence and the remaining of the baby girl with the accused clearly show that the accused has committed a crime with the girl. The explanation given by accused-appellant is not coming forward as to how the injuries were sustained by the baby girl when the baby girl remained with her for 15-20 minutes. Accused took the girl from the possession of her mother on the pretext of making her to play and when he brought back, she was having injuries, smeared with blood, then it was for the accused to have explained about the injuries as to under what circumstances sustained injuries or who inflicted the same. Accused has not submitted any explanation in this regard. The extrajudicial confession about the commission of offence made by the accused in the presence of the Village people, when they brought him from the bus stand and tied the accused with a tree, it is alleged that he begs excuses for the wrong act done by him. All these circumstances cumulatively show that it was the accused, who committed sexual intercourse with the baby girl when she was in his possession. 13. The trial Court after going through the entire evidence and record reached to a right conclusion that the accused has committed rape with the baby girl. Though, slight suggestion on behalf of the accused appellant that the said sexual intercourse is not feasible, is true to some extent because the age of the girl is only 6-7 months. But for the offence of rape, it is not the complete sexual intercourse, but only the penetration is sufficient. Accused has tried to penetrate, which resulted into the injuries on the private parts of the baby girl. 14. No interference is called for in the judgment passed by the Court below. 15. There is no merit in this appeal and it deserves to be dismissed. 16. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. The judgment dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kishangarhbas, Alwar convicting the appellant under Section 376 (2) (f) of the I.P.C. and the sentences imposed against the appellantAppeal dismissed. *******