A.K. Goswami, J;- This appeal from jail is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No. 223/2009 con­victing the accused appellant under Section 376IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigor­ous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default further imprison­ment of 20 days. 2. The accused appellant is aged about 80 years while the victim, at the relevant point of time, was about 5 years old. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 24.9.2009, Smt. C.Lalnghingi, who is grand-mother of the victim girl, namely, Thasangpuii, filed an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Lunglei Police Station on that day at about 2:00 p.m., stating that her next door neighbour Tialkhama called her grand-daugh­ter to his house and they believed that Tialkhama had sexual intercourse with Thasangpuii. It is also stated in the FIR that Thasangpuii had pain in her private parts. Based on the FIR, Lunglei Police Station case No. 134 of 2009 under section 376)2)(f) IPC was registered. The police started investiga­tion and finding enough evidence against the accused, charge sheet was laid by the Inves­tigating Officer against accused appellant u/s 376(2)(f) IPC. On 25.11.2009, the learned Judge, on consideration of the materials on record, framed charge under Section 376 (2)(f) IPC against him. Charge being explained to him, according to the order sheet, the ac­cused pleaded guilty by saying "She saw me while I was urinating and she came towards me and touched my organ. Being a man, I was aroused and could not control myself. I had a slight erection and I did the intercourse against her underwear. She kept on moving and in that process, I somehow got over it. I do not think I have fully inserted my organ."(This is the agreed translated version of the learned counsel of both the parties). However, despite the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty and did not claim trial, of­fence being serious and being exclusively tri­able by Sessions Court, considering that it is not safe to convict the appellant at once, the learned court decided to go for trial. 4. However, despite the fact that the accused had pleaded guilty and did not claim trial, of­fence being serious and being exclusively tri­able by Sessions Court, considering that it is not safe to convict the appellant at once, the learned court decided to go for trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecu­tion examined 5 witnesses including the com­plainant as PW 1, the victim girl as PW 2, a seizure witness as PW 3, the Doctor who examined the victim on 24.9.2009 as PW 4 and the investigating officer as PW 5. The evidence of the prosecution was closed on 9.3.2010. The order dated 24.5.2010 of the court below indicates that on being asked as to whether he would take defence, he replied in the negative. This order was passed in pres­ence of the counsel for the defence as well as the public prosecutor. 5. In her evidence, PW 1 stated that she had suspicions that the accused had commit­ted sexual offence against her grand-daugh­ter and therefore, when her grand-daughter had requested her to let her play in front of his residence, reluctantly, she allowed her grand-daughter to play as the house of the accused, her neighbour, was locked. At that particular point, her grand-daughter was in the company of her cousin who was about 2 years old. While making tea, not seeing the grand-daughter in the field, she enquired about the whereabouts from her cousin and hearing her shouts, her grand-daughter came out weeping. She found that her pant cover­ing her pubic region was wet and she sus­pected that the accused had committed rape on her. Her attempt to undress the child proved futile and therefore, she called her sis­ter and together they undressed the girl and found that there were bruises in her vulva and it was reddened. It is also in her evidence that before going to the hospital for medical check up of her grand-daughter, she had gone to the residence of the accused and had warned him that she would be approaching the au­thorities. The doctor, however, asked her to report the matter to the police and submit an FIR and therefore, she had gone to the po­lice station and, on her dictation, FIR was recorded. In the FIR she had put her signa­ture. The doctor, however, asked her to report the matter to the police and submit an FIR and therefore, she had gone to the po­lice station and, on her dictation, FIR was recorded. In the FIR she had put her signa­ture. It also came out in her evidence that though in the year 2008 also she had sus­pected the accused of committing sexual in­tercourse with her grand-daughter, yet as the accused was too old besides being a neighbour, she was hesitant to take action against him in absence of conclusive proof against him. However, it is also in her evi­dence that she had warned him not to engage in any sexual intercourse against her grand­daughter. She had introduced in her evidence, the FIR as E- P-1 and the birth certificate as M.E.P-1. She was also a signatory in the sei­zure memo exhibited as Ex- P-II. In her cross-examination she had indicated the date of birth of her grand-daughter as 12.1.2004 and had reiterated her strong suspicion against the accused of committing sexual intercourse with her grand-daughter. Her cross-exami­nation reveals that behaviour of her grand daughter is normal. She also denied the sug­gestion that she had deposed falsely in court. 6. PW-2, on the date of recording the evi­dence, was about 5 years old. She deposed that she has a younger brother. She very of­ten visited their neighbour, the accused per­son, and used to eat papaya and other fruits given by him. She stated that while playing with her younger brother in front of her resi­dence, the accused called her to go into his residence and accordingly when she had gone there, he had given her papaya and then he touched her vulva with his finger and also thrusted his penis into her vulva which caused her immense pain. She also indicated that the accused gave a blow on her left face and a blow on her leg. He also threatened to kill her and she had also indicated that he did the same sexual act to her thrice before. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the fact of committing sexual intercourse by the ac­cused was not informed to her mother or her grand-mother. She also affirmed that despite committing of sexual intercourse, she had played again as usual. 7. PW-3 is a lady police constable who had taken P W-2 to the Civil Hospital, Lunglei. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the fact of committing sexual intercourse by the ac­cused was not informed to her mother or her grand-mother. She also affirmed that despite committing of sexual intercourse, she had played again as usual. 7. PW-3 is a lady police constable who had taken P W-2 to the Civil Hospital, Lunglei. She is also a witness to Ex-P-II, Seizure Memo. 8. PW-4 is the Medical Officer of the Civil Hospital, Lunglei who had conducted exami­nation on PW-2 on 24.9.2009. He had de­posed that she was examined at about 5:30 p.m. According to his evidence, on examina­tion of her genital parts, he did not find any pubic hair. He found old tear on her hymen as well as recent laceration on her hymen. He proved the medical examination report as Ex-P-II. (There was already an Ex-P-II, Seizure Memo). In his cross-examination, he had deposed that he did not notice any unusual manner in the appearance of prosecutrix. He denied the suggestion that there was no pen­etration in the vagina of prosecutrix(sic). He, however, conceded that he had not received the report of the vaginal swab alongwith clothes which were sent for laboratory ex­amination. 9. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer who investigated into the offence. According to him, the family of the victim and the accused, who lived alone, were next door neighbours. He also deposed that the accused admitted his guilt and that he had recorded such state­ment. He had also deposed regarding the steps taken by him during the investigation and finally submitting charge sheet which was ex­hibited as Ex-P-IV. Ex.P-III, Arrest Memo, was also proved by him. In cross-examina­tion, he stated that he had not sent the ac­cused for medical examination to testify his potentialities. 10. The accused was examined under sec­tion 313 Cr.P.C. In his. such statement, he denied having sexual intercourse with the vic­tim. He also stated that the victim girl was aged about 6 years of age. She had come to her house but he had not touched her. With reference to the incident of the previous oc­currence, he had said that the girl had come with her two siblings. It is his version that the child was motivated by her grand-mother to depose in the manner as she did. 11. I have heard Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. With reference to the incident of the previous oc­currence, he had said that the girl had come with her two siblings. It is his version that the child was motivated by her grand-mother to depose in the manner as she did. 11. I have heard Mr. S.N. Meitei, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. N. Sailo, learned counsel for Public Prosecu­tor, Mizoram. 12. Mr. S.N. Meitei, the learned Amicus Curiae has taken me through the evidence on record and he submits that the materials on record would indicate that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. He has submitted that accused being a person aged about 80 years, it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to have examined him in order to establish the offence against him with some degree of certainty. It is also his sub­mission that the evidence bf PW-2 should not be taken note of by this court, she being a child witness and being prompted by her grand-mother. Pointing to the laboratory report he submits that the same would demon­strate that the case against the accused ap­pellant is not at all proved. It is also his con­tention that there is no materials on record suggesting penetration to prove the charge of 376IPC as against the accused appellant. In view of such infirmities in the prosecution case, it is the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 13. Countering the submission of Mr. S.N. Meitei, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. N. Sailo, argues that there is no reason as to why the evidence of PW-2, though minor, should be discarded. Evidence of PW-1 as well as evidence of PW-4 further proves the version of PW-2, if at all any such further proof was required. The medical report clearly depicts abrasion at vaginal outlet as well as old tear of the hymen and recent laceration. The learned counsel submits that in absence of any penetration, there could have been no evidence of recent laceration of the hymen. He also submits that evidence on record would indicate that the guilt of the accused has been proved to the hilt. According to him, there is no merit in this appeal and accord­ingly, the same ought to be dismissed. He also submits that evidence on record would indicate that the guilt of the accused has been proved to the hilt. According to him, there is no merit in this appeal and accord­ingly, the same ought to be dismissed. In or­der to fortify his argument that on the basis of evidence of the victim without any further corroboration, conviction can be sustained, he has relied on the decision rendered in the case of Aman Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2004 4 SCC 3 79. The rape being committed against the victim who is under 12 years of age, the learned Trial Court was wrong in awarding a punishment of conviction for only a period of 5 years, he submits. 14. It is well-settled that testimony of the victim can be acted upon without any corroboration in material particulars. However, if a court finds it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for evidence, direct or circumstantial. Such corroborative evidence should be only for lending assurance to her testimony. Ex­planation to section 375 IPC provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary for the offence of rape, hi Aman Kumar (Supra), the Supreme Court stated thus, "7. Penetration is the sine qua non for an offence of rape. In order to constitute penetra­tion, there must be evidence clear and cogent to prove that some part of the virile member of the accused was within the labia of the puden­dum of the woman, no matter how little (see Joseph Lines, IC & K 893).............. On the other hand, sometimes the hymen may be more firm, less elastic and gets stretched and lacerated earlier. Thus a relatively less force­ful penetration may not give rise to injuries or­dinarily possible with a forceful attempt. The anatomical feature with regard to hymen which merits consideration is its anatomical situation. Next to hymen in positive importance, but more than that in frequency, are the injuries on labia major a...................... Partial penetration within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum with or without emis­sion of semen is sufficient to constitute the of­fence of rape as defined in the law. The depth of penetration is immaterial in an offence punish­able under Section 376 IPC." 15. Partial penetration within the labia majora of the vulva or pudendum with or without emis­sion of semen is sufficient to constitute the of­fence of rape as defined in the law. The depth of penetration is immaterial in an offence punish­able under Section 376 IPC." 15. PW-1 in her evidence had stated she had suspicions about the conduct of the ac­cused vis-a-vis the child for quite sometime. After realizing that something was really amiss on 24.9.09, PW-2 was undressed with the assistance of her sister and she noticed red­dening of the vulva with bruises. PW-2 may not have been aware of the enormity of the situation because of her tender age. However, she is clear in stating what the appellant did with her private parts and in categorical terms stated penetration by the accused appellant as a result of which she experienced great pain. The learned Amicus Curiae had argued that in the face of alleged earlier episodes, the fact that PW-2 had continued to go to the house of the accused and that she had not informed her mother and her grand-mother about such incidents, renders her evidence untrustworthy. Whether in earlier occasions, the incidents were reported or not is not very material, given the categorical version with regard to the occurrence in respect of which the present case has been launched. I see no reason and good ground to disbelieve the statement of the PW-2. Moreover, the medi­cal report as well as the evidence of P W-4 lends total corroboration to the evidence of PW-2. With the evidence of recent lacera­tion in the hymen as deposed by the PW-4, the ingredients of penetration that is required to bring home the charge of Section 3 76IPC is also proved beyond unreasonable doubt. Therefore, the result of laboratory examina­tion indicating, amongst others, "Vaginal Swab -Not seen" pales into insignificance. On the basis of the evidence on record and on an analysis of the same, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused, therefore, is not entitled to benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25.11.2010 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No.223 of 2009 is upheld. 17. Before parting with the records, I record my appreciation for Mr. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 25.11.2010 of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei in Crl. Tr. No.223 of 2009 is upheld. 17. Before parting with the records, I record my appreciation for Mr. S.N. Meitei for admirably assisting the court in the role of Amicus Curiae. The learned Amicus Curiae has politely declined to receive any remunera­tion for the assistance rendered. 18. Send down the LCRs.