JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.- Statement/fardbeyan of Chandra Shekhar Rai has been made basis for the F.I.R. which, in brief, is that on the date of occurrence, he had gone to village Banua to work as labourer, his wife had gone to her maternal house at Katihar, and his elder son had gone to learn driving of Tractor. His youngest daughter Tetari Kumari aged about 8 years, victim of the case and youngest son Mantoo aged about 10 years were present in his house. At about 2.30 pm. his son went to graze cattle. In the meantime, accused-appellant Amit Kumar Lal came to informant’s house, finding his daughter alone he allured her by providing Sev, Dalmot and guava to eat and on a gunny bag on the ground committed rape upon her (his daughter). When some hue and cry was there on her daughter’s behalf, her mouth was closed by means of a Gamcha. Consequence of rape was serious injuries on victim’s private part and blood also oozed. 2. Informant returned his home at about 7.30 pm., found his daughter dull and when its reason was sought, she kept mum. Blood stained shirt was shown by informant’s son which was put off by him. Query about injury on victim was also not replied. On the next date in the morning at about 8.00 am. informant took his daughter at Neora Hospital but there was none then he took his daughter to a village Doctor who cleaned her wounds and asked him to go to Government Hospital, again he took his daughter at Neora Hospital and disclosed about the occurrence. He was advised by the Doctor to go to Danapur, Patna. He came back his village made some arrangement of money from villagers and then reached Danapur Hospital and obtained Medical prescription there. There was advice to go to his concerned Police Station, Bihta, he again returned his village and on 15.08.2006, he went to Bihta Police Station and gave his fardbeyan before Sub-Inspector of Police. There is mention in the F.I.R. about the occurrence as stated by residents of vicinity about commitment of rape. 3. Trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 376 and 450 of the I.P.C. 4. In all, 12 witnesses are examined in the case. There is mention in the F.I.R. about the occurrence as stated by residents of vicinity about commitment of rape. 3. Trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 376 and 450 of the I.P.C. 4. In all, 12 witnesses are examined in the case. They are P.W.1 Kameshwar Prasad, P.W.2 Tetari Devi, P.W.3 Chandra Shekhar Rai, father of the victim, P.W.4 Nand Lal Ram, I.O. of the case, P.W.5 Chandra Mohan Jha, Judicial Magistrate, who has examined the victim under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., P.W.6 Babita Devi, P.W.7 Birendra Nonia, P.W.8 Jeetesh Kumar, P.W.9 Ravi Shankar Kumar, P.W.10 Rajesh Kumar Yadav, P.W.11 Dr. Neelam Kumari and P.W.12 Dr. Nishita Sinha. 5. Of witnesses, P.Ws. 6, 7, 8 and 10 are hostile witnesses. On the point of incident, they state nothing either in favour of prosecution or defence. Of them, P.W.8 and P.W.10 are seizure list witnesses also. They are admitting their signature over the seizure list but denying their presence that also is of no relevance as the seized Gamcha said to be stained with blood and semen is not produced in course of trial after its examination from any agency. 6. P.W.4 is I.O. of the case. No relevant part of his evidence is pointed out to doubt the prosecution case otherwise he is stating about conducting his investigation fairly. P.Ws. 11 and 12 are Doctors. Of them, P.W.11 is stating about his non-presence while the victim was examined by P.W.12. Statement of P.W.12 only needs securitization if favours the prosecution case disclosed by P.W.2, victim girl, in Court about commitment of rape upon her but at a later stage. 7. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 9 are the witnesses to state the incident to corroborate the statement of P.W.2 if rape was committed upon her but none of them is stating to watch the incident. So, they are hearsay witnesses only. They are stating that at different occasions, they came to know or hear the incident. P.Ws.1 and 9 state to come to the house of the informant at about 2.30 pm., at that time, P.W.9 is stating about going to market and P.W.1 is stating about his coming after plying his Thella for the purpose of lunch. P.W.3 is stating about coming across taking place of the incident at about 7.30 pm. P.Ws.1 and 9 state to come to the house of the informant at about 2.30 pm., at that time, P.W.9 is stating about going to market and P.W.1 is stating about his coming after plying his Thella for the purpose of lunch. P.W.3 is stating about coming across taking place of the incident at about 7.30 pm. only when he came back his home after working as labourer. So, no reliance can be placed on their statement as eye witness about real commitment of rape upon the victim by the accused-appellant. 8. Statement of P.W.3 is relevant on the point that he took the victim girl to different Hospitals followed by his making statement/fardbeyan in Bihta Police Station. In that continuation, if it appears, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that incident was first informed to him by the victim lady only on 15.08.2006 in evening, victim remains there only to state the whole story about commitment of rape upon her and if she is trustworthy, she can be relied (believed) for conviction and sentence. Before discussing her evidence, it is pertinent to mention here that her age has been stated 8 years and in statement of P.W.3, it has come 7 years. Such discrepancy is natural and age of a minor is relevant only for the purpose that no sentence can be awarded less than 10 years if she is below 12 years. In that context, her age is to be looked into as told by her also in the statement made before Court. She is examined in the case as P.W.2. She is stating her age 11 years in the year 2009 and the same is assessed by the Court also after 3 years of the incident that comes to 8 years in the year of incident. 9. Age of the victim was 8 years is not challenged anywhere. No doubt, she was a child witness, at the time of examination, her age was 11 years. A care ought to be taken on behalf of presiding officer examining her and that has been taken in this case as some questions were put to test her understanding. 10. A single sentence is stressed submitting that statement of the victim girl is not admissible, which is at page-2 of her examination-in-chief that nothing happened with her. That cannot be read isolated. 10. A single sentence is stressed submitting that statement of the victim girl is not admissible, which is at page-2 of her examination-in-chief that nothing happened with her. That cannot be read isolated. She gives detail of the incident as how the accused-appellant came, threatened, put cloth on her mouth and committed rape upon her, though the real word ‘rape’ has not been disclosed on her behalf rather she is stating that some wrong act (Badmasi) was done may never be understood for any other act than rape. Lawyer in Court hesitated to disclose all the real word used for rape how that is expected from a child, victim of rape to specify the same. Thereafter, she is stating that she was provided Dal, Biscuit naming Parle-G with threatening not to disclose the incident to anyone and in that continuation, it has come that nothing was done with her may never be taken to doubt or disbelieved this witness. 11. No corroboration on medical side is submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Really, in the statement of P.W.12 Doctor, who examined the victim the word ‘rape’ is not used by her. She is making this statement in Court also but that is not necessary at all. Penetration only is necessary to constitute rape. There is detail on the point in statement and report of P.W.12 that swelling on private part of the patient and second degree perennial tear extending up to anal margin further explaining that margin of the wound covered with slough and push. Though no fresh bleeding was found but not possible as she, victim was taken to this witness on 15.08.2006, while the incident took place on 13.08.2006. In case of no sign at all, it is made clear that penetration extending to commitment of rape is possible. In this case, injury even is found on private part of the victim lady. Moreover, medical jurisprudence prohibits doctors to give exact opinion about commitment of rape or not. Only they are expected to give detail of signs found on person of the victim as is given in the instant case leaving no doubt that rape was not committed upon the victim lady. 12. Moreover, medical jurisprudence prohibits doctors to give exact opinion about commitment of rape or not. Only they are expected to give detail of signs found on person of the victim as is given in the instant case leaving no doubt that rape was not committed upon the victim lady. 12. Another point raised is delay in lodging the F.I.R., that is well explained by the Trial Court as was raised there also that on the date of incident only girl was taken to local hospital on the next day again she was taken to Hospital, she was advised to come to Danapur then only the matter was informed to the Police. Otherwise also Indian society always remains reluctant to make the incident public due to prestige of the family. 13. Age of the accused-appellant is said and submitted below 18 years for giving benefit on the point of sentence but that battle is lost by the accused-appellant much earlier when the matter was raised in course of trial and he was assessed major. 14. Minimum sentence, which could be awarded, is awarded in the case. Matters/points have been taken wisely and discussed elaborately by the Trial Court suffers with no infirmity needs no interference. 15. On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, this appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Danapur are hereby affirmed. Accused-appellant is already in jail custody. He is directed to serve the punishment (sentence). 16. Office is directed to send the lower Court records to the Trial Court along with a copy of this Judgment.