JUDGMENT :- Heard. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, questioning judgment and order dated 23.11.2011, passed by Assistant Sessions Judge-2. Ambejogai. district Beed, in Sessions Case No.43/2011. The appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1 000/- with default clause. For offence under Section 452 of IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default clause. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to the appellant/accused. The appeal was admitted on January 11th, 2012. Since the appellant is in custody, priority is given. 3. The prosecution case, unfolded in the form of FIR, evidence and documents can be put in condensed form as under: Informant Navnath Nivrutti Sable (PW No.2) resides at Dighol-Amba, tq. Ambejogai, dist. Beed, with his wife and children, engaged in agricultural activities. The prosecutrix (PW No.8) is one of his child, at that time 8 years old, studying in IInd Standard. The appellant accused is resident nearby the house of prosecutrix. On 31.3.2011, the informant, with his wife, had been to the field for agricultural work. The prosecutrix, after attending school, reached back home. As per usual practice, she opened the latch, carried out her normal activities and then she was playing in the courtyard. In between, the accused-appellant, allegedly, barged the house. He mounted on the prosecutrix (PW No.8) and, had sex with her. PW Nos.2 Navnath Sable and PW No.3 Suvarnamala. were in the process of entering their house. Sensing their presence, accused sneaked away. A doubt hinged in the mind of the wary parents and, consequently, they made enquiry with PW No.8 prosecutrix, as violent situation in the kitchen demonstrated knicker of the prosecutrix away from her person. The event was tell-telling hence the parents took PW No.8 in confidence and she having revealed the devastation, thought it better first to get her medically examined. The Medical Officer did not sense gravity. He insisted for a Police letter as, according to him, it was a Police case. The parents were shuttled between the hospital and Police Station. Ultimately, Police report was lodged and a letter provided for examination of the prosecutrix. The Medical Officer did not sense gravity. He insisted for a Police letter as, according to him, it was a Police case. The parents were shuttled between the hospital and Police Station. Ultimately, Police report was lodged and a letter provided for examination of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix and accused were medically examined. Blood swabs and incriminating material was taken charge. The panchnama of the spot was drawn. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the accused was filed. The matter was committed to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Charge under Exh. I 2 was explained to the accused for offence under Sections 452, 376(2)(f) of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. After trial, his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The defence of the accused is of total denial. He asserted implication due to previous quarrel between his father and PW No.2 informant over dispute of a wall. 4. In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW No. 1 Govind Lahu Mule, Panch proved spot panchnama (Exh. 17). PW No.2 Navnath and PW No.3 Suvarnmala are the parents. PW No.4 Dr. Vaishali Dattatraya Kshirsagar, Casualty Medical Officer, S.R.T.R. Medical College and Hospital, Ambajogai, has, on 1st April, 2011, examined the prosecutrix. PW No.5 Dr. Sachin s/o Rajendra Potdar had examined the accused/appellant on 2nd April, 2011. He did not notice any injury and, accordingly, recorded the same below Exh.28, however, he also did not refer whether the accused was potent to commit sexual intercourse. PW No.6 Ramesh Kailas Nishigandh and PW No.7 Pradeep s/o Madhukar Satpute, did not coordinate the prosecution, turned hostile to it. PW No.8 is the prosecutrix. PW No.9 Sadeq Rashid Tamboli, was working as Junior Clerk (Junior Assistant), in Zilla Parishad School, at Dighol Amba. He has produced birth certificate of the accused/appellant Amol, showing his date of birth as 30.6.1992. The date of birth of the 'prosecutrix in the school is dated 10.4.2001, admitted in IInd Standard. PW No.10 Fahim Hakim Hashmi is the investigator. He has collected the birth record carried spot panchnama, sent the seized articles to the office of Chemical Analyzer and had communication and received the Chemical Analyzer's report. 5. The date of birth of the 'prosecutrix in the school is dated 10.4.2001, admitted in IInd Standard. PW No.10 Fahim Hakim Hashmi is the investigator. He has collected the birth record carried spot panchnama, sent the seized articles to the office of Chemical Analyzer and had communication and received the Chemical Analyzer's report. 5. The main plank of the submission from the learned Counsel for the appellant is, it is a case foisted owing to rivalry and the witnesses are planted; they are tutored in unison to achieve goal of conviction. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge or the investigator or the Medical Officer were influenced due to so called event of sexual abuse on a girl 8 years old and, resultantly, the an unwarranted conviction is slapped. He has criticized evidence of each of the witnesses. He has even said, the victim, was meticulously rehearsed and, therefore, the cross examination illustrated curious answers. 6. With all said and done, the objection of learned Counsel about the investigator or the medical officer or the learned Judge to be influenced owing to the events, is far from record. On the contrary, it has transpired that the Medical Officer, who was initially on duty, did not discharge the obligation. PW No.4 Dr. Vaishali was expected to have examined the prosecutrix with a sensibility as it was a matter leaning to rape on a minor. When requisite forms for issuance of medical certification are provided, there was no scarcity for the user of the same. Late hours examination of victim should not obliterate the obligation upon the Medical Officer. The certificate of examination by PW No.4 are at Exh.23. PW' No.4 has stated therein that the radiological estimated age of the patient is between 8 to 10 years. The second aspect of type of injury referred is reddish discolouration of vulva. Third category is sample sent for Chemical Analysis, report awaited. There is no final analysis carried by the learned Medical Officer. The appearance and non fusion or fusion of bones was sufficient for age calculation of the prosecutrix. This aspect, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the appellant is to be booked in a heinous crime. 7. The evidence of estranged parents is in tune with their exit, entry to the house and noticing the shattered, fragile daughter in the house, yelling with pains and the appellant sneaking away. This aspect, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that the appellant is to be booked in a heinous crime. 7. The evidence of estranged parents is in tune with their exit, entry to the house and noticing the shattered, fragile daughter in the house, yelling with pains and the appellant sneaking away. It cannot be expected of the parents to chase the appellant; instead of ensuring to care and nurse well being of the daughter PW no.8 who faced barbaric act and was in trauma. It will be an act of hypocrisy if they are expected first to chase the appellant without bothering for health of the prosecutrix. The evidence of PW No.8 cannot be read in bits and pieces as the evidence of any witness is to be considered as a whole. In examination in chief, innocuously, she has referred to the event at the courtyard. It does not mean that the event has taken place in the courtyard. She was found in the kitchen and the appellant had sneaked away from the kitchen or the room. Affairs of the kitchen being visible to outsiders, if it is not latched, will not dilute the situation as the events, have taken place in a village with low populace. Secondly, even if the kitchen had a door or a latch, it will not demonstrate of the activities to be visible as particular portion or comer thereof still remained invisib1e. There is nothing to illustrate that entire room was visible. Consequently, this objection has no relevance. Non examination of neighbour or a person who carried the prosecutrix and her father in an auto rickshaw is not vital. The delay in respect of lodging FIR, though repeatedly canvassed, will not tilt the picture. Delay in all respects, in lodging the FIR, has its colours and shades, to be seen on fact situation of each case. Here, no sooner ravish-ness was noticed, the prosecutrix was rushed for the medical examination. It was in the late hours. However, since it did not yield any response from the medical officer, they were shuttled to Police Station and, in the process, Police consumed time. The parents cannot be blamed. Law on this point is well settled. Delay in lodging the FIR in matters relating to sexual offences, if properly explained, will not diminish its worth. It is not safe, when it is not explained. (Ref. The parents cannot be blamed. Law on this point is well settled. Delay in lodging the FIR in matters relating to sexual offences, if properly explained, will not diminish its worth. It is not safe, when it is not explained. (Ref. State Of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors (1996 SCC (2) 384). 8. The Chemical Analyzer's reports are placed at Exh.49 in respect of nicker/JANGIA of the victim which certifies neither blood nor semen was detected. Exh.50 is the Chemical analyzer's report concerning posterior wall, vaginal swab from fornices from anterior wall and pubic hair of the accused, no Semen was detected on these articles. Exh.5l deals with blood of the appellant, his semen and pubic hair. No semen is detected. The blood group cannot be determined as blood reports are inconclusive over the report of the Chemical Analyzer. Thus, it does not accelerate prosecution case to demonstrate that there was any trace of committing sex on the prosecutrix. 9. The theory of quarrel as a defence by the appellant is too short and dwarf in its character to appreciate. In a village, the parents will not put image, future prospects and destiny of their daughter at stake to resolve controversies, if any, as a revenge against the appellant, by roping him in such heinous crime. The record primarily demonstrate the devastation as nicker of the prosecutrix was away from her; there was swelling on her private parts and without any reason or occasion accused/appellant had barged in the house and, sneaked away. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Jagdish Balaram Narangikar v. State of Maharashtra (2012(2) Crimes 472) wherein the Division Bench, in paragraph no4 has observed as under: "4. No doubt that the conviction can be based on a sole testimony of a witness. However, the testimony of such a witness is required to be found to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. If the evidence of a witness is not corroborated by any other evidence it is not safe to rest a conviction based on such a evidence" The legal position has no contest. But the said judgment will not be applicable with the identical scale to the present case as the exorbitant delay in lodging the FIR in respect of heinous offence on a two years old daughter was not explained. But the said judgment will not be applicable with the identical scale to the present case as the exorbitant delay in lodging the FIR in respect of heinous offence on a two years old daughter was not explained. In the city like Mumbai the accused/appellant therein established past rivalry between the mother and the appellant. This lent support for acquittal. 11. In the matter of Bahan @ Yeshwant Vithal Katalkar "s. State of Maharashtra (2007 (2) Mh.L..J. (Cri.) 583). the conviction of the appellant therein under Section 376(2)(f) of Ire was set aside and instead he was convicted under Section 511 of IPC for attempt to commit rape on the prosecutrix. 12. The overall survey of evidence discussed here-in-before illustrate that the appelh:nt had barged in the house of the informant where the prosecutrix was alone in her school uniform. He had abused her sexually and he was seen decamping by the parents medical examination also establish discolouration of private part of the prosecutrix. Thus the prosecution has proved involvement of the accused in the incident. The situation demonstra1ed in the medical evidence coupled with Chemical Analyzer's report, indeed, illustrated that the act or penetration is not established by the prosecution, however, it has proved that the accused has attempted to commit rape upon the prosecution. 13. The settled legal position for every crime is: firstly, an intention to commit an offence; secondly, preparation to commit it, and thirdly attempt to commit it. If the third stage i.e. the attempt is successful then the crime is complete. If the attempt fails, crime is not completed; but, the law punishes the person attempting the act. An attempt is made punishable, because every attempt, although it falls short of success, must create alarm, which by itself is ail injury, and the moral guilt of the offender is the same as if he had succeeded. There is a dear distinction between an attempt to commit a crime and intention to commit and from preparation made for its commission. The legal position is again explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkripal s/o Shyamlal Charmakarvs. State of M.P. (2007 AIR SCW 2198) in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 concerning commission of offence of rape. 14. The analysis of the evidence shows that the appellant has attempted to commit the offence but, it did not yield results. The legal position is again explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkripal s/o Shyamlal Charmakarvs. State of M.P. (2007 AIR SCW 2198) in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 concerning commission of offence of rape. 14. The analysis of the evidence shows that the appellant has attempted to commit the offence but, it did not yield results. For the offence under Section 376(2)(1) of IPC, the conviction prescribed is rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and the accused shall also be liable for fine. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant by awarding rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Fine amount is already deposited. 15. In the premises, the appeal is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed and questioned is modified. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(1) read with Section 511 of IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence under Section 452 of IPC and is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-; in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Both the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant is entitled for set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the period of imprisonment. Order accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.