JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr. P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.03.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No.2 of 1998, whereby the said court has convicted accused/appellant Dhanesh under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years’ rigorous imprisonment and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. It has also been directed that out of the amount of fine, if realised, Rs. 1,000/- shall be given to the victim P.W.1 Km. Arti under Section 357 (3) Cr. P.C. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.10.1997 P.W.2 Yudhvir Singh Rawat (father of the victim) (complainant) made a written complaint to the S.D.M. Pratap Nagar, stating therein that on that day, at about 07:30 p.m., his daughter, Km. Arti aged 8 years, was kidnapped by accused Dhanesh, who took her forcibly at a distance of few furlongs away from the village and there he attempted to commit rape upon her. On her scream, the villagers rushed towards the spot. Accused was found running naked and was caught in presence of Mahavir Singh, Vijai Singh, Bhola Singh and others. In the said complaint, the complainant requested to take strict action against the accused. Thereafter, the S.D.M., Pratap Nagar directed the S.H.O., P.S. Tehri to enquire into the matter and register a case against the accused. On the basis of said report, Chik F.I.R. (Ext. A-2) was prepared and crime no.56 of 1997 was registered in respect of offences punishable under Section 363, 376 and 511 of I.P.C. against the accused Dhanesh Singh Rawat. Investigation was taken up by P.W.6 Hukum Singh Negi, who interrogated the witnesses and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the said Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the accused Dhanesh Singh Rawat, for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 354, 376 with 511 I.P.C. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 Cr. P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 Cr. P.C., committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. After hearing the parties on 31.01.1998, learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, framed charge of offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of I.P.C, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Km. Arti (the victim), P.W.2 Yudhvir Singh (father of the victim) (complainant), P.W.3 Head Constable Arjun Singh, P.W.4 Dr. Meenu Rawat (Medical Officer), P.W.5 Mahavir Singh and P.W.6 Hukum Singh Negi (Investigating Officer). Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr. P.C., in reply to which he alleged that he has been falsely implicated. After hearing the parties, the trial court found the accused guilty of charge of offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C., and convicted him accordingly. The trial Court also directed that out of the amount of fine, if realised, Rs. 1,000/- shall be given to the victim P.W.1 Km. Arti under Section 357 (3) Cr. P.C. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 07.03.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1998, this appeal is preferred by the convict. 5. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention the observations made by P.W.4 Dr. Meenu Rawat, after conducting medical examination of Km. Arti (P.W.1), on 31.10.1997 at 02:00 p.m. The observations made by the Medical Officer in the Medical Report (Ext. A-4) are being reproduced below: “External examination of body: No mark of any injuries present over whole body and private organs. Examination of clothes: No hairs, white colour stains visible, clothes are sealed. Examination of Internal organs: Labia majora. No injury seen, intact. Majora intact. No injury. Vagina: No bleeding or any other kind of discharge but foul smell is present. Hymen: Inflamed red, it may be due to infection, it admits no little finger (feels severe pain). Examination of clothes: No hairs, white colour stains visible, clothes are sealed. Examination of Internal organs: Labia majora. No injury seen, intact. Majora intact. No injury. Vagina: No bleeding or any other kind of discharge but foul smell is present. Hymen: Inflamed red, it may be due to infection, it admits no little finger (feels severe pain). Investigation: 2 vaginal smear taken and send for analysis to Pathologist old Tehri.” The Medical Officer has opined that in order to determine the age of the girl, she was advised X-Ray of elbow wrist and joints. No opinion could be given about rape. A supplementary Medical Report was also filed, in which the doctor opined that vaginal smear negative for spermatozoa. No definite opinion could be given about rape. 6. P.W.1 Km. Arti is the victim. In her testimony, she stated that she knows the accused Dhanesh, who belongs to her village. She stated that on last Diwali day, after having lunch, she had gone to bring water from Dhara (natural source of water), which is at some distance from her house. She stated that accused Dhanesh picked her up from the said Dhara and took her into the fields, closed her mouth and took off her paizama. He lowered her underwear and tried to insert his penis into her vagina, but it did not enter completely. She screamed. She stated that on the arrival of her tau (elder uncle) and other villagers, the accused picked up his pant and ran away. Her tau was carrying a torch. Thereafter, she was taken to home and the accused was caught while running away. After reaching home, she narrated the whole incident to her father and tau. She also stated that she had suffered pain at the time when the accused was lying upon her. 7. P.W.2 Yudhvir Singh (father of the victim) has stated that on 29.10.97 at 07:00-07:30 p.m., his daughter, who is 8 years old, accompanied by her mother went to bring water. His wife came back but his daughter did not return. He searched his daughter in each and every house of the village and thereafter, he with villagers searched her in the fields. In the flashlight, he saw the accused and his daughter in naked condition. As soon as he reached there, the accused ran away with his pant. His wife came back but his daughter did not return. He searched his daughter in each and every house of the village and thereafter, he with villagers searched her in the fields. In the flashlight, he saw the accused and his daughter in naked condition. As soon as he reached there, the accused ran away with his pant. Mahavir Singh Bhandari took care of his daughter and then he, Vijay Singh, Purshotam and Rijpal chased the accused and caught him, and thereafter his daughter and the accused were taken to home. He stated that his daughter informed him that when she went for bringing water, the accused after closing her mouth, took her in his lap, undressed her and then started sexual intercourse with her. She also informed him that at the place of incident, the accused had closed her mouth. When they reached there, then his daughter wept and cried. He stated that thereafter, he and some other persons went to lodge the report with Patwari, but he was not available at chauki. In the morning of 30th, he went to the Court of Tehri S.D.M., Pratapnagar, where he submitted the report on which an order was made for the Thana. He proved the report Ext. A-1. 8. P.W.3 is Head Constable Arjun Singh, who prepared the chik report at Ext. A-2 on the basis of report Ext. A-1 and filed a copy of G.D. (Ext. A-3). 9. P.W.4 Dr. Meenu Rawat is the Medical Officer, who conducted the medical examination of the victim. 10. P.W.5 Mahavir Singh supported the prosecution case. In his testimony, he stated that on the day of Diwali i.e. on 29.10.97 at 07:30 p.m., Yudhvir Singh, father of Km. Arti, approached him and informed him that his daughter left to bring water, but she has not come till that time. He stated that first of all, they searched her in each and every house of the village, but when she was not traced, they went towards the way from where they bring water. He had torch with him. After enough search, they heard some noise coming from the bush, which was at a distance of around 18-20 yards from the road. Thereafter, they went towards that bush. In the torchlight, they saw the accused Dhanesh and Km. Arti. Dhanesh was lying with her. His pant was unwrapped. He had torch with him. After enough search, they heard some noise coming from the bush, which was at a distance of around 18-20 yards from the road. Thereafter, they went towards that bush. In the torchlight, they saw the accused Dhanesh and Km. Arti. Dhanesh was lying with her. His pant was unwrapped. The paizama of the girl was also found unwrapped. He stated that he accompanied by few other boys caught hold of accused Dhanesh. Thereafter, they enquired from Km. Arti and then she informed them that the accused picked her up and when they were calling her, her mouth was closed by Dhanesh. He also stated that he and the father of the girl (Yudhvir) brought her to New Tehri for medical examination. 11. P.W.6 Hukum Singh Negi is the Investigating Officer, who during investigation recorded statements of witnesses and submitted charge sheet. 12. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is against the evidence on record and provisions of law. He submitted that the appellant has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He submitted that the complainant P.W.2 has lodged false report due to enmity. He submitted that the appellant was beaten up and was kept in confinement whole night and as such; the report was lodged only to save them from the offence. He argued that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is only based on conjecture and surmises. He argued that the statements of prosecution’s witnesses are contradictory with each other and on this ground alone, appeal deserves to be allowed. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge committed illegality in not relying upon the witnesses, produced on behalf of appellant. He submitted that no mark of injury was found on the body of Km. Arti and the medical report, pathological report and supplementary report of Km. Arti do not support the prosecution’s story. He argued that the statement of P.W.1 does not support the prosecution case and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 13. On the other hand, Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that at the time of giving evidence, the prosecutrix was small child of 7 years of age and there is nothing on which basis her testimony should be disbelieved. 13. On the other hand, Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned Brief Holder for the State submitted that at the time of giving evidence, the prosecutrix was small child of 7 years of age and there is nothing on which basis her testimony should be disbelieved. She submitted that the appellant failed to prove that he was falsely implicated due to enmity. She submitted that considering the fact that a minor girl of 8 years has been sexually harassed by her villager, the sentence passed by the Court below is just. 14. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. At the time of incident, the age of the prosecutrix P.W.1 was 7 years and at the time of giving statement before the Court she was 8 years old and was studying in Class 3. Her age is not disputed. In her statement, she has categorically stated that accused took her from Dhara (natural source of water) into a field (farm). He closed her mouth and took off her paizama. He also took off his pant and underwear. He also lowered her penty and tried to insert his penis into her vagina, but same was not fully entered into her vagina. She cried and wept. Her Tau (father’s elder brother) and village people came at the spot and accused ran away. Her Tau was carrying torch. She also told that she felt pain when accused was lying over her. Though, there is some contradiction in her statement, which may create doubt in prosecution story, but if we read her statement in totality, then we find that case of prosecution is true. The contradiction, which has been pointed out by Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, is that in her statement she has stated that it was morning time, but as per statement of her father P.W.2 and another witness Mahabir Singh P.W.5 incident took place at about 07:30-8:00 p.m. Though, the prosecutrix has stated that it was in the morning when accused took her into a field and raped her, but in her statement, she also stated that her Tau (father’s elder brother) was carrying torch. At the time of incident, she was 7 years old and at the time of giving statement before the Court she was 8 years. Thus, statement was given after one year. At the time of incident, she was 7 years old and at the time of giving statement before the Court she was 8 years. Thus, statement was given after one year. Seeing the age of the prosecutrix and by reading her complete statement, such contradiction in her statement can be ignored. Another argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecutrix was tutored and at the behest of her father, she gave statement against the accused. The prosecutrix in her statement stated that on that day, she was told by her father to give such statement. On Patwari’s saying, she had made her statement that day. She further stated that she does not know what she stated that day. She also stated that her father and Patwari told her that if she does not give such statement, she will be sent to jail. In fact, all this was stated by her in respect of her statement to the Patwari under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. I find that in her cross examination, she has also stated that it is wrong to say that she has made wrong statement at the behest of her parents. She also stated that it is wrong to say that accused has not done bad thing with her. 15. I have carefully read the statement of the prosecutrix. At the time of giving statement, she was 8 years old. Her statement is natural. She has made absolutely true statement. At one place, she stated against her father and Patwari that if she does not give such statement, she will be sent to jail. At another place, she also stated that she is not giving statement at the behest of her parents. She also stated that accused lifted her, took her in a field and after opening clothes, inserted his penis into her vagina and she felt pain. She also stated that it is wrong to say that accused has not done wrong thing with her and is giving statement at the behest of her parents. Her statement also finds support from the statement of P.W.2 and P.W.5. For the commission of rape, a mere penetration of penis is sufficient. In the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix finds support from medical report, in which inflammation was found in hymen. Her statement also finds support from the statement of P.W.2 and P.W.5. For the commission of rape, a mere penetration of penis is sufficient. In the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix finds support from medical report, in which inflammation was found in hymen. I also do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the victim regarding commission of rape. No reason has been disclosed for falsely implicating the appellant. 16. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1998 to the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 511 of I.P.C. is affirmed. The period already spent by the appellant in jail shall be adjusted. 17. The accused/appellant is on bail. His bail-bonds are hereby cancelled. The accused/appellant Dhanesh be taken in custody immediately to make accused to serve out the sentence awarded to him. Let a copy of this judgment along with the record of the Court below be sent to the trial Court.