JUDGMENT : Patherya, J. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11th August, 2010, 12th August, 2010 and 13th August, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in Sessions Trial No. 01 (07) 05 arising out of Sessions Case No. 50 (06) 01 under Section 376(2)(f), I.P.C. whereby and whereunder the accused appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer additional six months simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd January, 1999, the complainant and his wife were not at home. They went to the field for cultivation, which was at a distance of 600/700 feet from their house. At that time their daughter Kumari Mamoni Mondal, aged 8 years, was at home. During the absence of the complainant and his wife on the same day at about 6/6.30 p.m. the accused appellant visited their house and forcibly ravished their minor daughter which resulted in the victim girl becoming ill. The complainant and his wife attended to the illness of the victim girl and it was because of this that although the incident took place on 22nd January, 1999 but the complaint was filed with the Officer-in-Charge, Moyna Police Station on 27th January, 1999 under Section 376, I.P.C. Moyna P.S. Case No.03/99 dated 27.01.1999 was registered and investigation initiated. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 448/376, I.P.C. against the accused appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur for trial. Charge was framed under Section 376, I.P.C. and was read over and explained to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses while no witness was adduced by the defence. The specific case of the defence was one of innocence and false implication. The accused appellant was also examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court passed the order of conviction and sentence against the accused appellant. Hence, this Appeal. 4. The specific case of the defence was one of innocence and false implication. The accused appellant was also examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court passed the order of conviction and sentence against the accused appellant. Hence, this Appeal. 4. Counsel for the accused appellant submits that the charge has been framed under Section 376, I.P.C. only, while the sentence has been given under Section 376 (2) (f), I.P.C. Section 211, I.P.C. mandates mention of time, day, place so also the manner mentioned in the charge-sheet. There is no mention of time or place of occurrence. All that has been mentioned is the village. The victim girl was 8 years old and each of the co-villagers who were independent witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8, have been declared hostile. No sketch map has also been drawn up by the I.O. Although the victim girl was examined by a quack on 22nd January, 1999, that is, the date of incident, the said quack doctor has not been examined. On 24th January, 1999 and 27th January, 1999 the victim girl was examined by P.W.9 and after being administered Paracetamol tablets and Tetanus Oxide Injection the victim girl was discharged on 30th January, 1999. No mark of external injury was found on the victim girl and the victim girl was found to be suffering from fever. Therefore, in the absence of any injury found and having been discharged after being administered medicines for treatment of fever, the case run by the prosecution remains unsubstantiated. P.W.13 is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164, Cr.P.C. on 15th February, 1999, that is after 24 days of the incident. P.Ws 9 and 12 are the doctors who examined the victim girl. P.W.12 examined the victim girl on 28th April, 1999 and he too on examination did not find any marks of injury on her body or private parts. No foreign body was also found in her private parts. The victim girl so also P.Ws. 1 and 5 to whom she narrated the incident have not disclosed about the victim girl being ravished to either P.W.9 who was the first Medical Officer to treat the victim girl. No foreign body was also found in her private parts. The victim girl so also P.Ws. 1 and 5 to whom she narrated the incident have not disclosed about the victim girl being ravished to either P.W.9 who was the first Medical Officer to treat the victim girl. It is for the first time that the victim girl stated to P.W.12 on 20th April, 1999 that she had been sexually assaulted by the accused appellant. Therefore, there is every possibility of the victim girl being tutored as a long time had elapsed between the date of incident and the date of examination of the victim girl on 28th April, 1999. The wearing apparels of the victim girl was also not seized. This emerges from the evidence of P.W.1. In a case of forceful rape injury is imminent. Although P.W.5 has stated that in her private parts there was swelling and there was some bleeding therefrom, the controlled earth has not been seized. According to the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 5 the accused appellant left the house on hearing the voice of P.W.5. It has not emerged from the evidence of P.Ws 2 or 5 that there were many entrance from the said house and there was one entrance through which the accused appellant left the said house. P.Ws 3 and 4 have been declared hostile and not examined by the I.O. P.W. 6 has no knowledge of the incident and has also been declared hostile. Similarly, P.Ws 7 and 8 have also been declared hostile and P.W.9 was the Medical Officer, who treated the victim girl at the BPHC but no history of the patient has been recorded by him. Exhibit-2 is the emergency ticket dated 24th January, 1994 wherein there is only the mention of metrogyl and injection. There is no mention of any injury suffered. Similarly, in Exhibit-3, which is the Medical Report dated 27th January, 1999, it has been recorded that P.W.9 examined the victim girl and as stated by her she was suffering from fever for three days and headache. He did not find any external injury but treated her for viral fever. Neither on 24th January, 1999 nor on 27th January, 1999 was the accused appellant named by the victim girl or her parents to the doctors. He did not find any external injury but treated her for viral fever. Neither on 24th January, 1999 nor on 27th January, 1999 was the accused appellant named by the victim girl or her parents to the doctors. No incriminating circumstance was put to the accused appellant while being examining under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The medical evidence being an incriminating circumstance was not put to the accused appellant. On the date of incident the victim girl was playing with her brother and sister, but the brother has not been examined. On 27th January, 1999 three events took place i) the filing of the F.I.R.; ii) the arrest of the accused appellant and iii) the examination of the victim girl by P.W.9 for viral fever and headache. There was no resistance by the victim girl nor was there any hue and cry raised by her and for the accused appellant to have committed the offence in the presence of other siblings is unbelievable. 5. In the S. 164, Cr.P.C. statement, which was recorded on 15th February, 1999 after 24 days, there is no mention of the mother’s arrival or accused leaving. The substantive evidence is nothing but an embellishment. According to the victim girl, the lamp was put out by the accused appellant and therefore identification of the accused appellant by P.W.5 is in doubt. The only independent witness who could have been examined were the neighbours and those have turned hostile. The said neighbours have not been examined by the I.O. The swelling of the private part as disclosed by P.W.5 has also been negated by the I.O. Therefore, the prosecution’s case has been improved with no injury external or internal found by the P.W.5 at the time of examination and administration of medicines for fever alone does not point to the guilt of the accused appellant. The evidence of the prosecution ought not to be relied on as it is in conflict with the medical report. Therefore, the order of conviction be set aside. 6. Counsel for the State respondent in opposing the said Appeal submits that it was P.W.1, the de facto complainant who was informed of the offence by P.W.5 and although the incident occurred on 22nd January, 1999, the F.I.R. was filed on 27th January, 1999. Therefore, the order of conviction be set aside. 6. Counsel for the State respondent in opposing the said Appeal submits that it was P.W.1, the de facto complainant who was informed of the offence by P.W.5 and although the incident occurred on 22nd January, 1999, the F.I.R. was filed on 27th January, 1999. An explanation has also been given for the delay in filing the F.I.R. P.W.5 (mother) saw the accused fleeing and this piece of evidence remains unshaken. Similarly, information by the victim girl to her mother and thereafter the de facto complainant being informed of the incident also remains unshaken. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is corroborated with regard to P.W.5 seeing the accused appellant run away from the house. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.s 1 and 2 with regard to the victim girl informing her father of the offence stands corroborated. Although the date of incident was 22nd January, 1999 but on 15th February, 1999 as per the requirement of law a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. The Medical Report (Exhibit-3) of the B.P.H.C. on 24th January, 1999 mentions administration of injection and paracetamol. The victim girl was examined by P.W.12 in April, 1999 and it is true that no external injury was found on her person. As held in (2013) 4 SCC 360 , ( AIR 2013 SC 1743 ) that in case of conflict between ocular evidence and medical evidence, ocular evidence will prevail. In (2013) 11 SCC 688 and (2006) 2 S.C.C. (Cri) 1, ( AIR 2006 SC 1267 ) it has been held that penetration itself will not prove the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and even if there is no penetration it would not mean that there has been no rape. The cumulative effect will determine the offence or criminal sexual assault or criminal assault outraging the modesty of girl. In the instant case, each of the ingredients is sufficient to point to the offence committed under Section 376 (2) (f), I.P.C. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence be upheld. 7. In reply, counsel for the accused appellant submits that P.W.9 in the injury report did not mention any injury. P.Ws 1, 2 and 5 also did not narrate the incident as is being pursued by the prosecution, before the Medical Officer, (P.W.9) either on 24th January, 1999 or on 27th January, 1999. 7. In reply, counsel for the accused appellant submits that P.W.9 in the injury report did not mention any injury. P.Ws 1, 2 and 5 also did not narrate the incident as is being pursued by the prosecution, before the Medical Officer, (P.W.9) either on 24th January, 1999 or on 27th January, 1999. The accused was also not named before the said Medical Officer. The cases of penetration are not applicable to the facts of this case and as the victim girl was 8 years old, her subsequent conduct cannot be overlooked. There has been laches on the part of the I.O. in conducting the medical examination on 28th April, 1999 and the benefit of the medical report be given to the accused appellant by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence. 8. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the date of incident is, 22nd January, 1999 between 18.00 hours and 18.30 hours. The victim girl, at that time was alone in her house. Her parents admittedly had gone to the agricultural field. Finding the victim girl alone the accused appellant took her into the room of her house and undressed her by removing her underwear and thereafter removing his own trouser. Thereafter the accused appellant made her lie on the floor of the room and he laid down on her person. She felt pain on her private part due to commission of rape. An attempt to raise a hue and cry resulted in the accused appellant placing his hand on her mouth, which disabled her attempt to shout. It was at that time that her mother returned to house and called the victim girl by name. On getting to know the arrival of P.W.5 (mother) the accused appellant started leaving the house. This sequence of events finds mention in the evidence of the victim girl. The victim girl on her mother’s arrival narrated the incident to her who informed P.W.1, father of the incident. The victim girl has also categorically stated that she also reported the incident to her father which is corroborated by P.W.1. Before the Magistrate (P.W.13) while recording a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., the victim girl has also categorically stated that on 15.2.1999 one Borolok committed kharap kaj on her. The victim girl has also categorically stated that she also reported the incident to her father which is corroborated by P.W.1. Before the Magistrate (P.W.13) while recording a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., the victim girl has also categorically stated that on 15.2.1999 one Borolok committed kharap kaj on her. She identified the Borolok as the accused appellant who held her hand and led her into the room, thereafter removed her underwear and committed the offence. This was the first opportunity that she got to make the statement before the Judicial Magistrate. The removal of the underwear is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5, who found the victim girl to wear a frock but found ' no panty on her person'. P.W.5 has also stated that her daughter, the victim girl told her that it was again that ' Rampada Mondal who put off her panty'. This finds support and corroboration from the evidence of P.W.13, I.O. who has stated that when he examined P.W.5, (mother) she stated to him that the victim girl was wearing frock but her panty was absent. Therefore, the preparation to complete the offence by the accused appellant was complete. Section 375, I.P.C. has defined rape. Explanation to Section 375 reads as follows: 'Explanation.— Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.' 9. To consider the offence of rape neither Section 375, I.P.C. nor the Explanation attached thereto requires that there should necessarily be complete penetration. It is not also a requirement that penetration should be coupled with remission of semen or rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest with or without any omission even an attempted penetration is enough for purposes of Sections 375 and 376, I.P.C. Therefore, the commission of rape is committed even when no physical injury is caused and no seminal discharge. It is not also a requirement that penetration should be coupled with remission of semen or rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest with or without any omission even an attempted penetration is enough for purposes of Sections 375 and 376, I.P.C. Therefore, the commission of rape is committed even when no physical injury is caused and no seminal discharge. In the case before us all preparation was made by the accused appellant to ravish the victim girl by (a) approaching her house; (b) taking her by hand and leading her into the room of the house; (c) putting out the lamp; (d) removing her underwear; (e) removing his trouser to a certain extent; (f) laying her down on the floor and thereafter laying himself on her; (g) the factum of her feeling pain on her private part; (h) attempt to raise a hue and cry and placing of the left hand by the accused appellant on the mouth of the victim girl are all indicators to commission of the offence. The call of P.W.5-(mother) on her return and the accused appellant on hearing the sound leaving, points to commission of offence by the accused appellant. The factum of fleeing by the accused appellant finds support and corroboration through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5. Therefore, absence of the injuries will not justify drawing of any adverse inference against the case of the prosecution, but in fact will support the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the victim girl also inspires confidence and is trustworthy. No reason exists for discrediting the evidence of the victim girl. Therefore, in view of the decisions reported in (2013) 11 SCC 688 , (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 1, ( AIR 2006 SC 1267 ) and (2013) 4 SCC 360 , ( AIR 2013 SC 1743 ), each of which supports, the case of the prosecution the order of conviction and sentence is affirmed and the Appeal filed stands dismissed. 10. Let a copy of the judgment passed this day along with the L.C.R. be sent to the court below. 11. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities. 12. Asha Arora, J. : I agree. Appeal dismissed.