JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant Sri Sishu Ranjan Biswas who is in custody since the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2015. Also heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State-respondent. 2. The convict-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.07.2015 in connection with Session Trial (NT/KMP) 59 of 2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur whereby and whereunder the convict-appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of 7(seven) years for committing offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for 3(three) months. The convict-appellant was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 3342 of IPC. 3. Brief facts : 3.1 On 31.10.2010, at about 2:45 p.m., one Smt. Sefali Tulshi Das lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge of Ambassa Police Station stating inter alia that when she along with her husband and son went out from their house for performing their own work, their minor daughter Smt. Sarama (name changed), aged about 13 years was in their house. While she was working in the tea garden, at about 12:30 p.m., one Arjun Sarkar of her locality rushed to her and informed that one Sishu Ranjan Biswas, aged about 40 years, a neighbour was committing some immoral activities with her daughter by calling her daughter to step into his room and thereafter closed the door. She along with Dipti Deb and Minu Deb of her locality had rushed to the house of convict-appellant Sishu Ranjan. Being knocked at the door, Sishu Ranjan was not opening the door and after some time it was found that he fled away by the rear side of the room and they rescued their minor daughter. On her recovery, she disclosed that she was forcibly raped by Sishu Ranjan Biswas. She tried to protect herself but succumb to the force of Sishu Ranjan. 3.2 On the basis of the said complaint, O.C., Ambassa P.S. had registered a case bearing FIR No. 86 of 2010 on 31.10.2010. After recording FIR, the investigating officer undertook investigation, examined the witnesses and being prima facie satisfied submitted the charge-sheet. She tried to protect herself but succumb to the force of Sishu Ranjan. 3.2 On the basis of the said complaint, O.C., Ambassa P.S. had registered a case bearing FIR No. 86 of 2010 on 31.10.2010. After recording FIR, the investigating officer undertook investigation, examined the witnesses and being prima facie satisfied submitted the charge-sheet. The matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge who has framed the charge as hereunder :- CHARGE I, Shri S.D. Purakayastha, Addl. Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kamalpur, do hereby charge you— Sri Sishu Ranjan Biswas ….as follows : Firstly, that you on 31.10.2010 at about 12 O’clock in the noon at your residence at Laltilla (Nalichara) under Ambassa police station wrongfully confined Smt. Ratna Tulsi Das @ Ratna Deb and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court. Lastly, that you on the above mentioned date, time and place committed rape on Smt. Ratna Tulsi Das @ Ratna Deb and that you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 376(1) of Indian Penal code and within the cognizance of this court. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charges.” 3.3 In course of trial, as many as 17 witnesses have been examined to substantiate the charge and many documents have been exhibited. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after appreciation of evidence and materials on record has recorded the order of conviction and sentence against the accused, Sishu Ranjan Biswas as aforestated. 3.4 Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the convict-appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 4. Before entering into the factual aspects of the case, I intend to recapitulate the well neigh principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheikh Shahid, reported in (2009) 12 SCC 715 , wherein the larger Bench of the Court has observed thus :- “……The offence of rape occurs in Chapter XVI of IPC. It is an offence affecting the human body. In that Chapter, there is a separate heading for 'Sexual offence', which encompasses Sections 375, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, and 376-D. 'Rape' is defined in Section 375. It is an offence affecting the human body. In that Chapter, there is a separate heading for 'Sexual offence', which encompasses Sections 375, 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, and 376-D. 'Rape' is defined in Section 375. Sections 375 and 376 have been substantially changed by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, and several new sections were introduced by the new Act, i.e. 376-A, 376-B, 376-C and 376-D. The fact that sweeping changes were introduced reflects the legislative intent to curb with iron hand, the offence of rape which affects the dignity of a woman. The offence of rape in its simplest term is 'the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by force, fear or fraud', or as 'the carnal knowledge of a woman by force against her will'. 'Rape' or 'Raptus' is when a man hath carnal knowledge of a woman by force and against her will (Co. Litt. 123-b); or as expressed more fully,' rape is the carnal knowledge of any woman, above the age of particular years, against her will; or of a woman child, under that age, with or against her will' (Hale PC 628). The essential words in an indictment for rape are rapuit and carnaliter cognovit; but carnaliter cognovit, nor any other circumlocution without the word rapuit, are not sufficient in a legal sense to express rape; 1 Hon.6, 1a, 9 Edw. 4, 26 a (Hale PC 628). In the crime of rape, 'carnal knowledge' means the penetration to any the slightest degree of the organ alleged to have been carnally known by the male organ of generation (Stephen's "Criminal Law" 9th Ed. p.262). In 'Encyclopoedia of Crime and Justice' (Volume 4, page 1356) it is stated "......even slight penetration is sufficient and emission is unnecessary". In Halsbury's Statutes of England and Wales (Fourth Edition) Volume 12, it is stated that even the slightest degree of penetration is sufficient to prove sexual intercourse. It is violation with violence of the private person of a woman; an outrage by all means. By the very nature of the offence it is an obnoxious act of the highest order. The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. By the very nature of the offence it is an obnoxious act of the highest order. The physical scar may heal up, but the mental scar will always remain. When a woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not merely physical injury but the deep sense of some deathless shame. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a corner-stone of the edifice of "order" should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his "Law in Changing Society" stated that, "State of criminal law continues to be as it should be a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society". Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation the sentencing process should be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. For instance a murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organized crime or mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence. In Mahesh v. State of M.P. [ (1987) 2 SCR 710 ], this Court while refusing to reduce the death sentence observed thus : It will be a mockery of justice to permit the accused to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing system of the country suspect. To give the lesser punishment for the accused would be to render the justicing system of the country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon." 5. Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation, let me discuss the factual and legal aspects of the present appeal. 6. Contentions of the appellant:- 6.1 In course of hearing, Mr. R. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no proof of penetration which is one of the essential ingredients for constituting offence under Section 376 of IPC. He further submits that the findings of the learned trial Court and the conviction thereon are misconceived and is not tenable in law. 6.2 Mr. Paul, learned counsel submits that there are enough contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 7. Contentions of the State-respondent:- Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent has contended that the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge of rape against the accused person beyond any shadow of doubt and he has defended the findings and decisions of the learned trial Court. 8. Discussion:- 8.1 I have perused the entire records as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. P.W.3, Nidhu Deb is very important in the present case. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that he noticed the accused had bolted the door of his room from inside when victim entered there. At that time, he found one Arjun Sarkar (PW 12) was coming on that way and then, he told Arjun to inform the matter to the mother of Sarama i.e. the informant. After a while, the mother of the victim as well as his uncle Manoranjan and other members of the family had arrived there and entered into the room of Sishu Ranjan and found Sarama in unconscious and naked condition. However, by that time Sishu Ranjan, the convict-appellant had fled away. 9. The victim has stated in her evidence that Sishu Ranjan called her to wash his dish on the fateful day and when she entered into the room, the convict-appellant, Sishu Ranjan closed the door from inside and pressed her mouth by her ‘urna’. She has further stated that the convict-appellant had forcibly raped her. 9. The victim has stated in her evidence that Sishu Ranjan called her to wash his dish on the fateful day and when she entered into the room, the convict-appellant, Sishu Ranjan closed the door from inside and pressed her mouth by her ‘urna’. She has further stated that the convict-appellant had forcibly raped her. She has categorically stated that her cousin Nidhu Deb, P.W.3 witnessed the occurrence through the hole of fencing of the said hut. She is found to be very consistent in her cross examination. I have perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and under Section 164, Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate. I find the deposition of the victim recorded before the learned trial Court is consistent with her statements recorded under Section 164 and under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as well. There is no omission or contradiction. 10. The other witnesses also have deposed at the same tune. The medical examination report reveals that hymen was ruptured. The doctor in his examination-in-chief also has corroborated the contents of the medical report. 11. After completion of recording of evidence, the accused-appellant was put to examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. when he simply denied the fact of the incident. The learned trial Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence as led by the prosecution witnesses as well as the scientific examination report conducted upon the victim. 12. The settled principle of law is that even a slightest degree of penetration is enough to constitute an offence of rape and the accused should be convicted under Section 376 of IPC, if the same is proved. This is exactly what the Supreme Court has said in Sheikh Shahid (supra). 12.1 I may gainfully refer the decision of Madan Gopal Kakkad Vs. Naval Dubey & Anr., reported in (1992) 3 SCC 204 wherein it has been observed as follows : “..Though all sexual assaults on female children are not reported and do not come to light yet there is an alarming and shocking increase of sexual offences committed on children. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of the rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. This is due to the reasons that children are ignorant of the act of the rape and are not able to offer resistance and become easy prey for lusty brutes who display the unscrupulous, deceitful and insidious art of luring female children and young girls. Therefore, such offenders who are menace to the civilized society should be mercilessly and inexorably punished in the severest terms.” 12.2 In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bodem Sundra Rao reported in AIR 1996 SC 530 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus : “…….The Courts have an obligation while awarding punishment to impose appropriate punishment so as to respond to the society's crime for justice against such criminals. Public abhorrence of the crime needs a reflection through the court's verdict in the measure of punishment. The Courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of the appropriate punishment….” 12.3 In State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 1996 SC 1393 the Apex court has observed as follows : “……..We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim's privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault - it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female…..” 12.4 In State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa, reported in (2000) 4 SCC 75 , a three-Judge Bench opined that the courts must hear the loud cry for justice by the society in cases of heinous crimes of rape on innocent helpless girls of tender years as in this case, and respond by imposition of proper sentence. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. It was further observed that to show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. 12.5 In Jugendra Singh Vs. Public abhorrence of the crime needs reflection through imposition of appropriate sentence by the Court. It was further observed that to show mercy in the case of such a heinous crime would be travesty of justice and the plea for leniency is wholly misplaced. 12.5 In Jugendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 297 , while dwelling upon the gravity of the crime of rape, the Apex Court has expressed thus : “….Rape or an attempt to rape is a crime not against an individual but a crime which destroys the basic equilibrium of the social atmosphere. The consequential death is more horrendous. It is to be kept in mind that an offence against the body of a woman lowers her dignity and mars her reputation. It is said that one’s physical frame is his or her temple. No one has any right of encroachment. An attempt for the momentary pleasure of the accused has caused the death of a child and had a devastating effect on her family and, in the ultimate eventuate, on the collective at large. When a family suffers in such a manner, the society as a whole is compelled to suffer as it creates an incurable dent in the fabric of the social milieu…” 12.6 In Shyam Narain Vs. the State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2209 the Apex Court has observed thus :- “Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, the obtaining factual matrix, the brutality reflected in the commission of crime, the response expected from the courts by the society and the rampant uninhibited exposure of the bestial nature of pervert minds, we are required to address whether the rigorous punishment for life imposed on the appellant is excessive or deserves to be modified. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has four children and if the sentence is maintained, not only his life but also the life of his children would be ruined. The other ground that is urged is the background of impecuniousity. In essence, leniency is sought on the base of aforesaid mitigating factors. It is seemly to note that the legislature, while prescribing a minimum sentence for a term which shall not be less than ten years, has also provided that the sentence may be extended upto life. The other ground that is urged is the background of impecuniousity. In essence, leniency is sought on the base of aforesaid mitigating factors. It is seemly to note that the legislature, while prescribing a minimum sentence for a term which shall not be less than ten years, has also provided that the sentence may be extended upto life. The legislature, in its wisdom, has left it to the discretion of the Court. Almost for the last three decades, this Court has been expressing its agony and distress pertaining to the increased rate of crimes against women. The eight year old girl, who was supposed to spend time in cheerfulness, was dealt with animal passion and her dignity and purity of physical frame was shattered. The plight of the child and the shock suffered by her can be well visualised. The torment on the child has the potentiality to corrode the poise and equanimity of any civilized society. The age old wise saying “child is a gift of the providence” enters into the realm of absurdity. The young girl, with efflux of time, would grow with traumatic experience, an unforgettable shame. She shall always be haunted by the memory replete with heavy crush of disaster constantly echoing the chill air of the past forcing her to a state of nightmarish melancholia. She may not be able to assert the honour of a woman for no fault of hers. Respect for reputation of women in the society shows the basic civility of a civilised society. No member of society can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only lamentable but also deplorable. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the thought of sullying the physical frame of a woman is the demolition of the accepted civilized norm, i.e., “physical morality”. In such a sphere, impetuosity has no room. The youthful excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone’s mind that, on one hand, the society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some pervert members of the same society dehumanize the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity. The youthful excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone’s mind that, on one hand, the society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some pervert members of the same society dehumanize the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity. It is an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity of a woman with the mindset that she should be elegantly servile to men. Rape is a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a woman and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed. We have emphasised on the manner because, in the present case, the victim is an eight year old girl who possibly would be deprived of the dreams of “Spring of Life” and might be psychologically compelled to remain in the “Torment of Winter”. When she suffers, the collective at large also suffers. Such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by the society. It demands just punishment from the court and to such a demand, the courts of law are bound to respond within legal parameters. It is a demand for justice and the award of punishment has to be in consonance with the legislative command and the discretion vested in the court. The mitigating factors put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant are meant to invite mercy but we are disposed to think that the factual matrix cannot allow the rainbow of mercy to magistrate. Our judicial discretion impels us to maintain the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and, hence, we sustain the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the High Court.” 13. In the case at hand, this Court does not find any brutality occasioned to the victim girl, but, the Court should not lost its sight that the accused being a married person out of perversion caused assault to the inherent dignity of the victim girl by way of attacking her body and ruining chastity at her tender age. The learned trial Judge, perhaps, for the reason of absence of brutality, has restricted the sentence to the minimum period as prescribed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. The learned trial Judge, perhaps, for the reason of absence of brutality, has restricted the sentence to the minimum period as prescribed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. In the light of aforesaid discussions, on factual and legal aspects, and in view of the consistency found in the statements of the victim and other prosecution witnesses, and the hymen of the victim being found ruptured, this Court finds no scope to reach to any other hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused-appellant, Sishu Ranjan Biswas. 15. In the result, it has been proved beyond doubt that on the unfortunate day, the victim was alone in her house, she was called by the accused-appellant to his room, after entering into his room the accused Sishu Ranjan closed the door from inside, undressed the victim and raped her and the statements being fortified by P.W.3 as the eye witness to the occurrence. 16. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed in Sessions Trial (NT/KMP) 59 of 2012, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur, does not call for any interference and the conviction and order of sentence is upheld and affirmed. 17. The appeal stands dismissed.