JUDGMENT : Joymalya Bagchi, J. 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years in 2010. He appears to have served out a major portion of sentence in the meantime. Hence, appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Prosecution case, as alleged, against the appellant is that on 1st March, 2010 around 6.30 P.M. the victim, aged about 7 years, had gone to the house of the appellant to play with his daughter. The appellant taking advantage of such situation enticed the victim away to a place near the bank of river Tangon. There he removed the wearing apparel of the victim and committed rape on her. The victim suffered injuries in her private parts and cried out loudly. She took refuge in the house of Bulti Barman (PW 4). From there she was taken to her house and she narrated the incident to her parents Raju Saha (PW1) and Archana Saha (PW8). She was removed to Bulbulchandi hospital and thereafter to Malda hospital where she was treated for 3/4 days. Her father Raju Saha lodged FIR over the incident against the appellant. 3. In the course of investigation wearing apparels of the victim were seized and sent for FSL examination. Statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 CrPC and charge sheet was filed against the appellant. Charge was framed against him under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial prosecution examined 15 witnesses including the victim. A number of documents were also exhibited. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant of the aforesaid charge and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more. 6. I have perused the evidence on record. The victim girl was aged about 7 years at the time of occurrence. The trial Judge put questions to her in order to test her capacity to depose. She was also subjected to a gruelling cross-examination. She intelligently answered the questions posed to her by the Court as well as the defence lawyer which clearly established her capacity to depose. The victim girl was aged about 7 years at the time of occurrence. The trial Judge put questions to her in order to test her capacity to depose. She was also subjected to a gruelling cross-examination. She intelligently answered the questions posed to her by the Court as well as the defence lawyer which clearly established her capacity to depose. She deposed that on the day of the incident Holi utsav was being celebrated. She had gone to the house of the appellant whom she called “Jethu”. From his house the appellant dragged her to a ghat which was surrounded by jungle. The appellant removed her inner garment and put his penis at the place where she urinates. She felt pain and blood came out from her private parts. She cried out and went to the house of Bulti Di. She stated the incident to her. Then her grandmother took her to her house. She narrated the incident to her parents. She identified the appellant in Court. She was taken to Malda hospital and was examined by doctor. She made a statement to the police as well as Magistrate. She put her signature on the statement. She had identified the appellant in Court. 7. Bulti Di (PW 4) corroborated the statement of the victim girl. She deposed that she was watching television in her room. The she heard a girl crying beside her house. The girl stated to her that she had taken to the side of a river by a person who ravished her. She saw blood was coming out from the private parts of the girl. 8. Kalpana Sarkar (PW 2) is the elder sister of PW 4. She corroborated the evidence of PW 4 and stated that the victim girl had named the appellant as her assailant. 9. Jyotsna Das (PW 5) deposed that Kalpana told her that an incident had occurred and hearing that she took the victim girl to her residence. She was declared hostile. 10. PW 1, Raju Saha, father of the victim, deposed that on the day of Holi utsav i.e. 1.03.2010 around 6/6.30 p.m. the victim had gone to the house of the appellant. The appellant enticed her to the ghat and committed rape on her. Her daughter cried aloud. People of the adjoining locality rushed there. Jyotsna Das (PW 5) brought her to her residence. The appellant enticed her to the ghat and committed rape on her. Her daughter cried aloud. People of the adjoining locality rushed there. Jyotsna Das (PW 5) brought her to her residence. Her daughter divulged the incident to him. He found bleeding from her private parts. Her daughter was taken to Bulbulchandi Hospital and thereafter to Malda Hospital. She was admitted there for 4/5 days. He lodged written complaint and identified the written complaint in Court. 11. PW 8 is the mother of the victim girl. She corroborated the evidence of PW 1. 12. PW 12 is the doctor who treated the victim at Malda Hospital he found the following injuries :- “Injury marks were found on forehead, contusion.. 1 c.m.X 1c.m. and scratch mark on left cheek. Small tears were found on left side of hymen and fourchette. Fresh blood oozing from these sides. Severe tenderness were felt in the external genital which were slightly oedematous. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Opinion:- It seems that sexual intercourse could have been attempted in this case.” 13. From the aforesaid evidence on record I find that the version of the victim (PW 6) is a credible one and has been corroborated not only by her parents PW 1 and PW 8 respectively but also by independent witnesses, namely, PWs.2 & 4. It has been pleaded that the victim had not specifically named the appellant as her assailant. I am unable to accept such contention. It appears from the statement of the victim recorded before Magistrate that she referred her assailant as “Tapan Jethu” i.e. the appellant and had identified him in Court. Evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 8 unequivocally show that the victim girl had named the appellant as her assailant. In this backdrop the version of PW 4 that the victim did not specifically name her assailant does not militate against the truthfulness of the prosecution case which is wholly established on the strength of the evidence coming from the mouth of the victim and other witnesses. It has also been pleaded that the doctor (PW 12) had opined that “sexual intercourse could have been attempted in this case”. Hence, the allegation of rape cannot be said to be established beyond doubt. It has also been pleaded that the doctor (PW 12) had opined that “sexual intercourse could have been attempted in this case”. Hence, the allegation of rape cannot be said to be established beyond doubt. It is trite law that evidence of an expert is an opinion evidence and has to be judged in the light of the ocular version of the victim which is corroborated by other evidences. In the present case, the victim, a 7 years’ old girl, categorically deposed that the appellant had penetrated her vagina. Medical evidence also shows that there is a tear in the hymen and severe tenderness in external genital which is oedematous. Hence, I am in concurrence with the trial Judge that there was penetration of vagina is supported by the torn hymen and other injuries in her genitalia. Hence, the prosecution case of forcible rape on the minor girl has been well established. It is possible that due to tender age of the minor girl the appellant was unable to fully penetrate her causing more extensive injuries. It is well settled that penetration even of the slightest degree constitutes rape. Judged from this perspective, I have no doubt in my mind that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are upheld. 15. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. 16. The period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry or trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence imposed upon them under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 17. Copy of the judgment be sent down to the trial Court for necessary compliance. 18. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.