JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 and 12.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, Jangipur, Murshidabad in Sessions Trial No. 5(1)/2010 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more with a further direction that 50% of the fine amount if recovered, shall be paid to the victim. 2. The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the effect that on 8.10.2007 around 4 p.m. the victim aged about 12 years had gone to the field to answer nature's call. At that time, the appellant dragged her away by tying her orna around her neck and raped her. As a result, she suffered bleeding injuries in her private parts and became unconscious. After sometime when she returned house, she disclosed the incident to her parents and other villagers. Her father (P.W 1) lodged written complaint at Samserganj P.S resulting in registration of Samserganj P.S case no. 154/07 dated 8.10.2007 under section 376 IPC. Victim was medically treated and her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. In conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the case, being a sessions triable one, was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - I, Jangipur, Murshidabad for trial and disposal. 3. Charge was framed under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of the trial, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. The defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of trial, learned Trial Judge, by judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 and 12.9.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. 5. Nobody appears for the appellant. 6. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appears as amicus curiae. He submits that the evidence of P.W 2 is untrustworthy and suffers from various inconsistencies. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. 5. Nobody appears for the appellant. 6. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appears as amicus curiae. He submits that the evidence of P.W 2 is untrustworthy and suffers from various inconsistencies. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Bapuli appearing with Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that evidence of the victim (P.W 2) is corroborated by oral evidence as well as medical witnesses. Injuries were found in her neck as well as private parts corroborating the manner of assault as narrated by her. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. P.W. 2 is the victim and the most vital witness in the instant case. She deposed that on the date of the incident around 4 p.m. she went to Balbalpara field near a pond to ease herself. There is a 'lichu' and 'mango' garden in the locality. A turmeric grove is inside the garden. The appellant caught hold of her and pressed her neck by his hand and tied her neck with her 'orna'. Then, he dragged her into the turmeric grove. Thereafter, the appellant assaulted her with fist and blows and pushed his penis into her vagina. She suffered bleeding injury. She was unable to move. After the appellant left, she somehow walked away from the spot. Her parents had started searching for her. On the way, she met her parents and informed them of the incident. Villagers came to her house. She was taken to Samserganj P.S. She narrated the incident to police. Her wearing apparels were seized. She put her signature on the seizure list. She was a student of class VI of Baliagahati Naskarpur High School at the time of occurrence. She was taken to Dhulian hospital where she was treated by doctor. She was referred to Jangipur SD Hospital. She put her signature on the medical report. She was admitted at Jangipur SD Hospital for three days. She made statement before the magistrate. She identified her wearing apparels. In cross examination, she stated that the place of occurrence was not visible from her residence due to bushes. She became senseless at the time of occurrence. She returned home wearing 'orna' in the lower part of her body. 9. P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl. She made statement before the magistrate. She identified her wearing apparels. In cross examination, she stated that the place of occurrence was not visible from her residence due to bushes. She became senseless at the time of occurrence. She returned home wearing 'orna' in the lower part of her body. 9. P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl. He corroborated the evidence of her daughter. He stated that his daughter was 12/13 years at the time of occurrence. On the relevant day she had gone to the field to answer nature's call. As she did not return, he along with his wife went out to search for her daughter. His daughter disclosed the entire incident to them. He took her to the police station. He lodged written complaint which was drafted by Ainal Haque (PW 8). He put his signature on the complaint. Police seized wearing apparels of the victim. He put his signature on the seizure list. Her daughter was examined first at Dhulian hospital and thereafter referred to Jangipur SD Hospital where she was treated. 10. Evidence of P.W 2 has also been corroborated by her mother P.W 5 and other neighbours namely P.Ws 3, 4, 6 and 8. 11. P.Ws 11, 13, 14 15 and 17 are medical officers who treated the victim. 12. P.W. 11 was a doctor who treated the victim at Anupnagar BPHC. He found abrasion around her neck and swelling on her external genital. He referred the victim to Jangipur SD Hospital for gynaecological treatment. He clarified due to mistake he endorsed the date as 8.2.2007 instead of 8.10.2007 in the medical examination report. He proved the medical examination report (Ext. 6). 13. P.W 17 admitted the victim at hospital. He proved the admission sheet. 14. P.W 14 was the medical officer under whom the victim was admitted at Jangipur SD Hospital. On examination, he found that the victim was conscious and there was a mark of abrasion on the front and left side of neck. He referred the victim to ENT surgeon and gynaecologist. He proved medical examination report (Ext. 8). 15. P.W 15 is the ENT surgeon who treated the victim at the hospital. He found hypnosis on the left side of neck, multiple abrasion was found on right side and in front of neck. He proved the examination report (Ext. 8/1). 16. He referred the victim to ENT surgeon and gynaecologist. He proved medical examination report (Ext. 8). 15. P.W 15 is the ENT surgeon who treated the victim at the hospital. He found hypnosis on the left side of neck, multiple abrasion was found on right side and in front of neck. He proved the examination report (Ext. 8/1). 16. P.W 13 was a doctor attached to Jangipur SD Hospital. He examined the victim during investigation. He found congestion and hyperaenia in the opening of her vagina. He proved the medical report (Ext. 2). 17. P.W 7 produced the bed head ticket of the victim from Jangipur SD Hospital. 18. P.W 16 was the headmaster of Naskarpur Baliyaghat High School where the victim was a student of class VI. He produced admission resister for the year 2004-05 wherefrom it appears that the date of birth of the victim was recorded as 24.4.1994 in the said admission register. He deposed that the victim was admitted in the school in class V. 19. P.Ws 18 to 20 are the investigating officers in the instant case. 20. P.W 20 drew up formal FIR and commenced investigation. He arranged for medical treatment of the victim at Anupnagar BPHC. He visited the P.O, drew up rough sketch map with index, seized inner garments of the victim, examined witnesses, collected school certificate of the victim. He forwarded the victim at Jangipur SD Hospital for recording of statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. He collected medical examination reports of the victim. He tried to arrest the appellant but failed. 21. P.W 18 is the second investigating officer in the instant case. He deposed that the accused surrendered before the court. He arranged for medical examination of the accused and submitted charge sheet. 22. From the evidence on record it appears that the version of the victim is not only corroborated by the ocular evidence of her parents, namely, P.Ws.1 & 5 and other neighbours, namely, P.Ws. 4, 6, 8 & 12 but also by medical witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 11, 13 to 15 & 17. P.W.2 deposed in the afternoon she had gone to Balbalpara field to answer nature's call. At that time the appellant caught hold of her and dragged her by tying her orna around her neck into a turmeric field. Thereafter, he committed rape on her. After the heinous act, the appellant ran away. 11, 13 to 15 & 17. P.W.2 deposed in the afternoon she had gone to Balbalpara field to answer nature's call. At that time the appellant caught hold of her and dragged her by tying her orna around her neck into a turmeric field. Thereafter, he committed rape on her. After the heinous act, the appellant ran away. After sometime the victim walked away from the spot. As she had not returned home, her parents, namely, P.Ws. 1 & 5 had started searching for her. They met the victim near the place of occurrence and she disclosed the incident to them. She was taken to her residence. Other villagers, namely, P.Ws. 3, 4, 6, 8 & 12 arrived at her residence and was informed of the incident. Victim was taken to P.S. where her father (P.W.1) lodged F.I.R. scribed by P.W.8. Her wearing apparels were seized by the police under a seizure list. She was shifted to Anupnagar BPHC and treated by P.W.11 who found injuries on her neck as well as on her private parts. P.W.11 referred her to Jangipur S.D. Hospital. P.W. 17, medical officer attached to Jangipur S.D. Hospital treated her in the emergency department and admitted her in the medicine ward. The victim was admitted under P.W.14 who treated her for three days. She was referred to ENT Surgeon and Gynaecologist. P.W.13, another medical officer, examined her during investigation and abrasion marks on both sides of her throat and congestion and hyperaemia around the opening of vagina. P.W.15, an ENT Surgeon also examined her and found injuries on her neck. He deposed that such abrasion may be caused if someone pressed the neck by two hands. It has been argued that no injuries were found on the victim. I am unable to accept such contention as P.W.11 noted abrasions around the neck and swelling on the external genital P.W.13 also found congestion and hyperaemia on the opening of the vagina. It is argued P.W.13 did not find blood in her private parts. Reading the evidence of P.W.11 & P.W.13 as a whole, I have no doubt in my mind that the appellant had caused slight penetration but not full penetration of vagina and as a result the medical personnel had noted injury on the opening of the vagina and not inside her private parts. Reading the evidence of P.W.11 & P.W.13 as a whole, I have no doubt in my mind that the appellant had caused slight penetration but not full penetration of vagina and as a result the medical personnel had noted injury on the opening of the vagina and not inside her private parts. It is trite law that slightest penetration of the vagina would constitute rape. In the light of the aforesaid facts, I am unable to accept the contention raised by learned amicus curiae that there was no penetration in the instant case. On the other hand, the medical evidence clearly supports the genesis of sexual assault on the victim who was dragged her by tying orna round her neck into a turmaric field and, thereafter, raped. Hence, the prosecution case is proved beyond doubt. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 24. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. 25. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the appellant during the period of investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against the substantive sentence, as aforesaid, in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 26. I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Bitasok Banerjee as amicus curiae in disposing of the appeal. 27. Copy of the judgment along with L.C.R. be sent down to the trial court at once. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court immediately for necessary action and execution of the sentence. I agree.