Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. The prosecution story is that on August 18, 1987 at about 4.00 P.M. Deepika, prosecutrix, whose age was 7 years and was studying in 3rd Standard in Tagore Model School, Nawanshahar, left her house. She did not come back for three or four hours. Santosh Kumar (PW-3) complainant, her mother went in search of her. She reached the house of appellant Gopal Krishan. Santosh Kumari (PW-3) heard the cries of her daughter. She forced herself to go inside the room and saw the appellant wearing only an under shirt and had the prosecutrix on his thighs. Santosh Kumari stated before the police that she saw the appellant having intercourse with her daughter. She took her daughter in her own custody. Deepika was unconscious at that time. Blood was oozing out from her private part. Santosh Kumari, on getting her daughter back to her house, summoned her husband and took Deepika to civil Hospital, Nawanshahar.
2. Dr. Paramvir Kaur (PW-1) referred the case to the Civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where Deepika, prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Nageen Dhaliwal (PW-2). She prepared Medico-legal Report Exhibit PC.
3. The police had reached the Civil Hospital Nawanshahar, where Chhajju Ram, the Investigating Officer of this case (PW-11) made an application before Dr. Paramvir Kaur (PW-1) to record the statement of Deepika, but the doctor opined that she was unfit to make a statement. the statement of Santosh Kumari (PW-3) was recorded, on the basis of which, a formal First Information Report, Exhibit PE/2 came into existence at 11.10 P.M. Dr. Nageen Dhaliwal, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar (PW-2) medically examined Deepika, prosecutrix and had given her opinion that rape appears to have been committed on the person of the prosecutrix.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant was not arrested on August 19, 1987 stated by Chhajju Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-11). He was taken into custody by local people on August 18, 1987 after the occurrence, as per the statement of Santosh Kumari (PW-3) and was handed over to the police on the 18th itself. Learned counsel has further stated that Santosh Kumari (PW-3) has further stated that after being taken into custody by some persons from his house, the appellant was given a beating. Learned counsel has further stated that the appellant is facing the agony of trial since 1987 and is only 22 years of age.
5. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the testimony of Deepika, prosecutrix is truthful. Her testimony gets corroboration from the testimony of her mother Santosh Kumari (PW-3). He has further stated that there is no delay in lodging of the First Information Report, Exhibit PE/2. The doctor, who examined Deepika, has opined in her statement before the Court that, it appears that rape has been committed on the person of the prosecutrix.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and gone through the record and the statements of the witnesses.
7. Statement of the prosecutrix, Deepika, was recorded as PW-4. The statement inspires confidence, and there is a ring of truth in her testimony before the Court. She has stated that rape was committed on her and the appellant lured her to his home. She was a small child aged 6-7 years at the time of the occurrence. Some concession has to be given to her, regarding the discrepancies, which cropped up in her statement. The testimony of Deepika, prosecutrix, is corroborated by the statement of Santosh Kumari, her mother (PW-3). The medical evidence of Dr. Nageen Dhaliwal (PW-2) and the Medico-legal report, which exhibited as Exhibit PC, corroborate the statement of the prosecutrix.
8. Dr. Paramvir Kaur, who appeared as PW-1 and gave first aid to Deepika, has stated in her testimony that blood was oozing, from the vagina of the patient at the time when first aid was given to her. Dr. Nageen Dhaliwal (PW-2) in her testimony, has stated that, labia minora was torn to the extent of one inch. Hymen was torn and there was bleeding to a moderate extent.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress that no semen was present on the person of the prosecutrix or on her clothes. This is not necessary. To prove rape, omission of semen is not necessary for the commission of the offence of rape. The only ingredient, which has to be fulfilled, is penetration. Explanation to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
10. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated July 19, 1988 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Appeal is dismissed.