The main legal point established is that even the slightest penetration constitutes rape, and the absence of injury in the victim's private parts does not render her testimony improbable.

JUDGMENT

Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - This criminal appeal found its emergence after it was preferred by appellant against the judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Sessions Trial No. 5(6) of 2013, arising out of Sessions Case No. 17(5) of 2013, convicting the appellant under Section 376(2)(f)/ 506 I.P.C., and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with default stipulation to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f) and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years for offence under Section 506 I.P.C.

2. The appellant challenged the order of conviction and sentnece contending the same to have been erroneously recorded merely on assumption, surmises and conjectures in a case where there was admittedly no medical evidence indicative of commissioning rape upon the injured victim. Further contention of the appellant is that the evidence was infested with several contradictions and full of improbabilities, upon visualization of which accused/appellant ought to have been favoured with benefit of doubt. According to appellant there could not be any straight jacket formula to believe the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix as a gospel truth even in absence of clinching medical evidence, supportive of rape.

3. The best possible witness like the younger brother of victim, who at the relevant point of time was present in the house of victim, when victim was called upon by accused to his house, but he could not be examined in order to unveil the prosecution story rendering the prosecution case to be highly suspicious.

4. Appellant thus sincearly persuaded us in course of hearing of this appeal to consider that a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused, and when the instant case was manufactured by the victim/prosecutrix after being tutored by her mother, simply to take forcible possessiion of rooms under occupation of appellant, the accused must be protected against possibility of false implication.

5. Upon advancing such submissions, the order of conviction was contended to be not sustainable.

6. Before addressing the points raised hereinabove, we thought it prudent to refer to the established facts percisely established during trial, discernable from the witnesses examined for addressing the issues most effectively.

7. Victim/Prosecutrix, a nine (9) year old girl, pursuing her study in a school, residing in a "basti" (slum) with her parents, was called by accused, a forty (40) year well built man, living in the self same locality, on 02.02.2013, at about 2.30- 3.00 P.M., after the victim had returned from her half day school on Saturday, to his house and since accused was previously known to victim, to whom victim would ordinarily address accused/appellant as "Jathamosai", the victim felt no hesitation to respond to the call of accused, and went to the house of accused/appellant most innocently.

8. The room of the house of accused/appellant was then closed, victim was forcibly made to lie down on the floor of his house after getting her undressed, and accused/appellant then committed rape on her by laying on her person. Victim tried to resist by shouting, but since accused/appellant pressed her mouth and threatened to kill her if she dared to disclose the same to anybody else, victim could not raise her voice at that time. After the incident victim returned home crying and reported the incident to her parents, after they returned home from their respective job.

9. The father of the victim works as a gardener in a hotel known as "Hyatt Regency". The father of victim has to leave the house in the morning, and return home in the evening by reason of his occupation. The mother of the victim also works as a day labourer, and she would go for her work at 6.00 A.M.