K.C. Puri, J.:- This appeal arises from the judgment/order dated 6.6.2007/11.6.2007 passed by Ms. Bimlesh Tanwar, Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby she convicted the accused under Section 376/511 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution story is epitomized as under;­

3. At the very outset, it is mentioned that the name of the prosecutrix is not being written, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court) Dr.Kiran, Principal Government Girls, College Hisar filed application Exhibit P A, in which she alleged that one girl of that college had come to the college to take admission form for B.A. IIlrd year. When she was returning back and reached about one acre away from gate No.2 of Guru Jambeshwar University, one person who was coming behind her dragged her to the bushes to forcibly commit rape on her. She raised an alarm. On hearing the noise, Hari Singh son of Banwari Lal, Jagdish son of Sukh Ram, Raju son of Subhash and Pritam son of Mohan Lal rushed to the spot and saw that one person was trying to rape the girl who, on seeing them, ran away from there after scaling over the wall of GJU. They chased him and the accused was apprehended by aforesaid persons. The prosecutrix told her that Pawan Kumar had made an attempt to rape her.

4. After the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the trial Court against the accused.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Kiarn. PW-2 Monika, PW-3 Daya Nand, PW-4 Raju Draftsman, PW-5 Pritam, PW -6 Amar Singh, PW-7 Rakesh Kumar, PW-8 ASI Ran Singh, PW-9 Constable Ram Mehar Singh, PW-10 Dr. B.S.Khatri and PW-11 Raju.

6. After the close of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication.

7. In his defence evidence, the accused has examined Shiv Lal, Cash-cum-Accounts Clerk as DW-1.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the manner of occurrence but has contended that even if the ,prosecution story is taken as correct, in that case, also, the ingredients of offence under Section 376/511 IPC are not made out. It is contended that the prosecutrix or any of the witnesses has not stated that the accused had undressed himself or that he has undressed the prosecutrix. The specific allegation by the prosecutrix is that she was laid down on the ground and the accused caught hold of her from her neck. It is further stated that the prosecutrix has not stated that the accused tried to commit rape upon her. It is contended that the offence of rape is complete only in case there is penetration of penis in the vagina of a female. So, when both the prosecutrix and the accused have not undressed themselves, so there was no question of committing attempt to rape. It is contended that at the most, the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out. Lastly, it is contended that the charge-sheet was also submitted under Section 354 IPC and not under Section 376/511 IPC. The authorities relied upon by the learned trial Court are distinguishable. In authority in case Ramkripal Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1995] : 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 391, actual rape has been committed. So, that authority is remotely connected to the facts of the present case. Authority in case Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1874 is also not helpful to the prosecution. It is contended that in para No.20 of the said authority also, it has been mentioned that the sine quo non of the offence of rape is penetration and not ejaculation. In that case, there was ejaculation and, on that count, the accused was convicted under Section 376/511 IPC. In the present case, there is no allegation of ejaculation of the accused, so