The appeal dismissed; slightest degree of penetration constitutes rape, affirming conviction despite absence of severe injuries.

1. Heard Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the accused - appellant and Mr. R. Datta, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State - respondent.

2. This is an appeal under S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) Khowai, West Tripura in connection with case No. Special POCSO 13 of 2016 against the present accused - appellant and thereby sentenced him to undergo RI for 1 (one) year for commission of offence under S.448 of the IPC and also RI for 10(ten) years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6(six) months for commission of offence under S.376(1) of the IPC and it was ordered that both the sentence shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 30.04.2015 in between 13/14 hours, the victim - girl was sleeping at her room when none of her parents or younger sister was present. At that time, the accused - person, the appellant herein, entered into that room of the victim - girl and requested her to switch on the TV. But, at that time, there was no electricity. However, the convict - appellant had tried to switch on the TV. Suddenly, the convict - appellant came very close to the victim - girl and gagged her mouth and raped her.

4. It is further stated that the victim - girl somehow managed to free herself from the clutch of the accused - person. She raised hue and cry and the accused - appellant fled away. The matter was informed to the neighbouring people. One of the persons, namely, Sri Sujit Das informed the matter to the police. Immediately, the police had rushed to the spot and inquired about the incident. The victim - girl was sent to the hospital for medical examination and she was medically examined. The victim - girl herself had lodged the complaint as aforestated.

5. On the basis of that complaint, the officer - in - charge of the police station had registered an FIR under S.448/376 of the IPC read with S.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012. Investigation was carried on. In course of investigation, the statements of the available witnesses were recorded. The statement of the victim was recorded under S.164(5) of Cr. P.C., the I.O. collected the vaginal swab from the doctor who examined the victim - girl. The sample was sent to the SFSL and it was scientifically examined.

6. After receipt of the scientific examination report, the doctor, who medically examined the victim - girl, had passed his final opinion. After completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted the charge sheet against the present accused - appellant. After receipt of the records, the learned Special Judge had framed the charge against the accused - person under S.448 of the IPC, under S.376(2) (i) of the IPC and also S.4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

7. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as 12 witnesses including the statement of the victim - girl (PW - 1), under S.164(5) of Cr.P.C. Exbt - 2,2/1, medical examination report of the victim - girl Exbt - 4, the final report Exbt - 5, the doctor (PW - 10), who medically examined the victim - girl and the scientific examiner, Dr. S. Nath (PW - 12), PW - 11, the WSI, S. B. Chanda and 9(nine) documentary evidences were introduced to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused - appellant. After closure of the evidence by the prosecution side, the accused - appellant was examined under S.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence found against him and pleaded his innocence.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for t