of the fact that it was dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has set aside the judgment of the trial court and has convicted the appellant herein under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court has given a positive finding that the statement of P.W.2, the prosecutrix and her mother, P.W.3, clearly spelt out a case of rape and that as she was merely a child of 10 to 12 years of age as per the medical evidence, there was no reason whatsoever as to why she would tell a lie. The High Court has also observed that the trial court appeared to have misread the evidence of the doctor inasmuch that the evidence read as a whole clearly revealed that there had been partial penetration of the vagina of the prosecutrix.
2.Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, the learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that in the light of the fact that from the medical examination of the prosecutrix on the 30th January, 1994, it was not clear as to the commission of rape and that the statement of doctor, P.W.1, was equally ambivalent, no case was made out. We, are, however, not inclined to accept this submission for the reason that medical report speaks of the fact that the hymen had been torn and there was a laceration on the posterior vaginal wall. Likewise, the doctor appearing as P.W. 1 stated that the possibility that the injuries had been caused to the hymen and the vaginal wall though partial penetration could not be ruled out. We find that the evidence of the doctor, P.W. 1 corroborates the fact that rape had indeed been committed. As a matter of fact, P.W. 2 who was barely a child herself stated that there had been only partial penetration of the vagina. In the light of the facts, we see no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3.
3.Furthermore, in a similar matter in Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1989 SC 702, this Court has opined that merely because the doctor has found that the vagina admitted one finger with difficulty, it could not be inferred that there was no penetration as the vaginal muscles could have contracted by then. This Court (in the same judgment) also held that mere absence of spermatozoa could not cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case.
4.Faced with this situation, Mr. Jadhav, has submitted that the incident had happened way back in 1984 when the accused was a young man and as of now he was a married family person and some mitigation in the sentence was thus called for. We find no merit in this submission as well. Section 376 of the IPC provides that the minimum sentence for rape of child below 12 years of age is 10 years though in exceptional cases a lesser sentence can be awarded. The High Court has already awarded that lesser sentence. We are thus disinclined to interfere in the matter.
5.The appeal is dismissed.