arrive at a conclusive finding that there was penetration however slight. By this time all was normal with the victim girl. The court has a duty to look at all the circumstances of the case to arrive at a conclusion that there was penetration. It should not rely only on the medical report. The second ground of appeal appears to me to be of little or no basis because the evidence of PW 2 which is in issue cannot be said to be fit to be doubted. After all, since Appellant was represented, his counsel had the opportunity to request the court that he cross-examines PW2 why it took her over 2 years to report the matter to police. It would not be fair to ignore her evidence when counsel for the Appellant failed himself to seek clarification. It makes sense to me that she may have found opportunity to report the crime after the Appellant as perpetrator was dismissed from being a teacher on the reason that she committed similar offences with other girls. Victims and parents may not reveal the crime for many other different reasons. The victim's parent's recorded admission of the Appellant of his sexual assault on the child victim is also independent corroborating evidence. The recording was listened to in court. The victim reported to her mother that she felt pain in her private parts and that she had difficulties to urinate. This is evidence of penetration corroborated by the confession in the caution statement and the recording. In accordance with section 176 (3) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code, I find the prosecution evidence to be materially true. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive, rather, I would go for enhancement of the same but I have refrained myself from enhancing it due to the advanced age of the Appellant. In the circumstances, the appeal fails in its entirety. 3