Cr. Rev. No.465/2007 19.09.2011 I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. By the impugned order, the trial Court has found, on the basis of evidence of the victim and her husband recorded by it, that a prima facie case under Section 376(1) of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is also made out, and has accordingly framed additional charges. The trial Court has also, by the same order allowed the request of the accused of further cross- examine the victim and her husband. The record shows that the victim was examined on oath before the trial court and she stated that she had been raped. A detailed cross-examination was conducted by the accused side in which the accused could not elicit much. Similarly, the husband of the victim also testified in his statement on oath before the trial Court about the rape. He was also cross-examined at length by the accused but nothing could be brought out to doubt the witness. If the trial Court has come to a prima facie conclusion on the basis of this evidence, which could not be demolished in the cross-examination, that a case under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is also made out and has accordingly framed an additional charges, the revisional Court cannot interfere because there is no illegality and the scope of revision cannot be enlarged to the level of appeal. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the trial Court forthwith. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice snb/-/AK