1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.REVISION NO.200 OF 2008 (SURAJ URKUDA SHENDE Vs STATE OF MAH.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.V.Muley, Advocate for Applicant. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2008. 1. This revision is directed against the appellate order of learned Sessions Judge, Bhandara, whereby the learned Sessions Judge modified the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge at the conclusion of Sessions Trial No.58/1999. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting him of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge modified the order to read as under: “The accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w Sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code. ” 2 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that when the applicant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code and when there was no appeal against the acquittal, the learned Sessions Judge could not have convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code. It is unfortunate that such a statement is made at the bar. 3. The Sessions Judge had merely corrected the manner in which the conviction ought to have been expressed by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge had pointed out and rightly so that Section 511 of the Penal Code pertains to an attempt in respect of any offence and therefore, unless such attempt is in respect of any particular offence the conviction in the operative order would not be complete. The Sessions Judge had not convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376, as was tried to be urged. He had convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Penal Code only. Thus, what had been modified is mere manner of 3 expression of the operative part and that there was no reversal of acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Penal Code, since both the Courts had concurrently held that the intercourse was not complete. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the record of the case should be called to enable him to demonstrate that the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses was not trustworthy. 5. Without seeing the evidence if the applicant had chosen to file revision petition, it itself depicts that petition was filed without even ascertaining for himself whether there was anything wrong in the judgments of the Courts below. The judgments themselves are well reasoned and the learned counsel could not show as to why the prosecutrix should have chosen the applicant for making allegations that he tried to commit rape upon her. The contention that the prosecutrix could have raised some cries when she was confined by the applicant for a day, need not be specifically dealt with since the 4 prosecutrix had stated that she had been threatened with death, as can be seen from the discussion of evidence by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court. In fact, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has duly discussed the possibility for the prosecutrix to run away in his judgment. Therefore, it is clear that all aspects of the matter have been considered by the learned Sessions Judge, including absence of injuries on the victim, which are explained because the penetration was not complete. The victim was just 11 years old at that time. There is no motive for false incrimination. Therefore, the view taken by both the Courts below cannot be faulted and at least does not warrant any reappraisal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE RR.