1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REV ISION APPLICATION NO. 39 OF 2010 Mohammad Mansoor Mohd Wakil Siddiqui aged 29 yrs., Occu. Fruit Vendor, R/o Ganjakhet Nagpur. Vs. State of Maharashtra, thr. P. s. O. Tahsil Police Station, Gandhibagh Nagpur. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S. Raisuddin Adv for applicant. Shri D. P. Thakre APP for respondent/State. CORAM: C.L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 21 st JUNE, 2010. Heard. This revision is preferred against the order passed by the Sessions Judge whereby he confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Magistrate while holding the present petitioner 2 guilty of offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits before me that the Courts below had fallen in error in relying on the sole testimony of the complainant. He submits that they should have in fact looked for corroboration and since corroboration was not available applicant was entitled to be acquitted. 3. It seems from the judgment delivered by the Courts below that the Courts below have considered the question as to whether sole testimony of the complainant should or should not be accepted. Courts below have found as a fact that testimony of the complainant was reliable and there was no need to look for any kind of corroboration. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show me as to why these observations as made by the Courts below were not correct. It seems from the judgment of the trial Court that the complainant had identified the accused on the basis of the photograph as well as in the Court. Since the complainant had identified the accused in the Court and was very sure about his implication, I do not think that the Courts below have committed any error in accepting the evidence of complainant. There may be certain inconsistencies but the Courts below have rightly ignored them. 4. Learned counsel for the accused then contended that the accused has already undergone sufficient term of sentence and therefore he may be released. I do not find any substance in the contention. 3 Offence of which the accused is convicted is one under Section 394 Indian Penal Code. In no case sentence of three years can be said to be disproportionate. There is, therefore, no substance in the revision. Same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 4 5 6