K.U.CHANDIWAL

1. Heard extensively.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

3. The revision applicant was convicted in RCC No.70/1997, for offense under Section 377 of I.P.C., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/; in default, simple imprisonment for one month; for offense under Section 323 of I.P.C., to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/; in default, simple imprisonment for one week; for offense under Section 506 of I.P.C., to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/; in default, simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentence was directed to run concurrently.

4. In Criminal Appeal No.6/2006, the revision applicant failed and hence the present Criminal Revision questioning the conviction. Fine amount has been deposited and an amount of Rs.3,000/was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation.

5. The victim, a boy of 10 / 11 years, on 1.4.1997, along with his friends, entered agricultural field of revision applicant to pluck unripe mangoes. On noticing the victim climbing on the tree, the