The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborative evidence, medical examination, and the presence of semen and sperm as corroborative evidence in cases of unnatural intercourse under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. By this criminal revision petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 25/1/2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr. A. No. 392/1999 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8/10/99 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in criminal case No. 513/96 whereby and where under learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur after holding the petitioner guilty for the commission of unnatural offence convicted the petitioner under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 2 years & 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

2. The conviction is impugned on the ground that without any legal and clinching evidence Court below have convicted and sentenced the petitioner and thereby committed illegality.

3. Brief case of the prosecution is that victim PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi, was a student of B.A.M.S, 1st year, he was junior student. Petitioner was also a student of B.A. M.S. 3rd year. He was senior student. Victim was residing in a, Ayurvadic Hostel Raipur in Room No. 32. On 11/4/95 at about 2.45 p.m. victim PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi was present in his room No. 32 at Hostel, petitioner came to his room and after closing the door he committed unnatural intercourse on the anus of the victim, again he took the victim in room No. 16 where he again committed unnatural intercourse on the anus of the victim. On 11/4/95 victim lodged the written complaint to the Police Station vide Ex. P-2, First Information Report was lodged vide Ex. P-6 and P- 3. Victim also made complaint to his Principal and Principal issued Show-cause-notice vide Ex. P-4. He was examined by PW9 Dr. Kamal Kumar Gajbhiye, vide Ex. P-7. No visible injury was found on the body of victim. Petitioner was also examined by PWll Dr. R.K. Pandey vide Ex. P-13 no injury was found. His underwear was seized and sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P-12. Presence of sperms and semen was confirmed on the underwear of the petitioner vide Ex. P-13. Offence was investigated, and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur who after affording an opportunity of hearing convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforementioned. Conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner in appeal same was dismissed vide judgment impugned.

4. Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/non-applicant are heard.

5. Judgment impugned arid record of the Court below perused.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently arbrued that learned trial Court has not considered the fact that no injury was found over the body of the petitioner or victim which are suggestive of the fact that no offence has been committed. There was dispute between students relating to the leadership and on account of his meritorious position petitioner was claimant for President of the Union and only with a view to denial his claim he has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi is full of contradiction and omission and is unnatural.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Birkha Vs. State of M.P. in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that allegation under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is easy to make but to refute it is very difficult, therefore, unless there is some corroboration of the evidence of the complainant, there should be no conviction under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance in the matter of Nand Kishore Vs. State of Mp'2 in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that in case of conviction under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code it is a rule of prudence that the conviction should not be based merelym the uncorroborated testimony of the subject of the offence whether girl or boy.