( 1 ) THIS a revision petition filet by the three petitioners who were the original accused Nos. 1 2 and 3 respectively in a Criminal Case Nor 686 of 1966 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Rajkot. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 were convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 377 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused No. 2 i. e. the petitioner No. 2 was convicted for attempting to commit that offence by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Rajkot Shri Rajni M. S. Patel.

( 2 ) THE petitioner No. 1 was sentenced to suffer 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/and in default of payment of fine to suffer 6 months simple imprisonment The petitioner No. 3 was sentenced to suffer one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 400/and in default of payment of fine to suffer 4 months simple imprisonment. The petitioner No. 2 is sentenced to suffer 9 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/and in default of payment of fine of suffer 3 months simple imprisonment. Being dissatisfied with that order of conviction and sentence the three petitioners had filed a Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1967 in the Court of Sessions Judge Rajkot.

( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge Rajkot Shri M. C. Trivedi has maintained the order of conviction passed against the present petitioners. He has found that the petitioner No. 2 has committed an offence punishable under sec. 377 read with sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment inflicted on each of these petitioners has been confirmed by him. The sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine passed against each of these petitioners are set aside. Against that order the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners from the jail.

( 4 ) AS an interesting question arose in this revision petition and the petitioners were not represented by an Advocate Shri H. M. Mehta was appointed as Amicus Curiae.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate Shri Mehta urged that the order of conviction passed against each of these petitioners cannot be sustained in law as there is only uncorroborated testimony of Babulal Vithaldas Ex. 23 the victim of the offence. Even if the conviction is passed on such uncorroborated testimony of the victim of the offence conviction cannot be said to be illegal. As a rule of prudence corroboration may be sought. In the instant case there was corroboration to the evidence of Babulal by his conduct. On being questioned as to why he was weeping he reported about the incident to one Shambhumal who in his turn took this boy Babulal to one Dharamsi and thereafter they approached the Police Station and the complaint came to be recorded. Further corroboration was from the medical evidence. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as the learned Sessions Judge have found that there was sufficient corroboration and further found that the evidence of this boy Babulal against whom no reason was shown to indicate that he was in any way interested in falsely implicating these petitioners is true evidence and deserves credence. It cannot therefore be said that the order of conviction could not have been passed in law. G.

( 6 ) AN important and interesting question that arises in this Revision Petition is whether the petitioner No. 2 Mansukhlal could have been convicted of the offence under sec. 377 read with sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code on account of his act of putting his male organ in the mouth of Babulal Vithaldas if that Act was done by him voluntarily. It was contended by the learned Advocate Shri Mehta for the petitioners that no offence under sec. 377 of the Indian Penal Code could be said to have been established on account of such an act as it could not be said that there was any penetration and if there is no penetration there would not be any carnal intercourse. Just like a kiss it being only done to stimulate a desire to have a carnal intercourse S