JUDGMENT 1. This rule must, in our opinion, be made absolute. We entertain no doubt, notwithstanding the argument to the contrary which has been addressed to us on behalf of the Crown, as to our authority, in the exercise of our powers of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure, to deal with the order of the Sessions Judge directing the commitment of the Petitioner, and having heard the case fully discussed on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, setting aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate was an order which ought not to have been made. We may say that the only evidence upon the record of the actual commission of the offence in respect of which the Petitioner has been committed is the evidence of the woman herself who is the prosecutrix. She however has made several divergent statements in reference to the circumstance under which, as she alleges, the outrage was committed upon her. To our minds those statements are utterly irreconcilable. Her first statement before the Police was contradicted by her when her first deposition was taken by the Magistrate. She then asserted that the Petitioner who is a youth of 17 or 18 years of age, alone and without assistance broke into her house forcibly and committed upon her the offence of rape. That story is in itself and on the face of it improbable and having regard to the position occupied in society by the Petitioner, becomes more improbable still. That a gentleman of high position in the neighbourhood, as the Petitioner is, should have descended to the commission of such an offence with a woman of the lowest caste and of hardly reputable character, we find it difficult to believe. But apart from these considerations the story which the woman told when giving her evidence on the enquiry before the Magistrate is quite irreconcilable with what she stated on her first examination. She first asserted as we have mentioned that the Petitioner came alone to her house and perpetrated the offence, but on her subsequent examination she stated (as she stated also to the Police) that the Petitioner with the assistance of some 20 or 25 men broke into her house and there, in the presence of those persons and in broad daylight committed the offence. It is not a case in which, we think, having regard to the fact that the only evidence of the commission of the offence against the Petitioner is that of the woman and such being the character of her evidence, that the Petitioner should be further harassed by a commitment to the Court of Session, and it is to be observed that the offence which the learned Judge appears to have considered the evidence against the Petitioner might establish, is different from that for which he has directed his commitment. We think that the Deputy Magistrate gave the case as a whole a fair and impartial consideration and dealt with it in a sound and judicial spirit and that the reasons which the learned Sessions Judge has assigned for setting aside his order are not satisfactory. Under these circumstances we think that the rule must be made absolute and the order directing the accused to be committed for trial to the Court of Session must be set aside.