JUDGMENT Raghubar Dayal, J. - This is a revision by Kuawar Pal against his conviction u/s 370 I. P. C 2. Kanwar Pal was not named as an accused in the first information report. He was identified by Mst. Daropa the victim of the alleged rape, in jail. Phula P. W. 8 did not identify him in jail but accused him of committing the offence in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. His statement has been not relied upon by the Sessions Judge who heard the appeal against the conviction of the accused. Ram Singh and Mahabir did not depose against the accused in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. They made statements against the accused in the Court of the Committing Magistrate. Ram Singh stated in the trial Court that he did cot know what statement he made before the Committing Magistrate and that be had received two annas from the police, and as a result he stated in what he was asked to state. Mahabir does not say anything of the kind. He stated that he did not remember his statement before the Committing Magistrate but whatever statement he made there was a true statement. He also stated that the police gave him and another boy two annas each before the Sub Inspector recorded the statements of the boys. The statements of these two boys made before the committing Magistrate were put to them and are Exs. P. 8 and P. 9. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge did not rely on these two boys. The learned Sessions Judge accepted their statements before the Committing Magistrate to be true. The result is that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused relying on the statements of Mst. Daropa and Phula while the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction by relying on the statement of Mst. Daropa and the statement of Ram Singh and Mababir before the Committing Magistrate. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has challenged the conviction on two grounds. The first is that the girl's own statement is not treated as sufficient for recording a conviction in a case u/s 376 I. P. C. Reliance is placed on the case reported in Emperor v. Mahadeo Tatya, A I R 1942 Bom 121 In fact the rule of prudence laid down is considered to be a good rule by most of the Courts. The case, however, is distinguishable as in the present case it is not a mere statement of the girl that the accused had committed the offence but it is her identifying the accused in jail. The element of making a false statement does not come in. There is nothing on the record to indicate that she must have known or had an occasion to know the accused. Enmity between the family of the accused and the complainant's family was alleged. Even if the allegation be correct, it does not necessarily follow that the girl must have known the boys from before. It is significant that the accused did not state at the time of the identification proceedings that the girl or any other witness knew him. The second point urged is that the accused was not medically examined and, therefore, necessary corroboration as contemplated in the case reported in Ram Kala v. Emperor,1945 A W R (H C) 287 is not available. The accused was arrested after over two months of the commission of the incident. No such medical evidence could have been available. 4. The statement of Phulu has been rightly ignored by the learned Sessions Judge when he did not identify the accused in jal(sic). The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the statements of Ram Singh and Mahabir made before the Committing Magistrate. There is nothing on the record, to indicate that these two statements were taken on record by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge u/s 288 Cr. P. C. The statements, as already noted, were put to these witnesses but it was in the course of their cross examination by the public prosecutor. This mere fact therefore, would not justify the conclusion that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge thought it desirable to treat these statements as evidence u/s 288 Cr P. C. It is argued for the Crown that it was not necessary to record it clearly that the statements were being taken on record under S. 288 Cr. P. C. and that even if the trial Court did not act under that section the appellate Court could have acted u/s 288 Cr. P. C. and treated the statements in the Court of the Committing Magistrate as good evidence. P. C. and that even if the trial Court did not act under that section the appellate Court could have acted u/s 288 Cr. P. C. and treated the statements in the Court of the Committing Magistrate as good evidence. Without decidiog this question about the powers of the appellate Court to act u/s 288 Cr P. C it stands to reason that if the statements are to be so used hey must be treated as additional evidence and their such use should be after affording an opportunity to the parties to question the witnesses about those statements after knowing full well that those statements might be used as substantive evidence. I am, therefore, of opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was probably not right in relying on the Statements recorded before the Committing Magistrate by treating them as evidence u/s 288 Cr. P. C. I, however think that the statement of Mahabir in the Committing Magistrate's Court could be used as Mahabir had admitted in the Sessions Court that what he stated before the Committing Magistrate was a true statement. Such a statement means that he ultimately struck to that statement. It was not necessary for him to have repeated the whole statement again. 5. I am therefore, of opinion that there is no good reason to ignore the statement of Mst. Daropa in this particular case as she identified the accused and did not accuse him of the offence by name and which could have been possiole(sic) due to enmity. Her statement finds support from the statement of Mahabir in the Court of the Committing Magistrate and which statement Mahabir admitted to be true when cross-examined by the public prosecutor in the Sessions Court. It follows that the conviction of the applicant, is, therefore, correct. 6. The accused has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and ten stripes. The sentence is urged to be excessive in view of the applicant's age which is 14 years. The offence of rape is not to be lightly treated and I do not consider that the sentence requires any particular reduction Accordingly I reject this revision.