Short Note : This and the other two revisions are directed against the judgment in criminal appeal No. 98 of 1976, dated 19-10-1976, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, had maintained the conviction of the applicants Jagdish, Bhupendra Kumar and Dilipsingh for offences under sections 377 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences of one year's R.I. and three months' R.I. respectively awarded thereunder. Held : When according to Prahladsingh such a heinous offence was committed by these two accused one after the other while he was lying in a helpless condition, then if the offence was complete as required by law then some marks of injury on his private parts must have been present when he was medically examined by the doctor to whom he was admittedly referred to by the investigating Officer. This is not a case where Prahladsingh was not medically examined. On the contrary he was examined and the medical examination report was filed along with the police report when the accused were prosecuted. For reasons best known to the prosecution either the doctor was examined as a witness nor the medical examination report was tendered in evidence. When such an unnatural offence was committed not by one accused but by two accused persons, then certainly in the ordinary course Prahladsingh must have felt pain and received some injuries also on his private parts. If the doctor had been examined, he could show whether there were any injury marks present on the private pads of Prahladsingh to indicate the commission of such an offence by two accused one after the other. Since the medical evidence has not been given and on the contrary it has been withheld the only inference that can be drawn is that such an offence was not committed. No other inference is possible. 2. I would have referred to the medical examination report of Prahladsingh which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant but as it is not a part of the prosecution evidence in this case I need not refer to it with regard to the findings of the doctor. Learned counsel for the State however, contended that the medical examination of Prahladsingh did not support the prosecution case and for that reason the medical report was not tendered in evidence. Learned counsel for the State however, contended that the medical examination of Prahladsingh did not support the prosecution case and for that reason the medical report was not tendered in evidence. May it be so but all that I can say is that in this case material evidence, which could throw light either on the complicity of the accused or, their innocence has been purposely withheld from being placed before the Court and the only inference that could be drawn is that if that evidence had been given it would have instead of corroborating the statement of Prahladsingh contradicted it. 3. In view of the fact that the prosecution story has been found to be unreliable in respect of the main charge under section 377 IPC, the conviction of the applicants for the offence under section 342 would also be not be justified. Revisions allowed.