ORDER Navkar, J.,- 1. This is a revision against an order of conviction recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, convicting the petitioner under section 342 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to six months and three years' rigorous imprisonment respectively in Criminal Case No. 299 of 1975 through judgment dated 14-6-1977 which is confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1971 through the judgment dated 30-9-1971. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner and co-accused Banne Khan were tried under sections 342 and 377 IPC on the allegation that they wrongfully confined complainant Prahladsingh and committed unnatural offence with him. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11-6-1975, complainant Prahladsingh had come to see a 'Jalsa' with his friend Jagannath. After the 'Jalsa' was over, petitioner asked the complainant to help him in starting his tempo. The complainant refused to accompany the petitioner. Thereupon, it is allged that the petitioner slapped him and took him to a place behind Nagar Palika Park. At that time, Jagannath came there, but he was slapped by the petitioner. Then the petitioner called the co• accused Banne Khan and both of them took the complainant to a pond near the roadside. The accused persons asked the complainant to bring Rs. 1,000/-. He was slapped and was threatened on the on the point of knife. Then both the accused persons took him behind the High School building. It is alleged that there, first accused Banne Khan and then the petitioner committed unnatural offence on him. It is further alleged that the accused persons released the complainant in the morning. 3. The defence of the petitioner was that he has been falsely implicated on account of professional jealousy. According to the petitioner, the complainant's elder brother is a tempo driver and the petitioner is also a tempo driver. 4. On behalf of prosecution Prahlad (PW 1), Jagannath (PW 2), Dwarka Prassad (PW 3), Sureschandra (PW 4), Dr. A. K. Chaturvedi (PW 5) and Dr. S. P. Jain (PW 6) were examined, It was admitted by Prahlad (PW 1) in para 1 of his statement that he does not know the accused persons at all. Eve n though the prosecution knew that the complainant was not knowing the accused persons, no identification parade was held. A. K. Chaturvedi (PW 5) and Dr. S. P. Jain (PW 6) were examined, It was admitted by Prahlad (PW 1) in para 1 of his statement that he does not know the accused persons at all. Eve n though the prosecution knew that the complainant was not knowing the accused persons, no identification parade was held. Why it was not held, there is no explanation by the prosecution. But, in my opinion, that has no material bearing on t he case itself. It bas come in evidence that the accused persons dragged the complainant nearly for half a mile and there were other buildings nearby. But, he did not do anything Neither he asked for any help by crying aloud. This fact throws much light on the story put forward by the complainant. Even when the accused persons were committing unnatural offence on him, he did not raise hue and cry. Apart from this, I will have to examine whether the story put forward by the prosecution is proved by evidence or not. I may refer here to Nandkishore v. State of M. P. 1970 JLJ SN 153. In which it was held as under:- "In cases arising under S. 357 IPC, it is a rule of prudence that the conviction should not be based merely on the uncorroborated testimony of the subject of the offence whether girl or boy. It is no doubt true that in exceptional cases the rule may not apply and the statement of the boy or girl, who is the victim of the offence, may be so reliable that corroboration may not be needed for convicting the accused. But this Court is of opinion that the instant case is not an exceptional one and, it would be unsafe, having regard to the facts of the case, to convict the accused solely on the statement of Bisram who is the subject of the offence. Bisram who was (he student of the appellant did not mention to anybody the actual commission of the offence by the accused and did not report the matter to the Principal or his parents. These facts coupled with the absence of any medical evidence to support the prosecution, call for corroboration which is entirely absent." In that judgment Emperor v. Sain Das AIR 1926 Lahore 375, is relied on. These facts coupled with the absence of any medical evidence to support the prosecution, call for corroboration which is entirely absent." In that judgment Emperor v. Sain Das AIR 1926 Lahore 375, is relied on. In above Lahore case, it was held that to make allegation under section 377, IPC is very easy, 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, IPC. 5. I may here refer to the evidence given by Dr. S. P. Jain (PW 6), In para 2 of his examination-in-Chief, he has stated 1 hat he has examined Birkha son of Chhitariya. He was wearing an underwear of pink colour. On that underwear, there were no stains of blood neither of semen. On his private part also, there was not blood found. Neither there were marks of semen, nor there was any injury. He found segma on his private parts. Birkha was examined on 13-6-1975 and the certificate given by the Doctor is Ex. P.-13. He has opined that at the time of examination, there was no positive evidence, of unnatural sexual offence, Excepting the medical evidence there is no other corroborative evidence produced in the fib. As there is no corroborative evidence, I am not in a position to hold that the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Dr. S. C. Jain (PW 6) has given his opinion in para 8 of his statement and he has said that there is no definite evidence to come to a conclusion that unnatural offence was committed Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution and as there is no corroborative evidence, I am not prepared to believe the statement of the complainant alone. When I am disbelieving the complainant for holding the appellant guilty under section 377, IPC, I am not also willing to accept his statement for coming to a conclusion that the complainant was restrained by the accused by showing a knife to him, Therefore, the offence under section 342, IPC also cannot be held to have been proved. 6. The result is that the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and Banne Khan are set aside. Appellant is already on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. 6. The result is that the revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and Banne Khan are set aside. Appellant is already on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged. As to Banne Khan, it came to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that the lower appellate Court had directed the release of Bannekhan by applying the provisions of section 360, Cr. P. C., 1973 on his executing a bond for Rs. 3,000/- with one surety in the like amount for keeping good behaviour for three years. It is apparent that the conviction of Banne Khan for the offences punishable under section 377 and 342, IPC has been upheld. But, this Court has said that the offence under section 377, IPC is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and fine, the order directing the release of Banne Khan on his entering into a bond for good behaviour by taking resort to the provisions of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act a'1d section 360 of the Cr, P. C, 1973 is apparently without jurisdiction and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this Court directed by invoking powers of this Court under sub-section (5) of section 360 and section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that Banne Khan be noticed to show cause as to why the order made by the lower appellate Court directing his release in accordance with the provisions of section 360 (1), Cr, P. C., 1973 be not set aside and sentence be passed according to law. This notice was served on him and Banne Khan was represented by Shri Rajiv Gupta, He argued the same points which he argued for acquittal of the appellant. Therefore, the case of Banne Khan shall also stand decided by this judgment.