ORDER This criminal revision is directed against the judgment dated July 31, 1984 of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan and Sirmur Districts at Nahan whereby he maintained the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan under Ss. 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused-petitioner Charanjit Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of R. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW. 2 Ramesh Chand was employed by Filter R. P. Engineering Company at Delhi and it was during the course of that employment that he was deputed to accompany truck No. PUP 9667 carrying goods of the Company from Delhi to Parwanu on November 5, 1981. The accused was the driver of that truck and Trilok Chand was its cleaner. This truck was owned by the brother of Gopal Singh. Gopal Singh also travelled in the truck during the aforesaid journey. 3. The occupants of the truck took their meals at Murthal. After sometime, P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand felt sleepy and was asked by the accused to go and sleep in the tool box where the cleaner was also lying down. Ramesh Chand did accordingly. The truck reached Pipli town at about 2 a.m. on November 6, 1981. It appears that Gopal Singh and the driver (accused) had also become sleepy by that time. Gopal Singh went to some place nearby to sleep whereas the accused came to the tool box and replaced the cleaner. The cleaner was sent away. After sometime, the accused started making indecent overtures to Ramesh Chand. He kissed Ramesh Chand and put his hand on the thigh. Ramesh Chand objected but the accused threatened him with his Kirpan Ex. P-1 and had carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature. Both of them kept lying together till 6 or 7 A.M. at which time the accused wanted to satisfy his lust once again but was successfully refrained from doing so by Ramesh Chand. The truck reached Parwanu at about 11.30 A.M. on November 6, 1981. P-1 and had carnal intercourse with him against the order of nature. Both of them kept lying together till 6 or 7 A.M. at which time the accused wanted to satisfy his lust once again but was successfully refrained from doing so by Ramesh Chand. The truck reached Parwanu at about 11.30 A.M. on November 6, 1981. It was at that time that P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand mentioned about the incident to his friends P. W. 4 Kamal Kumar and P. W. 6 Bhim Dutt. P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand then lodged the report Ex. P-A at Police Station, Parwanu at 12.30 P.M. on the same date. 4. The accused, in his statement recorded under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, admitted that P. W. Ramesh Chand had travelled in truck No. PUP 9667 driven by him from Delhi to Parwanu on November 5, 1981 but denied having committed sodomy on him. According to him, the witnesses had deposed falsely under pressure of police. 5. The first ground on which Mr. A. K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the conviction of the accused is that the learned trial Court lacked jurisdiction to try the case as the offence had been admittedly committed and completed at Pipli in Haryana. Both the Courts below have invoked the provisions of S. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to repel the above contention and, in my opinion, rightly so. S. 183 ibid reads: "Offence committed on journey or voyage.- When an offence is committed whilst the person by or against whom, or the thing in respect of which, the offence is committed is in the course of performing a journey or voyage, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court through or into whose local jurisdiction that person or thing passed in the course of that journey or voyage." The argument of Mr. Goel is that, firstly, the journey had terminated at Pipli, and, therefore, it could not be said that the offence had been committed "in the course of performing a journey or voyage", and, secondly, the journey had in any case terminated at Parwanu with the result that the person by or against whom the offence had been committed did not pass through or into the local, jurisdiction of the trial Court at Solan. Undisputedly, the journey had commenced on November 5, 1981 from Delhi and the destination was Parwanu. The truck halted for sometime at Murthal where the occupants took their meals. It halted once again at Pipli apparently because the driver felt sleepy. It remained there for about 4 hours after which the journey was resumed for Parwanu where the truck reached at about 11.30 a.m. on the same day. Plainly, the two halts were made during the course of performing the journey in question and are, therefore, a part of that journey. In this view of the matter, there is no substance whatsoever in the first contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner that the journey had terminated at Pipli and departure from Pipli for Parwanu constituted a new journey so as not to attract the provisions of S. 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am also not prepared to go with the second leg of the argument put forward by Mr. Goel that the trial Court did not have any jurisdiction because the journey terminated at Parwanu and did not pass through it. Such an interpretation would tantamount to stretching the ordinary meanings of the word "pass" beyond the sense in which it is commonly understood. It will be totally erroneous to hold that the accused as well as the complainant did not pass through or into an area over which the jurisdiction of the trial Court extended merely because the journey terminated at Parwanu. In fact, the legislature has carefully employed the words "through or into" and its intendment is abundantly clear that the Court having local jurisdiction at the place of termination of journey will also be competent to try the accused for an offence committed in the course of performing the said journey. Moreover, the object of S. 183 is to overcome the difficulties which are likely to be encountered in case it is insisted that the trial of an offence committed during the course of performing a journey should be held at the place where the offence is actually committed. The section, therefore, embodies a sort of legal fiction by which the offence is deemed to have been committed within the local limits of certain Courts other than where the offence has been actually committed. The section, therefore, embodies a sort of legal fiction by which the offence is deemed to have been committed within the local limits of certain Courts other than where the offence has been actually committed. Accumulatively, therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that there is no force in the above argument pressed on behalf of the accused-petitioner. 6. It has then been urged by Mr. A. K. Goel that the charge framed against the accused is defective and it has caused serious prejudice to him resulting in failure of justice. He has drawn my attention to the charge framed on the first count under S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code wherein it has been specifically stated that the offence was committed at Pipli. If so, the accused was not informed as to how the trial Court at Solan assumed the jurisdiction. Pipli is situate in Haryana and, according to the provisions of S. 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence was ordinarily to be enquired into and tried by the Court having jurisdiction in Pipli. The above argument is also without any force. I am not aware of any provision of criminal law under which the trial Magistrate was required to incorporate in the charge-sheet the basis of assuming jurisdiction in the circumstances of the present case nor Mr. Goel has been able to point out the same to me. It was sufficient for the trial Court to have indicated in the charge-sheet that the offence in question was within the cognisance of the said Court. In any case, no failure of justice has been caused thereby. This contention, therefore, also fails. 7. Coming to the merits of the case, Mr. Goel has contended that the accused has been convicted on the solitary statement of P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand. The failure of P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand to disclose the incident to his co-passengers in the truck during the entire journey from Pipli to Parwanu, according to the learned counsel, also renders his testimony unworthy of credence. Above all, he could easily report the matter to the police at the barriers in-between Pipli and Parwanu but this was also not done. It has then been urged that Gopal Singh and Trilok Chand, cleaner joined the accused and the complainant in the truck before the onward journey commented from Pipli. Above all, he could easily report the matter to the police at the barriers in-between Pipli and Parwanu but this was also not done. It has then been urged that Gopal Singh and Trilok Chand, cleaner joined the accused and the complainant in the truck before the onward journey commented from Pipli. Therefore, in the ordinary course of things, both of them must have learnt about the incident and an adverse presumption must be drawn against the prosecution for having not examined them. The impugned judgment has been attacked for not having attached due weightage to the above factors. 8. I have gone through the testimony of P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand. He has been believed as truthful witness by the learned trial Magistrate who had the advantage of seeing his demeanour. This finding has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge. There appears to be not a single cogent reason for arriving at a different conclusion. This is because the testimony of Ramesh Chand is free from any blemish or infirmity. There is a ring of truth around his statement and he has come out totally unscathed from the test of cross-examination. And then, there is no reason why he should try to falsely implicate the accused whom he met for the first time and with whom he had no enmity. The testimony of Ramesh Chand is, moreover, fully corroborated by the medical evidence by PW. 1 Dr. R. N. Mahanta. He medically examined Ramesh Chand on the day of occurrence itself, that is, November 6, 1981 and has proved the medico-legal report which is at Ex.PW 1/A. He found injuries on the person of Ramesh Chand and opined vide his report Ex.PW 1/B that Ramesh Chand had been subjected to sodomy. Dr. Mahanta also examined the accused and opined vide his report Ex.PW 1/C that he was capable of performing sexual act. 9. The promptitude with which the F.I.R., was lodged in this case eliminates the chances of any falsehood having crept in the prosecution story. The incident, as stated above, took place at about 2 A.M. on November 6, 1981, the truck reached Parwanu at about 11.30 on the same day and the F.I.R. was lodged one hour thereafter. There is no discrepancy between the information recorded therein and the testimony of P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand. The incident, as stated above, took place at about 2 A.M. on November 6, 1981, the truck reached Parwanu at about 11.30 on the same day and the F.I.R. was lodged one hour thereafter. There is no discrepancy between the information recorded therein and the testimony of P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand. It has also to be borne in mind that a victim of such an offence would not ordinarily resort to falsehood. He has been brave indeed to brush aside the social stigma and expose the culprit before the society. 10. P. W. 2 Ramesh Chand has deposed that he was afraid to disclose the incident to Gopal Singh and Trilok Chand. I think he was justified in doing so because there was not much that could be expected out of them. Perhaps, that is the reason why the prosecution ultimately had to give them up. Merely because he did not report to the police at various police barriers situate in-between Pipli and Parwanu would not weaken the prosecution case as the time taken for covering this journey was about 4 to 5 hours during which a person placed in his predicament is apt to keep the things to himself. Furthermore, he was merely a passenger in the truck driven by the accused. It was, therefore, quite natural for him to wait till he reached Parwanu. 11. The last argument of Mr. A. K. Goel is that the charge-sheet has not been correctly framed with respect to the offence under S. 506 I.P.C. inasmuch as the place of occurrence has been indicated as Parwanu instead of Pipli. No doubt, the very prosecution case is that Ramesh Chand was threatened and intimidated with the Kirpan Ex.P.-1 at Pipli. I am, however, not satisfied that this error has in any manner prejudiced the accused or resulted in failure of justice. The accused was fully aware of the true import of the prosecution against him pertaining to the offence under this section. On merits, there is no reason to disbelive the testimony of Ramesh Chand on this point as well. 12. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in this revision which is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.