JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh dated 8-11-1985, by the complainant Prabhulal, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused Uttamchand of the offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are: that on 612-1982, the complainant Prabhulal filed a complaint in the Court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan that on 5-2-1982 the prosecutrix Mst. Premi wife of Tulsiram and daughter-in law of complainant, Prabhulal went to her field to to collect cow dung. While she was picking cow-dung, it is alleged that accused Uttamchand who is neighbour of his field caught hold of her forcibly and committed rape with her. The occurrence was witnessed by her brother-in-law Ratanlal, who called Mst. Kamli. At that time, Mst. Kamli was working in the field nearby. It is alleged that as soon as Mst Kamli came there, the accused ran-away from the place of the occurrence Mst. Premi Mst. Kamli and Ratanlal then started looking after the crop standing in their field because in those days, the parrots used to damage the crop and therefore, they prayed there to score away the parrots from the standing crop. In the evening, when they came to their house, they informed about it to Prabhulal's wife. How ever though the police station is situated in the town of Kapasan, no complaint was made to the police about this incident on that day. It is alleged that on the next day, they went to the Police Station and found accused Uttam Chand sitting there and so, they filed the complaint in the Court. 3. The medical examination of Mst. Premi regarding age disclosed that her age was 15 to 17 years at the time of this occurrence. On her medical examination, it was found that there were no marks of recent intercourse. No injury was found on her body. The Doctor found no stains on her clothes. On 13 2-1982, she was examined for the presence of certain injuries and it was found that she had two injuries. Both these injuries were simple in nature and they were opined to be 7-8 days old. 4. No injury was found on her body. The Doctor found no stains on her clothes. On 13 2-1982, she was examined for the presence of certain injuries and it was found that she had two injuries. Both these injuries were simple in nature and they were opined to be 7-8 days old. 4. After usual investigation, the case was challaned in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kapasan from where, it was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh. The trial was conducted by the learned Sessions Judge. Pratapgarh but ultimately, this case to be decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh vide his aforesaid judgment. 5. I have heard Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner and Mr. N.N. Mathur. the learned Counsel appearing for accused petitioner No 1. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant has contended that it has not been his intention to argue before this Court that this acquittal may be converted into a conviction. He has, how ever, submitted that is a case in which the evidence of PW 2 Ratanlal has wrongly been discarded on the ground that oath has not been administered to him by the Court. Mr. Maheshwari submitted that if statement PW 2 Ratanlal is believed, a case under Section 354 Indian Penal Code can be held to have been established against the accused. He has further submitted that the occurrence took place on 5-2-1982 and a complaint about this incident was lodged in the Court on 6-2-1982. The accused how ever, ran away to Udaipur and got himself medically examined on 5 2-1982. According to Mr. Maheshwari, if the accused was not involved in the incident , then there was no necessity for him to rush to Udaipur and to get himself medically examined for rape and to obtain a medical certificate from the Medical Jurist. Thus, it is clear that he was definitely involved in the case but that aspect of the matter has not been properly dealt with by the learned lower court. He has, therefore, submitted that this case should be remanded back to the learned lower court for deciding it afresh on merits. 7. Mr. Thus, it is clear that he was definitely involved in the case but that aspect of the matter has not been properly dealt with by the learned lower court. He has, therefore, submitted that this case should be remanded back to the learned lower court for deciding it afresh on merits. 7. Mr. N.N. Mathur, the learned Counsel appearing for non-petitioner No. 1 has submitted that when acquittal has been recorded in favour of accused non-petitioner No. 1, usually a revision for converting acquittal into conviction should not be entertained by this Court on behalf of a private party. 8. The sum and substance of the argument of Mr. Maheshwari is that the accused-non-petitioner No. 1 should not have been acquitted at least of the offence under Section 354 Indian Penal Code even if it was held that no offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code is made out against him but that too is not the scope of revision. The facts and circumstances of this case clearly depict that this case has been falsely foisted against the accused-non-petitioner No. 1 on account of some old enmity. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt and the accused cannot be asked to undergo trial merely on the basis of any lurking suspicion in the mind of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is strange to note that inspite of the fact that such a serious offence has been committed with the lady, the lady did not go to her house and complain about it to her inlaws. Even if her husband was out, she would have gone to her house and reported the matter to her mother-in-law. It is further strange to note that the police station is situated in the town of Kapasan and still, no report was made to the police on the same day. It is alleged that Mst. Premi started working in the field to scare away the parrots. It is unbelievable that a lady with whom such a serious occurrence has taken place would not go and complain about it to her in-laws and rather, prefer to work in the field. PW 2 Ratanlal, who is her brother in-law was in the field and, therefore, it was not necessary for her to stay there. It is unbelievable that a lady with whom such a serious occurrence has taken place would not go and complain about it to her in-laws and rather, prefer to work in the field. PW 2 Ratanlal, who is her brother in-law was in the field and, therefore, it was not necessary for her to stay there. This conduct on her part belies the story of forcible rape. Moreover, when she was examined on 9-2-1982 no marks of injury were found on body by the Doctor. No evidence of sexual intercourse was found. Even no stains were found on her clothes. Mst. Premi has stated that she has washed her Ghaghara because she had to observe the fact of Purnima. When such a serious occurrence has taken place, it was expected of her to preserve the Ghaghara in its original condition so that some semen stains could have been observed or detected. It is true that a certificate has been obtained on 13-2-1982 that two injuries were found on her body and the duration of those injuries is 7-8 days but this certificate is against the certificate dated 9-2-1982 which shows that no injuries were found on her person. 9. Of course, PW 2 Ratanlal has stated that when he heard cries of Mst. Premi, he saw accused Uttamchand lying on Mst. Premi and his evidence could not have been discarded merely because no oath has been administered to him but in the facts and circumstances of this case, this evidence could have been safely brushed aside not on the ground that oath has not been administered to him but on other grounds i.e. the absence of semen marks, the delay in making the complaint, the conduct of the prosecutrix in staying in the field even after such a serious offence having taken place with her. A man may speak lies but the circumstances do not It is true that when a case is foisted against a man on account of some old enmity, then the witnesses can be procured within 24 hours. To find an accused lying over the prosecutrix may not necessarily denote that it was a case of rape. A man may speak lies but the circumstances do not It is true that when a case is foisted against a man on account of some old enmity, then the witnesses can be procured within 24 hours. To find an accused lying over the prosecutrix may not necessarily denote that it was a case of rape. It may also be a case of consent where the lady might have cried because somebody has observed them enjoying cohabitation and probably, this appears to be the reason the accused ran away to Udaipur to obtain the certificate for his defence. Taking an over all view of the circumstances brought on record in this case, I am of the view that the learned lower court was perfectly justified in recording an acquittal against the accused-non-petitioner and, therefore, I am not inclined to remand this case back to the learned lower court for deciding it afresh on merits. 10. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition and it is, here by dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******