P. P. NAOLEKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is Revision Petition by the applicant against framing charge under Section 376/511 of I. P. C. As per the prosecution case, on 22/2/1991 the prosecutor Girjabai visited the house of the accused-applicant; the applicant-accused gave some money to Girjabai and directed her to bring some Gudakhu and Chocolates. When she came back with Gudakhu and Chocolate, applicant took her to his garden on the pretext that he will give her Aawla. On reaching the garden, the applicant removed her under garments and prepared himself for final act of commission of sexual intercourse with Girjabai, but at that juncture Girjabai, who is aged about 8 years, raised hue and cry. Then the applicant ran away from the spot. The applicant was arrested and the charge as aforesaid was framed against him. ( 2 ) IT is contended by the counsel for the applicant that as there is no penetrating, no charge could have been framed under section 376 of I. P. C. and at the most the Court should have frame charge under section 354 of I. P. C. ( 3 ) IN every crime, first there is intention to commit it, secondly, there is preparation to commit a crime and, thirdly, there is attempt to commit the crime. If the third stage is completed, then the crime is complete but if the third stage is not complete then it remains to be an attempt only and that in eventually which has been taken into confederation under Section 511 of I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE material on records shows that the girl who was aged about 8 years, was taken to a secluded place, which is garden. The accused is paid to have removed under-garments of the girl and also prepared him for commission of sexual intercourse. The girl because of the acts of hue and cry raised it. The applicant could not perform the intercourse and had run away from the spot. ( 5 ) IN the state of affairs and the material on record the Court was justified in framing charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 of I. P. C. At the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is not required to consider the weight of the evidence nor is required to consider whether the evidence wills untimely result in conviction of the accused. But if the evidence is sufficient to satisfy the Court there is no strong suspicion on the accused committing the crime, which is alleged against him. Thus, the Court has jurisdiction are authority to frame charge does not find any material on record to interfere with the order framing the charge. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the Revision petitioner fails and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .