JUDGMENT The sole accused has preferred this revision against his conviction u/s 377 IPC and sentence imposed against him. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 03 years but the appellate Court while confirming the conviction has reduced the sentence to R.I for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that a false case was filed against the applicant on account of some altercation between the applicant and Shivraj (PW 4). The prosecution case is that on 3.9.89 the applicant was playing a game of cards in Laxminarayan Lodge at Nayapara. It is stated that the applicant, Shivshanker (PW 1), aged 13 years and his elder brother Shivraj (PW 4), aged 18 years slept in the same room. There was a quarrel between the applicant and Shivraj (PW 4) regarding the putting off the light. According to the prosecution PWs 1 and 4 were sleeping on a separate bed and the applicant having opened the pant of PW I has committed an unnatural offence. On hearing the cries of P.W. 1, PW 3 woke up and went to another room in the same lodge to bring his uncle. It is stated that PW 4 and his uncle came back to the room and chastised the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution case is entirely false; that PW 4 and his uncle have pushed him out of the room from the lodge with holding his luggage; that thereupon the applicant went to the police station and lodged the report and it is as a counterblast that the F.I.R. in this case has been lodged at about LJ.30 a.m. on the next day. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently commented about the delay in giving the F.I.R. This is not such a serious offence which warrants giving of the report to the police in the same night. The report was given on the next day at LJ.30 a.m. It is not as if basing on the report given by the applicant PW 4 and his uncle were arrested so as to suggest that they thought of giving the F.I.R. as a counterblast. There is no proof that they had knowledge of the report given by the applicant before 9.30 a.m. on the next day. There is no proof that they had knowledge of the report given by the applicant before 9.30 a.m. on the next day. The learned counsel for the applicant next argued that even accepting the evidence of PW 1 to be true, what all he had deposed was that the applicant opened his pant. But PW 1 has also stated that the accused has committed an unnatural offence. PW 1 is a child of 13 years and the failure on his part to explain the actual act committed by the accused cannot be taken as a lacuna in the prosecution case. The evidence of PW 1 is corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 2 who found an injury at the anus of PW 1. The mere fact that there is no injury on the private part of the applicant, cannot be considered as a ground for holding that he is innocent of the offence. However having regard to the fact that PW 4 and his uncle have taught a fitting lesson to the applicant by throwing him out of the room in the night which necessitated the applicant to go to the police station even during the night and to give report to the police, I feel that a lenient view can be taken in the matter of punishment. I, therefore, confirm the conviction. The sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the applicant and an additional fine of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed. In default the applicant shall suffer S.L for 6 months. The additional fine amount shall be paid within one month. Subject to the above modification in sentence only, the revision is dismissed.