P. C. NAIK, J. ( 1 ) ON the basis of G. R. Case No. 69 of 1984, the petitioner along with Banamali and Mandu Jogendra was sent up for trial for offences punishable under sections 341, 354,323 read with section 34 I. P. C. In Trial Case No. 75 of 1986 vide judgment dated 26. 9. 1989, the learned trial Magistrate found the petitioner guilty of offences punishable under Section 341, 354,323 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo 5. 1. for one month each for offences under sections 323 and 341 I. P. C. and R. I. for two months for offence u/s. 354 I. P. C. Accused Banamali was found guilty u/ss. 341/354/34 I. P. C. but was given the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. Accused Mandu Jogendra was found not guilty of the said offences and was acquitted. Against the conviction and sentences, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 1989 before the Sessions Judge, Keonjhar. The learned Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated 2. 3. 1993 dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the petitioner has filed this revision. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 20. 2. 1984, P. W. 3 Shakuntala and P. W 4 Indumati had gone to village Jajaposi to witness a marriage ceremony. After the marriage and the feast, they were resting in a Verandah. However, at the request of accused Banamali and Jogendra who are their co- villagers they agreed to return to their village in their company. While they were walking towards their village, the petitioner who had a cycle also joined them. At his request both P. Ws. 3 and 4 travelled as pillion riders. After travelling for some distance, the petitioner asked them to get down from the cycle and to cover the distance on foot. So P. W s. 3 and 4 started walking towards the village along with the petitioner. By this time, they were also joined by Banamali and Jogendra who had by then covered the distance on foot. After travelling for some distance, the petitioner asked them to get down from the cycle and to cover the distance on foot. So P. W s. 3 and 4 started walking towards the village along with the petitioner. By this time, they were also joined by Banamali and Jogendra who had by then covered the distance on foot. At a little distance away from the village, the petitioner handed over the cycle to accused Jogendra and caught hold of P. W. , 3-Shakuntala and accused Banamali caught hold of P. W. 4-Indumati. As P. W. 3 tried to raise an alarm, she was gagged with the help of a towel and in the struggle she received some abrasions on her lip and neck. However, both the girls resisted and managed to escape. They ran towards the village and took shelter in a house which belongs to Padmalochan (P. W. 6) to whom they narrated the incident. On being informed the father of P. W. 3 came and took them home. A report about the incident was lodged by the father of P. W. 3 at Baria police station the following day. ( 3 ) THE plea of the defence was one of complete denial. It is stated that they were falsely implicated due to personal enmity. During trial, 11 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence was led on behalf of the accused. On appreciation of the material on record, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted Jogendra but convicted the petitioner and Banamali. In appeal, the conviction of the petitioner has been maintained and, accordingly, the matter has now come before this Court in revision. ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Sahu, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below are not proper and deserve to be set aside. He also contends that there was admittedly some enmity between the petitioner and the family of P. Ws. 3 and 4 and it is because of this enmity between the parties, the petitioner and other accused persons were falsely implicated. In support of his contention that enmity existed between the parties, he has referred to the evidence of P. W. 6. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of P. W. 5 does not support the prosecution which fact has been lost sight of by the Courts below. In support of his contention that enmity existed between the parties, he has referred to the evidence of P. W. 6. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of P. W. 5 does not support the prosecution which fact has been lost sight of by the Courts below. It is contended that both P. Ws. 3 and 4 stated that they had narrated the entire incident to P. W. 6 and the fact that P. W. 6 denied this fact has been completely ignored by the Courts below. In the alternative, a submission was made that in the same case having granted the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to Banamali, the learned Courts below were not justified in refusing to extend this benefit to the petitioner. In rebuttal, Mr. S. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State supports the conviction and finding recorded by the Courts below and contends that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no case for interference with the conviction and sentence has been made out by the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN view of the rival contentions, I have gone through the evidence on record in order to find out whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are proper and can be sustained or not. But having considered the matter, I find that no case for interference has been made out. 5. P. W. 3-Shakuntala and P. W. 4 Indumati are the victims. At the time of the incident, the former was aged about 14 years and the latter was 12 years old. Both of them have given a detailed version of the incident and have supported each other in material particulars. It has also come out in their evidence that while resisting the advances of the petitioner, P. W. 3 had sustained some scratches and abrasion on the right side of her neck and on the upper lip. The Medical Officer of P. H. C. , Ukhunda, who has been examined as P. W. 1 confirms the presence of these injuries on the person of P. W. 3. The medical report is Ext. 1. Both P. Ws. 3 and 4 state that they took shelter in the house of Padmalochan P. W. 6 and had narrated the incident to him. The medical report is Ext. 1. Both P. Ws. 3 and 4 state that they took shelter in the house of Padmalochan P. W. 6 and had narrated the incident to him. The father of Padmalochan had thereafter gone to the residence of the, father of P. W. 3 to bring him to Padmalochants house. The father of P. W. 3 came and took P. Ws. 3 and 4 home. It is stated by P. Ws. 3 and 4 that they had narrated the incident in the presence of P. W. 2, the father of P. W. 3. It was put to them that they were falsely deposing against the petitioner and other accused persons at the instance of P. W. This suggestion was stoutly denied by P. Ws. 3 and 4. P. W. 2, the father of P. W. 3 lodged the F. I. R. which contains the details of the incident. The accused persons have been named in the F. I. R. and have also been named by P. Ws. 3 and 4. In cross-examination, this witness clearly states that P. Ws. 3 and 4 had narrated the incident in his presence in the house of Maheswar Mohanta. This witness also states to have seen the injuries on the person of P. W. 3. The suggestion in his cross-examination that there were strained relationships between him and accused persons, was denied by P. W. 2. Padmalochan Mohanta (P. W. 6) admits that at about mid-night, P. Ws. 3 and 4 had come to his house and were crying but he states that the incident as allege4 was not narrated to him. P. W. 9, Laxman Mohanta, also admits that P. Ws. 3 and 4 had come to their house but denied any knowledge of the incident. He, however, admits that P. Ws. 3 and 4 went home being escorted by P. W. 2. P. W. 5. Maheswar Mohanta and P. W. 10 Changi Mohanta disclaim any knowledge about the incident P. W. 11 Nara Sunder Mishra, who was the Investigating Officer states that he had recorded the F. I. R. and had also seized the towel vide Ext. 3, the Chadar vide Ext. 4 and had also sent P. W. 3 for medical examination under the requisition. 3, the Chadar vide Ext. 4 and had also sent P. W. 3 for medical examination under the requisition. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the material on record both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the prosecution case against the petitioner is made out. The appellate Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence. Having considered the material on record I am satisfied that the conclusions arrived at by the courts below cannot be said to be unwarranted nor can it be said that the conclusions drawn could not be drawn from the material that is on record. It is no doubt true that P. W. 6 does not corroborate the version of P. Ws. 3 and 4 that they had narrated the incident to him. It is also true that P. Ws. 5 and 6 have disclaimed any know ledge about the incident. But on this ground, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out. From the tenor of his evidence, it appears that P. W. 6, for reasons best known, has not narrated the complete facts. The learned trial Magistrate has in paragraph 9 of the judgment held that the P. W. 6 is not a reliable witness. This observation seems to be correct. Further, after discussing the tenor of the evidence of P. Ws. 9 and 10, the trial Court has observed that they also cannot be relied upon. Thus it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has not relied upon the evidence of these witnesses without considering this aspect as has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 7 ) P. Ws. 3 and 4 are of tender age, they have supported each other on all material particulars. They have given detailed version of the incident and they have also named and identified the petitioner. In view of the material on record, it is not possible to conclude that P. Ws. 3 and 4 have falsely implicated the petitioner because of enmity. This contention was rightly repelled by the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also took me through the evidence on record but as earlier observed, no case for interference with the findings recorded by the Courts below has been made out in the revision petition. 3 and 4 have falsely implicated the petitioner because of enmity. This contention was rightly repelled by the Courts below. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also took me through the evidence on record but as earlier observed, no case for interference with the findings recorded by the Courts below has been made out in the revision petition. It should be remembered that though the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is very extensive and it exercises all the powers of a Court of appeal, yet it does not while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, act like an appellate Court. The power is purely discretionary is to be exercised in a case where there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. This is not such a case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also contened that in any case the Courts below were in error in not extending the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioner. This plea was also advanced before the learned trial Magistrate, but it was turned down, and for a good reason. The petitioner outraged the modesty of Shakuntala (P. W. 3), who was at the time of the incident about 12 years old, and while committing the offence he also gaged her with a towel, when she resisted. Under the circumstances, I do not think this to be a fit case in which the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act should be extended. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the Revision is dismissed. The bail bond shall stand forfeited. Revision dismissed.