JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—By this revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure petitioner, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", challenges the correctness of his conviction by the trial Court as affirmed by the appellate Court for offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case was : Sanjivan Kumar, hereinafter referred to as "the victim" was 13 years of age at the relevant time. On July 2, 1994 he was playing in the Primary School premises in Depot Bazar, Dharamshala. Accused is a vegetable vendor in the same bazar. Accused came to the victim and asked him to accompany him to the backyard of the school. The victim refused. Nevertheless, accused held him by his arm forcibly took him to the backyard of the school, made him lie down on the ground, stripped the victim of his shorts and committed sodomy on him. The victim cried, but accused gagged him with his hand. Accused threatened the victim that if he discloses this incident to any person he would be done to death. Victim returned back to his home. He did not say a word to his mother. His father Tulsi Ram (PW-2), a labourer, was out of station. He returned home after about a week. On his arrival his wife informed him that the victim was not keeping well and not eating the food properly for the last few days. On question by his father victim narrated the incident which happened with him. On the next morning Tulsi Ram took the victim to the police station, Dharamshala and got a report lodged with the police. The victim was medically examined on the same day at Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. The accused was traced and was got medically examined on July 10, 1994. His, glans penis was found to be ulcerated. 3. Learned trial Magistrate on the appreciation of the evidence of the victim, his father and the medical evidence convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Penal Code. He is to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. The accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Penal Code. He is to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Penal Code. 4. Dis-satisfied, the accused carried an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment, impugned herein, dated 2nd May, 2000. 5. The accused still not satisfied has filed the present revision petition. 6. I have heard Kr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the accused and Mr. C.B. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. I was also taken through the record, Kr. Kuldip Singh raised following contentions: (a) the version of the prosecution is highly improbable; (b) there was enmity between the accused and father of the victim; (c) the offence was committed in the thickly populated area yet no eye witness was produced; (d) there was inordinate unexplained delay in lodging of the First Information Report; and (e) the victim was mentally handicapped and therefore, conviction cannot be based on his testimony. 7. So far the first contention of learned Senior Counsel is concerned, the argument is that incident allegedly took place on 2nd -July, 1994 at 5.00 p.m. during day light, therefore, accused would not commit buggery in an open place during day time at the risk of being caught. 8. It is the evidence of the victim, though of tender age, that he was playing in the premises of the Primary School in the Depot Bazar alongwith some boys. The accused appeared. The boys with whom he was playing ran away. Accused then took him to the backyard of the School, stripped him of his half pants and inserted his penis into his anus. When he started crying, he was gagged by the accused and after having committed buggery, he was warned by the accused with his death if he disclosed the incident to any person. As it was growing dark so accused held him by his arms and left him nearby the road. Apparent as it is, it was a lonely place and accused had no fear of being caught. As it was growing dark so accused held him by his arms and left him nearby the road. Apparent as it is, it was a lonely place and accused had no fear of being caught. It is true that in his cross-examination the victim stated that school is located in populated area and on the day of occurrence several people were walking on the road. Learned trial Magistrate dealt with this aspect of the case referring to the spot map prepared by the Investigating Officer which shows that no residential house exists in the close proximity to the Primary School in the backyard of which the occurrence took place. The passage in question was 20 to 25 feet away from the spot. There is no evidence that this passage was in use at the relevant time. 9. The occurrence cannot, in the face of the evidence on record, be said to be improbable or open to doubt. There was no reason for the victim of tender age to have falsely implicated the accused. 10. The medical evidence fully supports the prosecution version. The victim was examined by Dr. Madhu Sood on July 9, 1994. She found the following injuries on his person : "Tear at anal orifice extending to the anal conal 3 cm. at 6 Oclock position and 1 Oclock position. Puss discharged from the wound present." 11. Corroborating the version of the victim and proving that there was penetration of the rectum, the doctor further pointed out that probable duration of the injuries on the person of the victim was one week from the time of his examination. 12. Corresponding injuries were found on the penis of the accused when examined on July 10, 1994 by Dr. S.N. Mehta (PW-4). Dr. S.N. Mehta (PW-4) in his Medico Legal Certificate Ex. PW-4/A is categorical that the accused had ulceration on his glans penis. This medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the victim. There is nothing in the cross examination of either the victim or the doctor which may render their evidence open to any other hypothesis. 13. The next argument of learned Senior Counsel is that there was enmity between the accused and father of the victim. This medical evidence fully corroborates the version of the victim. There is nothing in the cross examination of either the victim or the doctor which may render their evidence open to any other hypothesis. 13. The next argument of learned Senior Counsel is that there was enmity between the accused and father of the victim. There is nothing on the record to show that there was such an enmity which would derive a father of a victim to falsely implicate the accused for an offence which brings social ridicule. Merely because victim admits in his cross-examination that there was some altercation between his father and the accused regarding Reri would not lead to an inference that accused has falsely been implicated. 14. So far the question of delay in the lodging of the First Information Report is concerned, the delay stands fully explained by the prosecution. The accused had threatened the victim with his life, if he whispered a word about having been sodomized. Victim, a boy of tender age, did not disclose this incident to his mother even though his rectum was torn. It was only when the father returned back home questioned the victim that he narrated the incident to him on July 8,1994. The First Information Report was lodged next day. The delay stands fully explained as concluded by the learned trial Magistrate and the appellate Judge. 15. The last contention of learned Senior Counsel is that the victim was mentally handicapped and therefore, his testimony should not be relied upon. It is true that in the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Madhu Sood the victim is described as mentally handicapped in the following words: "Patient is a frail child and mentally handicapped. Secondary sexual characters are not developed". 16. There is nothing in this Medical Certificate as to what was the mental handicap? She was not cross-examined on this aspect by the accused. She was not asked anything about the mental handicap of the accused. In cross-examination defence taken by the accused was that the victim sustained the injuries found on his anus of a kick given by his playmate. This suggestion has specifically been denied by Dr. Madhu Sood who, categorically rejecting the suggestion, states, "these injuries are not possible if person kicks the other at the back". 17. In cross-examination defence taken by the accused was that the victim sustained the injuries found on his anus of a kick given by his playmate. This suggestion has specifically been denied by Dr. Madhu Sood who, categorically rejecting the suggestion, states, "these injuries are not possible if person kicks the other at the back". 17. This Court, apart from what has been said above, will not, in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, re-appreciate the evidence to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below even if another view was possible. The revisional jurisdiction, it is well settled, can only be invoked when there is error of law in judgment of the Courts below. It is not open to reassess the evidence unless the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court or the appellate Court is perverse. 18. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed. -