ORDER 1. By this criminal revision petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 25/1/2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Cr. A. No. 392/1999 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8/10/99 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in criminal case No. 513/96 whereby and where under learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur after holding the petitioner guilty for the commission of unnatural offence convicted the petitioner under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 2 years & 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. 2. The conviction is impugned on the ground that without any legal and clinching evidence Court below have convicted and sentenced the petitioner and thereby committed illegality. 3. Brief case of the prosecution is that victim PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi, was a student of B.A.M.S, 1st year, he was junior student. Petitioner was also a student of B.A. M.S. 3rd year. He was senior student. Victim was residing in a, Ayurvadic Hostel Raipur in Room No. 32. On 11/4/95 at about 2.45 p.m. victim PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi was present in his room No. 32 at Hostel, petitioner came to his room and after closing the door he committed unnatural intercourse on the anus of the victim, again he took the victim in room No. 16 where he again committed unnatural intercourse on the anus of the victim. On 11/4/95 victim lodged the written complaint to the Police Station vide Ex. P-2, First Information Report was lodged vide Ex. P-6 and P- 3. Victim also made complaint to his Principal and Principal issued Show-cause-notice vide Ex. P-4. He was examined by PW9 Dr. Kamal Kumar Gajbhiye, vide Ex. P-7. No visible injury was found on the body of victim. Petitioner was also examined by PWll Dr. R.K. Pandey vide Ex. P-13 no injury was found. His underwear was seized and sent for chemical examination vide Ex. P-12. Presence of sperms and semen was confirmed on the underwear of the petitioner vide Ex. P-13. Offence was investigated, and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur who after affording an opportunity of hearing convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforementioned. Conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner in appeal same was dismissed vide judgment impugned. 4. P-13. Offence was investigated, and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur who after affording an opportunity of hearing convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforementioned. Conviction and sentence was challenged by the petitioner in appeal same was dismissed vide judgment impugned. 4. Shri Somnath Verma, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/non-applicant are heard. 5. Judgment impugned arid record of the Court below perused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently arbrued that learned trial Court has not considered the fact that no injury was found over the body of the petitioner or victim which are suggestive of the fact that no offence has been committed. There was dispute between students relating to the leadership and on account of his meritorious position petitioner was claimant for President of the Union and only with a view to denial his claim he has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi is full of contradiction and omission and is unnatural. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Birkha Vs. State of M.P. in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that allegation under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is easy to make but to refute it is very difficult, therefore, unless there is some corroboration of the evidence of the complainant, there should be no conviction under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance in the matter of Nand Kishore Vs. State of Mp'2 in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that in case of conviction under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code it is a rule of prudence that the conviction should not be based merelym the uncorroborated testimony of the subject of the offence whether girl or boy. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance in the matter of Ishaque Mohammad Vs. State of Mp in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that Statement of the complainant not corroborated even with medical evidence is not sufficient for conviction. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance in the matter of Arjunsingh Vs. State of M.P. in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that in case of anal intercourse medicinal evidence is of vital importance. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance in the matter of Arjunsingh Vs. State of M.P. in which High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that in case of anal intercourse medicinal evidence is of vital importance. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance in the matter of Gowrishankara Swamigalu Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.5 in which Apex Court has held that in absence of corroboration from medicinal evidence conviction of accused is not sustainable. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the revision and submits that petitioner is senior student of the professional college has committed aforesaid offence upon his junior student i.e. victim. The evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi is sufficient for drawing an inference that petitioner has committed the aforesaid offence. Both the Courts below has rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforementioned. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf prosecution. This is a criminal revision after rejection of criminal appeal the concurrent finding of facts of two lower Courts below cannot be disturbed on the ground of trifle discrepancy unless substantially injustice caused to the petitioner has been shown. PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi, the junior student of the Ayurvadic College has deposed in his evidence that on 11/4/95 he was present in his room No. 32, petitioner came to his room and bolted the door from inside, he directed the victim to remove the cloths then he committed anal intercourse with him, again petitioner took him into room No. 16 where he committed anal intercourse with him. He was under fear, then he narrated the incident to Premlal Bharti and went to the police station 2.nd lodged the written report vide Ex. P-2. First Information Report was recorded vide Ex. P-3 & P-6. He was sent for medical examination and he examined by doctor. PW3 Dr. Dineshwar Sharma has deposed that at the time of commission of incident petitioner was student of B.A.M.S. 2nd year and victim was student of B.A.M.S. 151 year. Some students made complaint relating to unnatural activity then he issued Ex. P-4, show cause notice to him. In his cross examination he has admitted that petitioner was brilliant student. PW7 Dhanaram Gaikwad has corroborated the evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi. Victim was examined by PW9 Dr. Some students made complaint relating to unnatural activity then he issued Ex. P-4, show cause notice to him. In his cross examination he has admitted that petitioner was brilliant student. PW7 Dhanaram Gaikwad has corroborated the evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi. Victim was examined by PW9 Dr. Kamal Kumar Gajbhiye on same day at about 10.10 p.m. vide Ex. P-7 but no injury or stain was found. Accused was also examined by PW 11 Dr. R.K. Pandey vide Ex. P-13 but no injury was found on the body of the accused. Accused has taken the defence that as a result of rivalry in the group he has been falsely implicated. He was topper in his college and there was every likelihood for his becoming the President of Union therefore with a view to debar him from the opportunity of becoming President be has been falsely implicated. 14. Defence has cross examined PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi in detail, in his cross examination he has admitted that petitioner was meritorious student. In Para- 6 of his cross examination he has admitted that he was junior and petitioner has threatened him at the time of commission of offence therefore he has not shouted. He has further denied the suggestion that he has lodged the report at the instance of other students. PW7 Dhanaram Gaikwad has stated in Para -4 of his evidence that the complainant was junior and was not associated in any group. In the present case, no injury was found on the anus or around the anus of the complainant or even on the male organ of the accused. Modi's has opined in his Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 23rd edition on Page - 955 that the following signs may be discovered if the boy (passive agent) is not accustomed to sodomy:-- (i) Abrasions on the skin near the anus with pain in walking and on defecation, as well as, during examination. These injuries are extensive and well as, during examination. These injuries are extensive and well defined in cases where there is a great disproportion in size between the anal orifice of the victim and the virile member of the accused. Hence, lesions will be most marked in children, while they man be almost absent in adults when there is no resistance to the anal coitus. These injuries, if slight, heal very rapidly in two or three days. Hence, lesions will be most marked in children, while they man be almost absent in adults when there is no resistance to the anal coitus. These injuries, if slight, heal very rapidly in two or three days. In most of the cases brought before Modi, he had seen superficial abrasions, varying from 1/6" to 1" x 1/6" to 1/4", external to the sphincter ani. In Some cases, there may be bruising of the parts round about the anus and the abrasions may extend into the anus beyond its sphincter. (ii) Owing to the strong contraction of the sphincter ani, the penis rarely penetrates beyond an inch, and consequently, the laceration produced on the mucous membrane within the anus with more or less effusion of blood is usually triangular in nature, having its base at the anus and the sides extending vertically inwards into the rectum. Modi had found lacerations internal to the sphincter ani in several cases, but a typical triangular wound only in a few cases. These signs may not be present in case where the active agent has used lubricants or/and has introduced his penis slowly and carefully without using force into the anus of the passive agent who is a consenting party. (iii) Blood may be found around the anus, on the perineum or thighs, and also on the clothes. (iv) Semen may be found in or at the anus, on the perineum, or on the garments of the boy too young to have seminal emissions, Swabs from inside and around the onus must be taken and examined microscopically. 15. As per Modi's Jurisprudence and Toxicology the sign may be found on the body of active agent if doctors examined him soon after the commission of the crime, in case of delay in examination the symptoms may not be found, the presence of blood and seminal stains would only be corroborative evidence. There may be marks of violence on the body if the passive agent is a grown up boy, and if the crime is committed without his consent. It was also opined that in absence of semen on the cloths of either of the accused or of the passive agent and in absence of injuries the case of unnatural offence would not be made out. It was also opined that in absence of semen on the cloths of either of the accused or of the passive agent and in absence of injuries the case of unnatural offence would not be made out. The opinion of Modi reveals that injuries must be found in case of aforesaid offence committed with children but in case of adult they may be almost absent specifically when there is no resistance to the anal coitus. In the present case, age of the petitioner at the time of such commission of offence was 21 years and age of the complainant was also 21 years, they were full grown up adult. In these circumstances, normally no injury over the anus or around the anus was possible. The undergarments of the accused was seized vide Ex. P-1 on 11/4/95. He was examined by doctor on 2nd day 12/4/95. In case of examination of accused after lapse of considerable time, the symptoms of the commission of anal coitus would not be possible on the body of passive agent. The undergannent was chemically examined and report vide Ex. P-13 reveal the presence of semen and sperm. 16. As held in case of Birkha Vs. State of M.P., Nand Kishore Vs. State of M.P., Ishaque Mohammad Vs. State of M.P., Arjunsingh Vs. State of M.P. and Gowrishankara Swamigalu Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra) the only solitary evidence without any corroboration from independent sources or medical evidence is not safe. In the present case evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi has been corroborated by the evidence of PW7 Dhanaram Gaikwad. The positive medical examination was not possible on account of grownup age of the petitioner and victim. The presence of sperm and semen on the undergarment of the petitioner is also corroborative piece of the evidence of the commission of the aforesaid offence. In the present case evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi is well corroborated by the evidence of PW7 Dhanaram Gaikwad and corroborated by the chemical analysis report inspire confidence and trustworthy and are sufficient for drawing an inference that petitioner has committed unnatural offence (anal intercourse) with the complainant. 17. In the present case evidence of PW2 Jaipal Chandrawanshi is well corroborated by the evidence of PW7 Dhanaram Gaikwad and corroborated by the chemical analysis report inspire confidence and trustworthy and are sufficient for drawing an inference that petitioner has committed unnatural offence (anal intercourse) with the complainant. 17. After appreciating the evidence available on record learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has convicted the petitioner under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and while appreciating the evidence learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur has affirmed the conviction of the petitioner both the courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner. Courts below have neither exceeded its jurisdiction vested on it nor failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it. The conviction of the petitioner is based on credible clinching and substantive evidence sustainable under the law. 18. As regard the question of sentence is concerned present petitioner has committed the offence under the garb of his seniority which is a "trauma in the professional education". Court below has sentenced the petitioner rigorous imprisonment for 2 years & 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Considering the age of petitioner at the time of commission of offence some lenient view would be just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed. Conviction of the petitioner Under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby maintained instead of sentenced rigorous imprisonment for 2 years & 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. He was in custody for some time. He is entitled for set off. As per present petitioner is in bail, he shall surrender immediately before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in criminal case No. 513/96 for serving the remaining sentence. Appeal Partly Allowed.