JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.7.2011 whereby the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 450, 376(G) I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(ii) and 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The main contention of the present petitioner is that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated. He was the member of the Panchayat Samiti and there is a political rivalry between Kesra Ram and the present petitioner. A water-tank was granted to the present petitioner in lieu of the false implication. Under Section 319, Cr.P.C. cognizance could be taken by the Court if there is a chance of conviction. Looking to the statements of the Navla Ram and Bhera Ram son of the prosecutrix, no case is made out against the present petitioner. Navla Ram has not stated anything against the present petitioner. Likhma Ram was arrested from the scene of occurrence and he has been booked under Section 151 Cr.P.C. At that time, the prosecutrix has said nothing against, the petitioner. Committing of rape story is totally unbelievable. The family members have not supported the story. Hence the impugned order should be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. There is prima facie evidence to proceed against the present petitioner and he specifically objected that the statement of Navla Ram could not be looked into at this stage, as the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive piece of evidence, hence inadmissible evidence cannot be relied. He has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 375 . The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the judgments reported in the case of Kailash v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2009) 1 SCC (Cri.) 1006 , Sarabjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 141 and Avtar Singh & Anr. v. State & Ors., 2007 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 879 . 5. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 141 and Avtar Singh & Anr. v. State & Ors., 2007 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 879 . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment reported in the case of Macheal Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 AIR SCW 734 where it has been held that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending the conviction of the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action. 6. It is not in dispute that PW-1 to PW-4 have not stated any thing against the present petitioner. They even did not supported the prosecution story, but looking at the statement of Lahro Devi, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that prima facie there is evidence to proceed against the present petitioner. The complainant specifically alleged against the present petitioner in the F.I.R. and in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164,,Cr.P.C. and during course of trial, as PW-6 has also stated against the present petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that statements of the prosecutrix have to be seen in the light of the entire evidence and he has submitted regarding enmity and non-corroboration by the other witnesses. But when the prosecutrix has specifically stated consistently against the present petitioner and statement of the prosecutrix has been further corroborated by PW- 7 Bhera Ram in his Court's statement, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision petition dismissed. *******