JUDGMENT : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. 1. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 16.02.2005 in Sessions Trial No. 611/2002 passed by 16th Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, the applicant had preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 15/2005 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, vide judgment dated 30.09.2011 dismissed the said appeal. These two judgments, recording concurrent finding of guilt against the present applicants are questioned by the applicant in the present revision before this Court. 2. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted the applicant for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The applicant was also convicted by the learned Judge of the trial Court for an offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months so also he was convicted for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. In short, the facts are as under: The victim, at the relevant time, was aged about 14 years. She was residing with her parents at village New Gumgaon. It appears that due to poverty she was required to leave her education after her 6th standard, prior to two years of the date of incident. When she was all alone in her house on 30.09.2002 one girl by name Jyotsna, aged about 5 years who used to reside adjacent to the victim's house came to the house of the victim and after some time, the present applicant came there and demanded radio from the victim. Thereafter, he gave some amount to Jyotsna and asked her to bring chocolate. Accordingly, Jyotsna left the house. Thereafter, the present applicant closed the doors of the house and when the victim tried to raise voice of resistance, her mouth was pressed and she was forced to lay on the cot. Thereafter, the applicant removed her clothes and committed rape on her. After his sexual assault, the applicant left the house. Thereafter, Nirmalabai (PW-5), mother of the victim, came there to whom the victim disclosed the atrocities on her. Thereafter, the applicant removed her clothes and committed rape on her. After his sexual assault, the applicant left the house. Thereafter, Nirmalabai (PW-5), mother of the victim, came there to whom the victim disclosed the atrocities on her. The report was lodged to Police Station, Hingna by victim herself. The printed FIR is at Exh.41 and crime was registered vide Crime No. 203/2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was recorded by Harilal Parteki (PW-10) who at the relevant time was attached as Police Sub Inspector at Police Station, Hingna. After registration of the crime, usual investigation was conducted by the investigating officer, spot panchanama is at Exh.26, clothes of the victim were seized under seizure panchanama Exh.14. He also referred the victim for her medical examination to Primary Health Centre, Hingna. However, the doctors referred her for further investigation to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, which is commonly known as Mayo Hospital, Nagpur. The applicant was arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant abjured his guilt and claimed for his trial. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the applicant, in all 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution inclusive of the victim, her parents, pancha witnesses, investigating officer and the doctor. 6. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence, recorded a finding that the prosecution was successful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the applicant. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction was passed. Same is the view of the learned appellate Court. 7. Mr. Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, streneously urged before me that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the age of the victim. He submitted that from the reasoning as supplemented by the learned appellate Court, it is clear that the appellate Court has not kept reliance on Exh.45, the certificate issued by the Head Master of the School where the victim used to take education. He also pointed out the observations of the learned Court below to point out that the reliance cannot be placed on Exh.38 a certificate to prove age of the victim issued by Dr. He also pointed out the observations of the learned Court below to point out that the reliance cannot be placed on Exh.38 a certificate to prove age of the victim issued by Dr. Prashanrt Barwe (PW-9), who has conducted physical examination of the victim for determining her age on the ground that the Xray plates were not placed on record. Insofar as Exh.45 is concerned, he submitted that since the Head Master who issued the certificate was not examined, the appellate Court has recorded a finding that the contents of the School Certificate Exh.45 are not proved by the prosecution. According to him, the learned appellate Court has committed error in accepting the age of the victim on the basis of her deposition alone. Therefore, he submitted that since the age of the victim is not proved conclusively to show that the victim was below age of 16 years i.e. the age of consent at the relevant time, benefit of doubt ought to have been extended in favour of the applicant. 8. It is also his submission that the prosecution has not examined Jyotsna as its witness. In his submission, it is fatal to the prosecution and therefore prayed for acquittal. In the alternative, he submitted that at the time of commission of offence, the applicant was a young person. Much time has gone in between and now the applicant is a married person therefore leniency should be shown to the applicant. He therefore prayed that this Court should at least reduce the quantum of sentence. 9. Per contra, Mr. Madiwale, learned A.P.P. would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the Courts below have correctly evaluated the prosecution case and no error can be attributed on any aspect and prayed for dismissal of the revision. 10. The scope of the revision is very limited. The revisional Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence as brought on record. The revisional Court will step in only when it is noticed by the revisional Court that inadmissible evidence is considered as admissible one and/or admissible evidence is left out of consideration, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 11. 10. The scope of the revision is very limited. The revisional Court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence as brought on record. The revisional Court will step in only when it is noticed by the revisional Court that inadmissible evidence is considered as admissible one and/or admissible evidence is left out of consideration, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 11. Insofar as the aspect of age is concerned, in my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot come to the rescue of the applicant to acquit him of charge of Section 376 of the IPC. The age of the victim comes to the fore when it is the defence of the accused that the victim was a consenting party. At the relevant time, the consenting age was 16 years. From the line of the cross-examination and from the statement of the applicant, which was recorded by the learned Judge of the trial Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was never the case of the applicant that the victim was a consenting party. His case was that he has been falsely implicate in the crime. 12. In that view of the matter, the question of age inasmuch as even for the sake of arguments, a premise is granted in favour of the applicant that the victim was more than 16 years of age unless and until there is something on record to show or even to suggest that the sex was outcome of consent given by her, in my view, the age is not at all important. 13. In the present case, the evidence of the victim shows that she was raped by the applicant against her wish. Her evidence was found to be intact insofar as the evidence of rape is concerned. In my view, the omissions which were brought on record, were rightly considered by both the Courts below as minor in nature. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted about non examination of Jyotsna. Even according to the version of the victim, Jyotsna was not present at the time of commission of rape. She was asked to leave the place by the applicant. Further, at that time, Jyotsna was only 5 years of age. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted about non examination of Jyotsna. Even according to the version of the victim, Jyotsna was not present at the time of commission of rape. She was asked to leave the place by the applicant. Further, at that time, Jyotsna was only 5 years of age. In that view of the matter, non examination of Jyotsna does not merit the prosecution case as worthless especially when the victim has withstood the scorching cross-examination on the aspect of main incident. 15. It is further the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is falsely implicated and for that he invited my attention to his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement and the cross-examination of the victim. In Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the applicant has stated that there is a dispute between his father and uncle of the victim. In the cross-examination of victim, it is brought on record that father of the applicant is Gram Panchayat Member and there are two political parties in the village and her parents and uncle belong to different political party and father of the applicant belong to the other political group. Only on this, one cannot reach to the conclusion that the applicant was falsely implicated. There may be two different political groups. Merely because one set of villagers belong to one political party that by itself is not sufficient to reach to the conclusion that there was bitter enmity in between the members of the two political groups. Consequently, in any event, after perusal of his half hearted cross-examination, there is nothing brought on record through the cross-examination that at no point of time, the uncle or father of the present applicant contested the election and/or there was any dispute in between them due to the political rivalry. 16. In that view of the matter, I am not ready to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that because of the dispute, for which there is no foundation and no previous instances, the applicant is falsely implicated. 17. Insofar as the last submission about the alternate prayer of reduction of sentence is concerned, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge has imposed minimum punishment on the applicant. Merely by lapse of time, the gravity of the offence is not reduced. 17. Insofar as the last submission about the alternate prayer of reduction of sentence is concerned, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge has imposed minimum punishment on the applicant. Merely by lapse of time, the gravity of the offence is not reduced. The victim is required to carry the scar to her personality throughout her lifetime. Further, I noticed no reason for reduction of the sentence. Consequently, the said submission cannot be entertained. 18. Eventually, I am of the view that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the trial Court is based on correct evaluation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The judgment cannot be branded as perverse one or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Application No. 151/2011 is dismissed. (ii) The applicant-Sukhdeo Kashinath Mendhule, who is on bail as granted by this Court on 11.11.2011 shall surrender immediately to his bail bonds else the learned appellate Court is directed to take steps immediately for securing presence of the applicant for serving out the remaining sentence. The revision application is disposed of.