- (1.) K. L. Sharma, J. This is a criminal revision directed against the order of framing a charge and the charge dated 17-3- 1994, passed by IV Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T. No. 448 of 1993 he framed a charge against the revisionist under Section 376 read with Section 511, I. P. C.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri Ram Niwas Sharma as well as the learned A. P. P. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the material on record did not justify the framing of a charge against the for an offence of attempt to commit rape. In support of his contention he also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Major Singh, AIR 1987 SC 63. On the basis of his contention he has submitted that the charge of attempt to commit rape could not have been framed for the reason that the girl in question was only 8 years of age. He has for his contention, relied upon the minority view of Chief Justice A. K. Sircar, but the majority decision was against him. In the present case the medical evidence shows that the girl was only 8 years old and injuries were found on the private part of the girl and blood was oozing. The hymen was found freshly torn. This medical evidence has been duly considered by the learned Sessions Judge while framing the charge for an attempt to commit rape punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511, I. P. C. I do not find any reason to interfere with this order of the learned Sessions Judge which is justified by the material on record. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that only a charge under Section 354,i. P. C. could be framed against the revisionist. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;