Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (CRIMINAL) NO.1759 OF 2015

Ratheesh          ….Petitioner

      versus

State of Kerala & Anr.  …Respondents   

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. This petition is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 6th

September, 2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.

823 of 2012.

2. It is not necessary to go into the detailed facts of the case since

we are considering the matter as the fourth Court in the hierarchy and are

not inclined to encourage a detailed scrutiny of the facts and evidence at

this stage.

3. Broadly,  the  allegation  against  the  appellant  is  that  he  had

raped PW1 his cousin on 20th October, 2002 and thereafter had promised

to  marry  her.   The  petitioner  and  PW1  are  said  to  have  had  sexual

intercourse on three subsequent occasions as well, on the promise to marry

given by the petitioner.  PW1 was later on found to be pregnant and has

since delivered a child.  As far as the petitioner is concerned, he refused to

1

Page 2

marry PW1 and that led to her lodging a complaint against him for offences

punishable under Section 376 and Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code.  

4. The trial judge, that is, the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kottayam considered the evidence on record and by his judgment and order

dated 11th March,  2005 accepted the version of  PW1 and convicted the

petitioner of the offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 417 of

the IPC.  On the question of sentence, the Trial Court sentenced him to

seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 35,000/- and in

default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one

year.  It was directed that if the fine amount is realized then Rs. 30,000/-

would be given to PW1 as compensation under Section 357 of the Cr. P.C.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the

Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II).  The first appellate court found no

reason to interfere with the judgment and sentence delivered by the Trial

Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

6. Feeling  aggrieved,  the  petitioner  preferred  a  Revision  Petition

before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and

order  dated  6th September,  2013.   The  High  Court,  despite  its  limited

revisional  jurisdiction,  went into the facts of  the case and accepted the

version of PW1 and affirmed the conviction of the petitioner. However, with

regard to the sentence of imprisonment, the High Court reduced the period

from seven years to two years rigorous imprisonment.  With regard to the

fine, it was directed that the entire fine of Rs. 35,000/- if recovered shall be

paid to PW1 and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment

2

Page 3

for a period of six months.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is now before us under Article

136 of the Constitution.

8. As  mentioned  above,  we  are  not  inclined  to  look  into  the

evidence despite the persuasion of learned counsel for the petitioner.  Three

Courts have already gone into the evidence on record and had arrived at a

conclusion which we do not find to be perverse.  We may have a difference

of opinion on the facts of the case but a mere difference of opinion is not

sufficient  to  result  in  interference with  views expressed by three  courts

particularly after each one of them has discussed the evidence in detail.

9. Under  these  circumstances,  we  decline  to  exercise  our

discretion and do not interfere with the judgment and order passed by the

High Court including the punishment awarded to the petitioner.

10. The petition is dismissed.

...…………………….J                                             (Madan B. Lokur)

...…………………….J                                       (S.A. Bobde)

New Delhi; October 15, 2015

3