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 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.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.

                                                              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 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 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