(1.) The revision Petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default of which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years, he having been found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Such conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court is confirmed in appeal. Hence this revision.
(2.) The allegation against the accused is that at about 7:45 p.m. on 18.11.1995, he raped the victim, aged about 28 years then. The scene of occurrence is alleged to be the lane near a public road. The prosecution version is that, the victim, a maid servant in the house of PW4 was returning from a Temple; that she came to the shop of PW5 and enquired about the availability of bus and then went in the auto rickshaw of the accused, leading to her being raped by the accused. The accused then accompanied the victim to the residence of PW4, where the victim entered a toilet which is not attached to the house and bolted from inside; the accused informed the mother of the victim and few neighbours that the victim has locked herself up in the toilet; thereupon the neighbours forced the toilet open and found the victim unconscious; she was taken to the local hospital and from there to the Medical College hospital where she was admitted and treated; the victim told the doctor who examined her that it was the accused who ravished, which led to the injuries that were recorded by the doctor. The name of the accused has been recorded in Ext.P1, the medical examination report prepared by PW1, the doctor who recorded having found to fresh tear to the victim's hymen.
(3.) After adverting to and considering the legal evidence on record, the trial judge found the accused guilty. That has been confirmed in appeal. Examining the material evidence and the findings of the courts below, the question for consideration is as to whether those findings, conviction and sentence call for interference in revision.