823 of 2012.
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.
PW1 was later on found to be pregnant and has since delivered a child.
As far as the petitioner is companycerned, he refused to marry PW1 and that led to her lodging a companyplaint against him for offences punishable under Section 376 and Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code.
The first appellate companyrt found numberreason to interfere with the judgment and sentence delivered by the Trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Adhoc II .
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.
Broadly, the allegation against the appellant is that he had raped PW1 his companysin on 20th October, 2002 and thereafter had promised to marry her.
It is number necessary to go into the detailed facts of the case since we are companysidering the matter as the fourth Court in the hierarchy and are number inclined to encourage a detailed scrutiny of the facts and evidence at this stage.
Madan B. Lokur, J. This petition is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 6th September, 2013 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Crl.
Rev. Pet.
