SHIVRAJ CHANDRAPPA YADAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Criminal Revision Application the petitioner has impugned the judgment and order dated 17th November 1990 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1989, maintaining the judgment and order dated 21-12-1988 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 130 of 1987, convicting and sentencing him in the manner stated hereinafter :

(2.) THE concurrent finding of the courts below is that on 19-8-1987 at about 11. 30 a. m. Sunita P. W. 2, had come to the house of the petitioner to call his daughter Chingi. The petitioner asked Sunita to go inside his house and bring the Tobacco packet for him and when Sunita went inside the house the petitioner followed her, closed the front door, held Sunita, wrapped cloth around her mouth to frustrate her bid to cry and then attempted to commit rape on her by felling her down on a wooden truck. The courts below have also found that Sunita removed the cloth wrapped around her mouth, shouted, released herself and thereafter ran away. In my view the said finding of fact is based on credible and sufficient evidence. There is the unimpeachable evidence of Sunita P. W. 2, who has testified about the facts mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In my view the facts set out in the preceding paragraph establish the commission of offences under sections 354 and 342 of the I. P. C. against the petitioner.

(3.) IT is well settled that where conviction is founded on a concurrent finding of fact the revisional Court does not interfere unless they can be stigmatized as being perverse. Mr. B. R. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show me that the said finding can be castigated as perverse. I also do not find the convictions and sentences of the petitioners to be vitiated by any illegality