ORDER :

1. Having heard Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and on carefully perusing the records, we are not inclined to interfere with the acquittal as recorded by the High Court.

2. The second respondent, on the complaint of the appellant, stood trial for offences under Section 312 of IPC (causing miscarriage); Section 342 of IPC (wrongful confinement); and Section 417 of IPC (cheating). The trial court acquitted the second respondent for offences punishable under Section 312 IPC (causing miscarriage) and convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 342 and 417 of IPC.

3. While acquitting respondent No. 2 under Section 312 IPC, the trial court relied on the evidence of PW-7 (Dr. R.C. Das) whom the prosecution examined to hold that according to the evidence of PW-7, the victim had already undergone miscarriage before she was brought to the clinic and that there was no other evidence to show that respondent No.2 caused miscarriage. So holding respondent No.2 was acquitted for offence under Section 312 IPC.

4. Insofar as Section 342 IPC is concerned, the trial court found that because respondent No.2 took the appellant to the clinic of PW-7 (Dr. R.C. Das) and PW-4 has also spoken about the appellant accompanying respondent No.2 from her house, the trial court found a case for convicting respondent NO.2 for wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC and sentenced him to 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/- .

5. Insofar as Section 417 IPC was concerned, the trial court found that ingredients of cheating were made out and convicted respondent No.2 for offence under Section 417 IPC and imposed the sentence of 6 months R.I. with a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

6. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala challenging his conviction under Sections 342 and 417 IPC. The appellate court acquitted respondent No.2 for offence under Section 342 IPC recording that there was no evidence of wrongful confinement of the appellant in the clinic of PW-7. Insofar as Section 417 of IPC is concerned, the conviction and sentence were maintained since the Court found that respondent No.2 committed sexual intercourse with PW-3 giving assurance of marriage in the near future.

7. Before the High Court, appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2011 challenging the acquittal of the respondent under Sections 312 and 342 IPC. Admittedly, against the acquittal by the trial court of respondent No.2 under Section 312 IPC, no appeal had been filed before the Court of Sessions and directly an appeal, even for the acquittal under Section 312 IPC by the trial court, was filed in the High Court. We find that the High Court has only discussed the aspect of Section 312 IPC insofar as the appeal filed by the appellant was concerned and held that the appeal to the High Court was not maintainable.

8. To satisfy ourselves, we have examined the depositions of PW-3 (the victim), PW-4 (Maya Rani Bhomik) and PW-7 (Dr. R.C. Das) as well as the finding of conviction as recorded by the trial court under Section 342 IPC and the finding of acquittal as recorded by the Sessions Court under Section 342 IPC. We are satisfied that there is no evidence against respondent No.2 for having committed offence under Section 342 IPC.

9. It must be stated in fairness that Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel did not even press the appeal for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC.

10. The main contention was that the High Court erred in acquitting respondent No.2 for offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and in reversing the findings of the trial court and the appellate court. We have ex