DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioner-A1 filed the revision against the judgment of conviction and sentence in C. C. No. 365 of 1997 on the file of the Addl. Judicial magistrate of First Class, Kadiri dated 14. 8. 2000 in convicting the revision petitioner-Al for an offence under section 417 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months which was confirmed in Crl. Appea1 no. 234 of 2000 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the revision are as follows: about two years prior to the filing of the charge sheet A1, A3 and A4 came to the house of Sara1amma, the de facto complainant, for marriage A1liance. Since then sara1amma developed love with A1 who promised her that he would marry. A1 developed closeness with the victim sara1amma and used to visit her house frequently and the parents of the victim a1lowed A1 to move freely with the victim as they were under the impression that A1 would marry their daughter. A1 promised the victim that he would marry her and requested for sexua1 intercourse with dishonest intention. The victim accepted and A1lowed A1 to have sexua1 intercourse under the impression that he would marry her. A1 convinced her that he would marry after completion of the Hea1th Visitor Course at Anantapur. A1ter few days, the victim became pregnant and she was carrying three months pregnancy. On coming to know the said fact, A2 requested the victim that it is not proper to marry her with pregnancy and that she would perform marriage after two months and requested the victim to get her aborted. Believing the promise the victim went to Kadiri A1ong with A2 and her pregnancy was terminated. After few days, a1 began to visit her house and when the victim went to the house of A1, a photographer took their photos and A1 promised that he would marry in the presence of elders after getting the job. Believing the representation of A1, the victim again a1lowed him to have sexua1 intercourse and subsequently she became pregnant. When the parents of the victim requested A1 for the marriage, A1 abused them and there was a panchayath and the marriage could not be performed since the parents of A1 did not accept the proposa1. When the victim was carrying one month pregnancy, she gave a report to the police and a case was registered and after investigation the charge sheet was filed against A1 to A4.

( 3 ) WHEN A1l the accused appeared before the Addl. Judicia1 First Class magistrate, Kadiri charges under Sections 419 and 420 IPC against A1 to A4, under section 493 IPC against A1 and under section 493 read with 34 IPC against A2 to A4 were framed and A1l of them denied the offences. On beha1f of the prosecution pws. 1 to 6 were examined and Ex. P1 to P5 were marked. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence under section 417 IPC was proved against A1 a1one and the other accused were found not guilty of the charges framed against them and they were acquitted. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 filed Crl. Appea1 No. 234 of 2000 on the file of the Addl. District and sessions Judge, Hindupur and the learned sessions Judge after hearing confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appea1.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the judgment of conviction and sentence the revision petitioner-A1 filed the revision contending that the Courts below erred in convicting the revision petitioner for an offence under section 417 IPC. The Courts below failed to appreciate that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 417 IPC. The Courts below erred in relying on the interested testimony of PWs 1 to 5. The Courts below failed to appreciate that the victim had sexua1 intercourse with the accused with full consent and they were moving freely in the village to the knowledge of everyone. The Courts below failed to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document