The central legal point established in the judgment is that the intention to marry, consent, and fraudulent inducement were key factors in determining the accused's guilt under the Indian Penal Code.

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

The appellant herein is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, further R.I. for four year, he is also sentenced R.I. for four years for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default R.I. for one year by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.123 of 1995 vide judgment and order dated 30.10.1996.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein was pursuing his D.Ed. Course at Village Palsunde, Taluka Mokhed, District Thane. He was residing as a paying guest in the house of Smt. Pramila Tukaram Mhatre. He had financial difficulties. Pramila Mhatre had sympathy for the boy since he hailed from a poor family and therefore he was given lodging and boarding by Pramila. Mhatre. He was not paying either for food or for shelter. She demanded the rent as well as the expenses towards boarding. At that time, he suggested that instead of giving rent, he would get married to the daughter of Pramila. He had also assured her that in the eventuality that he gets the job elsewhere, he will continue to stay with her. He resided as a family member. Her daughter was also acquainted with him and had cordial relations with him. He had brought one of his colleagues viz. Shivram Khade to act as a mediator for the marriage. That Pramila was insisting upon him to get married. However, he had assured her that after completing a year in service, he would get married to her daughter. On 15.12.1994, he had approached Pramila along with his colleague. The marriage was settled. That he had assured Pramila that he would return along with his parents within 8 - 10 days. On 14.1.1995, the appellant, his parents and relatives had come to her house and had assured her that he will get married to the daughter of Pramila before 15th March, 1995. However, after the meeting, his whereabouts were not known and he did not return to the house of Pramila. Thereafter, the son of Pramila Mhatre had searched for the appellant at various places, including the school where he was teaching. There he was informed that the whereabouts of the appellant are not known for quite some time. Smt. Mhatre was therefore constrained to approach the police station and accordingly she filed a written report with Police Inspector at Uran Police Station. She had informed the police that by his behaviour the appellant had exposed the mother and daughter to social obloquy The said application was registered as Misc. Application No.14 of 1995. However, it appears that the police had not seriously taken cognizance of the report. They had pursued the complaint, but to no avail. At last, on 2.4.1995, Ms 'x' daughter of Smt. Pramila Mhatre lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that since 1989, the appellant was residing at Village Palsunde as their paying guest. He was not paying the rent nor the boarding charges. He had offered to get married to her. Thereafter, one fine day, when the victim was alone at home, he had forced himself upon her and ravished her. He had convinced her that since he had offered to get married to her, she should not shy away. He had demanded Rs.10,000/- towards expenses for the marriage. Her paternal uncle Hasuram had taken money from her mother and give it to him, but the appellant did not return the said amount and neither got married to her. He had ravished her intermittently. She has further alleged that the appellant had got a job at Vashim. He used to come to visit her on Saturday and Sunday. He had impressed upon the victim that they are as good as a married couple. Therefore, she had consented to have sexual intercourse with him. Her mother and brother had been to his village. They had contacted his parents and they had reacted by saying that there is no concern between both the families. According to the victim, the appellant h