The main legal point established in the judgment is that inducing someone to part with money and property under false pretenses for personal benefit constitutes an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 18th March 2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 190 of 2009, convicting the appellant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “I.P.C.”) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a total fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for six months, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

By the same Judgment and Order dated 18th March 2010, the Trial Court has been pleased to acquit appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. Jahagirdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Palkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent-State. Perused entire record.

3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that, the marriage of complainant (PW-1) was scheduled in December 1998. In the marriage ceremony itself, her husband expired due to heart attack and the prosecutrix was not willing to marry for second time. The complainant was visiting house of her sister namely, Suchita Dhurat (PW-2) who was residing at Wadala. The brother of her brother-in-law introduced complainant with the appellant. The appellant told complainant that, he would make efforts to get a good job to the complainant. The complainant thus got acquainted with the appellant. Their acquaintance blossomed in an affair. The appellant promised to marry with the complainant and established physical relations with her. It is the further prosecution case that, the appellant during the period of their affair i.e. from the year 2004 to 2008, under various pretext induced complainant to part with cash amount and/or valuable property to the tune of approximately Rs.4,61,650/-.

Subsequently, the appellant resiled from his promise to marry with the complainant and therefore, their relations got strained. The complainant therefore approached Mr. Mohan M. Sonawane (PW-3) from Mankhurd, a social worker for help to resolve the said issue and for amicable settlement. Mr. Sonawane interalia contacted his counter part from Wadala namely Mr. Anand Jadhav (PW-5) who was also a social worker and Shakhapramukh of a political outfit namely ‘Shivsena’. A meeting was accordingly arranged on 14th February 2008 between the complainant, her family members, appellant, his family members, Mr. Mohan Sonawane (PW- 3), Mr. Anand Jadhav (PW-5), Mr. Ganpat @ Balu Manchekar (DW-1) and other persons from the society. In the said meeting, the appellant executed a Deed of Guarantee (Exh.17) coupled with a Memo of Acceptance of Liability (Exh.18). Apart from the aforestated three witnesses, the Deed of Guarantee was also signed by six other witnesses. The Memo of Acceptance of Liability (Exh.18) has been duly signed by the appellant. As the appellant did not honour his Deed of Guarantee (Exh.17) and Memo of Acceptance of Liability (Exh.18), and the complainant also came to know that the appellant has married with other woman, she lodged a complaint (Exh.14) with Wadala Police Station on 23rd June 2008. The police, after conducting preliminary enquiry, recorded First Information Report (Exh.15) on 5th August 2008. During the course of investigation, the appellant came to be arrested on 6th August 2008.

4. After completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the I.P.C. against the appellant in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 29th Court, Dadar, Mumbai. As the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Mumbai for trial.

5. The Trial Court framed charge against the appellant below Exhibit-4. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the appellant was of total denial.

The Trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing