U.B. Saha, J.

1. The instant revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-06-2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat in GR. Case No. 661 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the accused-respondent no. 1 was acquitted from the Charge leveled against him under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). Heard Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. None appears on behalf of the accused-respondent.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that since 1993 the accused-respondent Manoj Deuri had love affairs with her. He assured her that he would marry her. On assurance of marriage, the accused-respondent had sexual intercourse with her. As a result, she became pregnant. Later on, the accused-respondent by playing tricks persuaded her to undergo abortion. On 03.08.2000, the accused-respondent took her from her house on assurance that he would perform marriage with her. Ultimately, she was kept in the house of one Sri Jiten Kakoti of Chiratia Gaon for that purpose. But subsequently, the accused abandoned her in the house of said Jiten Kakoti and remained untraceable. Being felt cheated by the conduct of the accused, the petitioner on 09.08.2000 lodged a complaint against the accused-respondent before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate upon receipt of the said complaint forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge, Pulibor Police Station for registering the case and also for investigation. Accordingly, a police case was registered being Pulibor PS Case No. 69 of 2000 under sections 493/420/406 of the IPC against the accused-respondent. The Investigating Authority examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and ultimately, on completion of the investigation laid the charge-sheet against the accused-respondent for commission of offence under the aforesaid sections of the IPC before the Court of leaned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. The accused-respondent appeared before the trial Court and on his appearance, copies of necessary documents relied by the prosecution were served upon him and ultimately, the trial Court framed the charge under Section 420 of IPC and dropped the charges regarding the other sections. The accused-respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 7 (seven) witnesses including the official witnesses. After recording the prosecution evidence, the accused-respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Defence case before the learned trial Court was of totally denial and innocence. The accused-respondent did not adduce any evidence in his defence.

7. Learned trial Court considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses ultimately acquitted the accused-respondent. Hence, the revision petition.

8. Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-respondent with a dishonest intention had fallen on love with the complainant-informant and induced her to have sexual intercourse with him on a promise to marry her and as a result she became pregnant, not only that the accused-respondent playing tricks persuaded her for abortion and finally denied to marry her. Thus, by way of false promise accused-respondent cheated her, which is established from the evidence of witnesses. He has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 i.e. the complainant-informant, Sri Jiten Kakoti and Smt Reshmi Kakoti respectively. He also urges that the learned trial Court committed an error acquitting the accused-respondent who made a false promise to marry the complainant-informant and went on sexual intercourse and ultimately, deceived the complainant-informant by way of denying to marry her. He has finally contended that as the accused-respondent so induced the complainant-informant by