Subhasis Talapatra, J.

1. Against the petitioner the prosecution was launched on the written complaint filed by the prosecutrix stating that the petitioner used to visit the house of the prosecutrix in absence of her parents and cohabit with her and induced her deceitfully stating that the petitioner would marry her. As a result, she became pregnant due to repeated cohabitation. As per the direction of the petitioner the prosecutrix had aborted her pregnancy once. They continued to cohabit even thereafter. Again she became pregnant. When the prosecutrix requested the petitioner to marry her, he started avoiding her. Being annoyed, the prosecutrix filed a written complaint and as the written complaint revealed a cognizable offence, Melaghar P.S. Case No. 80/96, under Section 493/315/376 of IPC, was registered and thereafter on completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and cognizance was taken under Section 376/315 of the IPC. The case was committed eventually to the Court of Sessions, as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court, however, transferred the case to the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 1 for conducting the trial. The following charges were framed against the petitioner:-

(i) That from the middle part of January 1995 (from the first part of Magha 1401 B. S.) to 18.10.96 night at about 20.00 hrs. (First Kartika, 1403 B.S.) in different times at Bajendranagar under Melaghar Police Station, you committed rape on Smti. Sita Rani Barman, D/o Sri Lal Mohan Barman of Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Malaghar, West Tripura and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C., and within my cognizance.

And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the said charge.

(ii) That in the middle part of April, 1995 at any time at Rajendranagar under Melaghar Police Station, you did an act, to wit aborted 3 months pregnancy of Smti. Sita Rani Barman causing used quack medicine before the birth of her child, with the intention of thereby preventing that child from being born alive, and by that act did prevent that child from being born alive and the said act was not done in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the I.P.C. and within my cognizance.

And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge.

The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2. The prosecution to bring home the charge examined as many as 27 witnesses including the Investigating Officer and admitted 12 documents as Exbt.1 to 12. On the other hand, the defence case as it transpires from the record is of the total denial and the defence did not adduce any witness. After conclusion of the trial the Assistant Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala held that the charge under Section 376 of the IPC and the charge under Section 315 of the IPC could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that even though the major charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the offence under Section 417 of the IPC for committing sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on assurance of marriage had been proved and hence, the petitioner was convicted under Section 417 of IPC without framing any charge in exercise of powers provided under Section 222 of the Cr. P.C. and the petitioner was sentenced to suffer R.I. for a term of one year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for a further period of three months. It was also directed that the fine money, if realized, should be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. The said judgment of conviction and the consequential order of sentence were returned by the Assistant Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2000 in S.T. No. 95(WT/S) of 1998.

3.