This is an appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Hojai at Sankardev Nagar, Nagaon, Assam (Fast Track Court) in Sessions Case No.208 (N) 05 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 417 IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.20000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days.

2. The brief facts of the case as projected in the FIR filed by the informant Smti Bhanuprabha Hazarika is that the accused Shri Subir Dhar was in love with her daughter Smt. Barnali Hazarika for the last five years prior to the filing of the FIR. When the complainant asked the accused about the love affairs, the later told her that he will marry her daughter. But on 24.10.04, the accused refused to marry the complainant’s daughter as a result of which her daughter Smti Barnali Hazarika made an attempt to commit suicide by consuming poison, but due to timely intervention of the neighbours, she could be saved. On 25.10.04, Barnali went to the house of the accused and sat in front of it. When the complainant reached there along with the police, Barnali told her that if the accused did not marry her, she will commit suicide. Somehow the victim was brought to their house. On the above facts, the informant lodged the FIR with the Police which was subsequently registered as Lumding P.S. Case No.148 of 2004 under Section 493/376 IPC.

3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the accused Subir Dhar under Section 493/376/417 IPC. The Court below committed the case to the Court of Sessions for favour of trial. On appearance of the accused before the Court of Sessions, the charge was modified to Section 376/417 IPC and charge was framed and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty.

4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as five PWs whereas the defence examined two witnesses. One CW was examined who was cross-examined by the prosecution as well as by the defence. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted about the love affairs with Barnali Hazarika but denied the factum of sexual intercourse was denied. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 60 days.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge committed error of law as well as in facts in convicting the appellant under Section 417 IPC as there was no material whatsoever on record to come to a finding that the appellant had induced the victim to handover any property to him. According to the appellant, the property included in Section 417 means any tangible thing capable of being used, possessed etc., so the same is not applicable to the matter of chastity of any women within the purview of Chapter XVII of the IPC which is related to offence against property. It is stated that the learned Sessions Judge has come to a definite finding that the parties were in deep love for a period over of 5 years which resulted in their physical relationship and, as such, the learned Sessions Judge committed error in convicting the appellant under Section 417 IPC. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the order of conviction and acquit the accused person of the charge.

6. While initiating the argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has basically relied upon the facts that the accused appellant cannot be convicted solely on the ground for his inability to marry the victim girl in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance has been placed upon the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme in (1977) 3 SCC