The main legal point established in the judgment is that to prove the offence under Section 415/417 of IPC, the prosecution must prove that at the relevant time of the incident or at the initial stage, the accused had the intention to deceive the victim and only to have a sexual relationship with her he made the false promise of marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This application is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Session Case No.153/08 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of another 3(three) months.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, one Sri Anil Bhunij lodged an FIR on 06.04.2008 alleging that 5(five) months prior to the filing of the FIR, the accused/appellant forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the sister of the informant which resulted in pregnancy and for that reason a village bichaar was held, wherein, the victim was handed over to the accused/appellant, but, he refused to accept her disowning the responsibility. Thereafter, the FIR has been lodged against the accused/appellant which has been registered under Khowang Police Station Case No.23/2008, under Section 376 of IPC and started investigation. During the investigation, the victim was medically examined and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. along with the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 376 of IPC and accordingly, after committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the present accused/appellant under Section 376 of IPC; the charges have been read over and explained to the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses in respect of this case including the victim, informant and IO. After conclusion of the evidence of prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein, he denied the allegation brought against him and thereafter, hearing the arguments put forwarded by the learned counsels of both sides, the judgment was passed on 11.11.2010, wherein, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 417 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only and in default R.I. for another 3(three) months.

5. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Sessions Case No.153/2008, the present appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true perspective and thus, came to a perverse finding by convicting the accused/appellant under Section 417 of IPC. The said Court failed to prove the statement made in the FIR i.e. Exhibit-3 and also failed to examine the writer of the FIR. Further, he submitted that in the village bichaar, there was no allegation was brought against the accused/appellant that he had committed sexual intercourse with the victim with a false promise of marriage. Nevertheless, the false allegation of marriage has been brought against the accused/appellant subsequently to make the case stronger, but, the learned Special Judge failed to consider this aspect of the case and arrived at a wrong finding. Rather, it is seen from the evidence of the prosecutrix that the FIR was lodged only when the accused/appellant refused to marry her. Except the PW-2/victim of this case, none of the other witnesses have stated that the accused/appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the victim on false promise of marriage. Thus, the victim had leveled the allegation on the present accused only to attract Sect