Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Nilo Kanta Doley, S/o Sri Numal Doley – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. L. K. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. None has appeared for the informant/respondent No.2.
2. By way of the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No.04/2008 whereby the appeal of the petitioner/appellant was rejected by upholding the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.12.2007 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Golaghat in G.R. Case No.37/2007 by which the petitioner/appellant was convicted under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year with fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, another simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that upon information being lodged on 10.01.2007 by the victim that she had love affairs with the petitioner for about one year and duri
Conviction under Section 417 IPC requires proof of a fraudulent promise to marry which was false from the inception; mere failure to marry does not constitute deception in consensual relationships.
Consent in a love relationship cannot be deemed vitiated unless proven that it was based on a false promise made in bad faith, and mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating under Section 417....
A long-term consensual relationship does not constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC unless deception or misconception of fact is proven.
The validity of consent in cases involving a false promise to marry and the application of Section 90 of IPC to determine the impact of a false promise on consent.
Refusal to marry after a consensual relationship does not constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC without evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of the promise.
Promise to marry does not negate consent given out of love; misleading promises alone do not constitute misconception of fact for statutory cheating.
A false promise of marriage, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given, would constitute a misconception of fact vitiating the woman's consent.
Point of law : Powers u/s 397 r/w with S.401 of Cr.P.C. are inherent in nature to correct the judgments and the orders of the courts below which suffer from gross illegality or jurisdictional error.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
