The central legal point established in the judgment is that the consent of the petitioner in establishing a physical relationship was apparent from the evidence, and the relationship was not based on deception.

No one appears for the petitioner. However, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 are present.

2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 27.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner III, Khunti, Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 169 of 2004 whereby and whereby the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned ACJM, Khunti in connection with G.R. No. 174 of 1998 by which the opposite party No. 2 had been convicted for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year has been set aside.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner-informant who was a temporary lecturer of Philosophy in Birsa College, Khunti had developed acquaintance with the opposite party No. 2 from 08.03.1995 as the opposite party No. 2 is the brother-in-law of the cousin sister of the petitioner. It has been alleged that the opposite party No. 2 used to regularly visit the house of the petitioner on the pretext of learning philosophy. It has also been alleged that in course of time, the opposite party No. 2 had established physical relationship with the petitioner as a result of which she got pregnant and later on abortion was done in the month of November 1996. It is also alleged that in the year 1997, opposite party No. 2 was selected in the military service and went to undergo training and after taking leave from service he has also got indulged in sexual intercourse. It has also been alleged that opposite party No. 2 had tried to solemnise marriage with another lady namely, Renu Kumari for which an invitation card was also printed. Based on the aforesaid allegations Khunti P.S. Case No. 32 of 1998 was lodged for the offence under Sections 493 and 376 of IPC.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on the pretext of marriage the opposite party No. 2 had indulged in sexual relationship with the petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly. It has been stated that the petitioner was under the impression that the opposite party No. 2 shall marry her in course of time, but the opposite party No. 2 instead of the same had tried to solemnise marriage with another girl for which invitation card was also printed.

5. On the other hand. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has opposed this application while stating that the opposite party No. 2 was a student when the alleged relationship developed with the petitioner and the petitioner was then a temporary lecturer in the college. He has further submitted that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 and being an educated lady the question of deception by establishing physical relation on the pretext of marriage pales into insignificance. Learned counsel thus submits that error committed by the learned trial Court has been rectified by the learned appellate Court by acquitting the opposite party No. 2 from the offence under Section 417 of IPC.

6. The only question which has to be examined in the present case is whether there was any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the opposite party No. 2 to deceive the petitioner or to get her consent in establishing physical relationship with her. In course of trial, 5 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW2 the President Chhotanagpuri Teli Uthan Samaj has stated in his evidence that an inquiry was conducted on the application submitted by the petitioner and on inquiry it was found that both the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 2 were having a love affair to which the society had directed them to marry. The petitioner has been examined as PW3 who has stated about the distant relationship with the opposite party No. 2 and on account of the same, she had come in acquaintance with the opposite party No. 2. This witness has stated that in spite of making a promise to many the petitioner, the opposit