RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Anup Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties.

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner F.T.C., Khunti, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khunti Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 18 of 2000, corresponding to Trial No. 102 of 2002, by which the petitioner had been convicted for offences punishable u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- has been affirmed.

3. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 were on intimate terms and on the pretext that marriage of the opposite party no.2 was to be solemnized the petitioner had established sexual relationship with the opposite party no.2. It is alleged that a Bachan Data ceremony was held which was performed by the priest of Torpa Catholic Church. Subsequently the complainant gave birth to a male child on 12.02.1999. It is alleged that the petitioner on one pretext or the other had postponed the marriage to be solemnized and finally he declined to solemnize marriage with the opposite party no.2.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Complaint Case No 18 of 2000 was instituted. Upon conducting an inquiry u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter trial proceeded.

5. In course of trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Nirmal Soy is the brother of the opposite party no.2 who had stated that the love affairs between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 continued from 1998 to 1999. He has further stated that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the opposite party no.2. This witness has also stated that a Bachan Data ceremony was performed by the priest according to the Christian rites and customs. He has further disclosed that the petitioner had subsequently refused to marry the opposite party no.2. This witness has stated that after the birth of the child no sexual relationship was established by the petitioner with the opposite party no.2. P.W.2 Jaymasi Soy is the father of the opposite party no.2 who had supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 Benidict Naurangi has also supported the prosecution case with respect to the petitioner establishing physical relationship with the opposite party no.2 and subsequently even after the Bachan Data ceremony he had denied to perform marriage with the opposite party no.2. P.W.4 Paul Singh has stated that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and the marriage was also fixed but the petitioner subsequently denied solemnizing marriage with the opposite party no.2. P.W.5 Shushil Soy was not produced for cross-examination and therefore his evidence was never taken into consideration. P.W.6 Dulari Soy is the informant who has stated that she had developed intimacy with the petitioner and on the pretext that the marriage of the petitioner and the informant was fixed the petitioner had established physical relationship with her. She has also disclosed that she had become pregnant and had given a birth to a child on 12.02.1999. She has further stated that a Bachan Data ceremony was also held. This witness has disclosed about the Panchayati which was held after the birth of the child and the villagers has imposed a fine of one male goat upon the petitioner. She has further stated that the physical relationship with the informant continued but the petitioner postponed the marriage on one pretext or the other and ultimately he refused to marry the informant.

6. Since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khunti Ranc