The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the victim to be under the full impression that the accused is her husband to establish the offense under Section 493 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision application has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 31.08.2004 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Jamtara in Cr. Appeal No. 103 of 1990/13 of 2003; whereby the learned appellate court affirm the judgment dated 30.04.1990 passed by Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamtara in P.C.R. case No. 57 of 1987 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 530 of 1990; whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 493 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the opposite party no.2 being the complainant had filed a PCR Case No. 57 of 1987 against the above named petitioner with an allegation that the appellant was the teacher in the primary school of the complainant’s village and he resided in the house of one Nepal Rai, as a tenant. The petitioner has been engaged as a tutor by the parents of the complainant on the conditions that he will be provided two time meal. In course of time the petitioner took the complainant in his trap on promise of marriage, as the petitioner has told the complainant that he is an unmarried person. It was further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant fell in the trap of appellant and on 07.04.1985 she was taken to the Durga Mandir by the petitioner and by exchanging garlands and also by putting vermillion on the head of the complainant, took the complainant into believing that she had become his legally married wife. Thereafter, the petitioner started cohabitation with her which the complainant did not opposed as she was in belief that she is legally married wife and the appellant is her husband. The complainant did not disclosed her secret marriage as the appellant had told her that he will disclose their marriage before the society, whenever the time will be suitable for them. It was also alleged in the complaint petition that during sexual inter-course, the complainant was also administered some homeopathic medicine by the appellant to prevent the complainant’s conception. Complaint petition further reveals that year passed but the opportune moment of disclosing her marriage before the society did not come, then the complainant started pressurizing the appellants, which constrained the appellant to flee-away from the village. It was also alleged in the compliant petition that a panchayati was also held in the village on 23.08.1986 in which the appellant had given assurance to the panches regarding the solemnization of marriage with the complainant but surprisingly enough, on 25.08.1986 the appellant fled away from the village. It was also alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant made complaint to the higher office authority and the S.P. Dumka and the Dy. S.P. Jamtara directed the O/C Bagdehari to take necessary action but O/C Bagdehari police station in collusion with the appellant did not take any action, thereafter, the complaint petition has been filed by the complainant against the appellant.

4. Mr. D.K. Karmakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially a complaint was lodged by the complainant for the offence under Sections 376 IPC I.P.C. However, the learned trial court framed the charge under Section 493 IPC and convicted the petitioner only for the offence committed under section 493 IPC.

Learned counsel further draws attention of this court towards paragraph 12 of the complaint petition itself, wherein it has specifically stated that the complainant made a complain to the higher officers i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Dumka and DY.S.P., Jamtara and from where she came to know subsequently that the S.P. Dumka had directed the Officer-in-Charge, Bagdohari, P.S. to take necessary action in the matter and finally the police exonerated this petitioner. Though there is an allegation that police was allegedly gained over by the petitioner. However, the fact remains