IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of the victim's testimony, the elements of cheating under section 415 IPC, and the need for fraudulent or dishonest intention to establish the offence.

JUDGMENT :

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) :

“X” has filed Criminal Appeal (V) No. 7 of 2022 against the judgment of acquittal of Dhalo Mahto @ Vishal Mahto under sections 493 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 974 of 2023 has been filed by Dhalo Mahto to challenge the judgment of conviction under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) passed in S.T. Case No. 5 of 2017.

3. Ramgarh (Mahila) PS Case No. 11 of 2016 was registered on the basis of the written report of “X” given to the officer-in-charge of Ramgarh (Mahila) PS on 14th October 2016. After the investigation, Charge-sheet No. 6 of 2016 was laid in the Court against Dhalo Mahto for committing the offence under sections 417 and 493 IPC. However, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ramgarh having found sufficient material available on record took cognizance of the offence under sections 376 and 417 IPC by an order dated 3rd January 2017. In S.T. Case No. 5 of 2017, Dhalo Mahto has faced the trial on the charge framed against him under sections 417, 493 and 376 IPC on 27th February 2018.

4. During the trial the prosecution has produced 9 witnesses in support of the charge framed against the accused and laid in evidence the medical report of “X” vide Exhibit-3.

5. The defence set up by the accused is of false implication due to refusal by the accused to marry “X” and to support this stand the accused has examined DW1 Neeraj Kumar Paswan.

6. The accused has also denied the incriminating materials produced by the prosecution when he was examined in the Court under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 4th December 2019.

7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st–cum-Special Judge F.T.C at Ramgarh has held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under section 493 IPC inasmuch as there is no evidence to establish that the accused deceitfully induced “X” to have sexual intercourse with him causing her to believe that she is lawfully married to him.

8. The discussions by the trial Judge on this issue are in the following manner:

“24. ... There is no dispute that the Dhalo Mahto @ Vishal Mahto was in visiting term to the house of victim girl where the victim was staying and had developed physical relationship with her. There is nothing in the F.I.R. that such physical relationship was not with the consent of the victim who is undisputedly a major girl. There is also no dispute that the victim was not kept under the impression that she was the married wife of the accused Dhalo Mahto @ Vishal Mahto. Rather on plain reading of the F.I.R it appears that only after the accused has turned down the marriage proposal of the victim girl the instant case was instituted. Even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true the Section is not being attracted. What is alleged in the complaint is only a promise to marry in future. The facts cannot at any rate attract Section 493, I.P.C. Evidence of victim that accused on promise to marry had committed sexual intercourse with her. The accused was in love with prosecutrix. It was in the situation that the relation between the two had the developed into a sort of relationship of a future marriage. Hence framing of charge u/s 493 of IPC against accused was not proper in other words no charge U/s 493 of IPC attract in the instant case. Thus, the charge U/s 493 of IPC fail against the accused Dhalo Mahto @ Vishal Mahto.”

9. In the opinion of the trial Judge, the charge under section 376 IPC has also failed because the prosecution could not prove that the accused established sexual relationship with “X” by deceitfully obtaining her consent that is to say on a misconception of fact.

10. The trial Judge has referred to the judgments in “Uday v. State of Karnataka” (2003) 4 SCC 46, “Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar” (2005) 1 SCC 88, “Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala” (2013) 9 SCC 113, “Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana” (2013) 7 SCC 675, “Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.” (