Point of law: There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given after wholly, understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, dated 14.02.2017 in C.A.No.14 of 2016 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in S.C.No.72 of 2009, dated 23.03.2016.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

The sole accused is the revision petitioner herein. He has preferred this criminal revision case against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in C.A.No.14 of 2016, dated 14.02.2017, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry, in S.C.No.72 of 2009, dated 23.03.2016.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.11.2006, the victim/P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Villupuram, against the revision petitioner and the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station and on the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.154 of 2007 dated 14.02.2007 against the revision petitioner for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC and for want of jurisdiction, the case was transferred to Kirumambakkam police station, Puducherry/respondent herein and renumbered as Crime No.64 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC as against the petitioner. After completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed final report for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry in P.R.C.No.22 of 2009 and made over the same to the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry and after committal proceedings, the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry framed charges against the accused/revision petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC.

3. The suggestive case of the defence is that there is no such promise to marry. If at all there was sexual intercourse between the prosecutrix and the accused, it ought to have been con-sexual and consensual act.

4. The trial Court, after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that the victim/P.W.1 is a consenting party and the physical relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual and convicted the accused under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. However, the trail Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 376 IPC. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.14 of 2016 and the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, after trial, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and dismissed the said criminal appeal and hence, the present criminal revision case has been preferred before this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry, appearing for the State.

6. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in S.C.No.72 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Puducherry. The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 IPC. The trial Court found not guilty of the accused under Section 376 IPC and acquitted the accused from the said charge under Section 376 IPC. As against the order of acquittal under Section 376 IPC, no appeal is preferred by the State.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would contend that there is a material contradiction as to the date of the occurrence, place of the occurrence and the evidence of the victim/P.W.1 is not trustworthy to place reliance. Non examination of the material witnesses viz., the Inspector of Police and Superintendent of Police,