JUDGMENT :

1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2. The above appeal is filed by the convicted accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Mahila Sessions Court, Chengalpat for offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

3. The respondent-police filed the final report in Crime No. 308 of 2009, Salavakkam Police Station alleging that the victim is 18 years old deaf and dumb and on promise to marry, he had sexual intercourse multiple times and thereby committed an offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and after having sexual relationship, he refused to marry and hence committed an offence under Section 417 of I.P.C.

4. After observing the formalities, the case has been taken up on file as P.R.C. No. 8/11 and on committal, made over to Mahila Court in S.C. No. 56/13.

5. The Trial Court has framed charge under Sections 376 and 417 of I.P.C. During trial, the victim was examined as PW-2 and her mother, de-facto complainant was examined as PW-1 and interpreter and special teacher from school for dumb was examined as PW-3 and relative of PW-1 was examined as PW-4 and Doctor who had examined the accused was examined as PW-5 and receipt Ex.P2 was marked. PW-6 is Doctor who had examined the victim girl and gave Medical Certificates under Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and PWs. 7, 8, 9 are police witnesses who deposed about receipt of Ex.P1 complaint and registration of Ex.P7 F.I.R. and recording of statement of witness and filing of the charge-sheet after investigation.

6. Based upon the answer elicited in the cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-1, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has not proved the charge under Section 376 of I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted the accused. However, he held that the charge under Section 417 of I.P.C. is made out and accordingly sentenced the accused as stated supra and hence this appeal by the accused.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the trial Court has totally gone erroneous without considering the principles enunciated to constitute the alleged offence under Section 417 of I.P.C. in the light of decision in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2341.

8. The trial Court was also carried away with sympathy, without adverting to the provisions of law which requires the existence of a promise at the time of alleged offences said to have been committed and relied on State of Kerala vs. K. Vareed Pillai, AIR 1973 SC 426.

9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent has made submissions in support of the judgment of the trial Court.

10. PW-2 Miss ‘X’ is a victim. She is a deaf and dumb and hence services of PW-3 Padmavathy, special teacher in deaf and dumb school was hired by the police for enquiry and also before the Session Judge.

11. On a screening and scrutiny of the prosecution witness and documentary evidence adduced before Session Judge, this Court finds that the victim girl PW-2 is aged about 18 years and below 19 years as per medical evidence, and she is aware of the fact that the accused is already a married man. In her chief examination, she stated that during the absence of her mother, the accused has be-friend with her and used to move around and expression is leave for her and promised to marry her and on such promise to marry, they moved around and it has been noticed by PW-4.

12. Furthermore, it is also her evidence that the accused came and asked her mother for getting her married, however, her mother has refused to give in her marriage, since the accused is already a married person.

13. It remains to be stated that the specific evidence of PW-2 regarding her sexual intercourse with the accused and she had stated that she knew that the accused was already a married person and on his promise to marry her, she had physical intimacy with him for mult