The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the offence of cheating under Section 415 of I.P.C, emphasizing the requirement of intentional inducement causing harm to the deceived person and the lack of intention to marry the victim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records in connection with the S.C.No.192 of 2013 on the file of the Sessions Judge Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahalir Court) Villupuram and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahalir Court), Villupuram.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, in S.C.No.192 of 2013 by judgment dated 12.07.2017 convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one year R.I and imposed a fine of Rs.2 lakhs in default to pay fine amount to undergo SI for 3 months. The trial Court acquitted the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 312 I.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the victim Prabhavathi, P.W.1 and the appellant are friends from the childhood and the appellant is 4 years younger to P.W.1. After completion of the school education, P.W.1 joined college and the appellant also joined in the medical college at Ram Nagar, Karnataka. Even after, they completed the schooling, the appellant expressed his love towards her and she advised the appellant not to behave like this and it is quite common in the young age. But, the appellant continuously insisted her and due to the said act of the appellant, she starts loving him. The said appellant has expressed his willingness to have intercourse with her and initially she refused, but later, due to the promise of marriage, she permitted the appellant to have sex with her and the said act continued for three years.

4. The further case of the prosecution was that she becomes pregnant by the said sexual intercourse and the appellant have given medicine to abort the same. Later, the appellant and her sisters came to the house of P.W.1 and expressed their willingness to marry the P.W.1 and they have taken 2 months time to do the marriage. But, later, the appellant refused to marry her and told that he will marry as per the wish of his parents. P.W.1 made a complaint against the appellant and the same was registered under Sections 376, 417 and 312 of I.P.C and the appellant''s parents was also charged under Sections 417 and 109 I.P.C and the same was quashed by an order dated 28.08.2015 in Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2013.

5. On receipt of Ex.P1, complaint on 09.07.2012, case was registered and after investigation, final report was filed before the concerned Magistrate Court for the offences under Sections 376, 417 and 312 r/w 109 of I.P.C and since the case is exclusively triable for the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the learned Principal District Judge and made over to Mahila Court in S.C.No.192 of 2013. Pending the trial, A2 and A3 father and mother of the first accused filed Crl.O.P.No.33029 of 2013 dated 28.08.2015 proceedings against the parents have been quashed and hence, the accused alone face the trial.

6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Mahila Judge has acquitted the accused of all the charges except Section 417 of I.P.C. For the reasons stated in the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has held that it is a consensual sex and hence the offence under Section 376 of I.P.C was not made out and the alleged abortion spoken by P.W.1 is disbelieved and further held that no doubt, both the victim and the accused are aware of the consequence of having physical relationship and having taken note of the behaviour and act on the part of the accused playing deception upon the victim, the accused is guilty of the commission of the offence under Section 417 of I.P.C and consequently, liable to be convicted under Section 417 of I.P.C and hence the appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that P.W.2 gave answer in her examination that