IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
Udaya Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State through Deputy Superintendent of Police, All Women Police Station,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. Crime No.4/2014 - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2018
Decided on : 03-03-2025
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2014.
2. The Prosecution came to be launched against the Appellant by the complainant-PW1, who is also the victim in this case. It is the case of the complainant that during the year 2011, a phone call was received in her brother's mobile phone and when she attended it, the line was disconnected. Therefore, PW1 sent a message as to who he is and why he called the mobile number of her brother. The Appellant replied by stating that he is the friend of the brother of PW1. Thereafter, both of them mutually exchanged messages through the mobile phone number of P.W-1 bearing No. XXXXXXXXXX. Later, the Appellant Accused said that he fell in love with her. In response, the Appellant said to have informed that she belonged to a different caste. However, the Appellant said that he will manage everything. Accordingly, on 30th November 2011, the Appellant called P.W-1 in her mobile number and ascertained that there is none in the house and P.W-1 is alone. Therefore, at about 10.30 am the Appellant came to the house of the Accused and under the pretext of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her. By adopting this mode, the Appellant had sexual intercourse with the Prosecutrix for two years. However, from the year 2013, the Appellant did not attend the phone calls made by her and also refused to meet her. Ultimately, when the Appellant attended the phone call, he has categorically said that since the Prosecutrix belonged to a lower caste, he could not marry her. When this was informed by the Appellant to her parents, they went to meet the Appellant Accused, but he was not in his house. On 01.07.2014, the Appellant Accused came to the house of PW1 and categorically asserted that PW1 belongs to Sakkiliya community and therefore, he could not marry her and also abused PW1 and her family members. The quarrel between the Appellant, PW1 and her family was witnessed by the neighbours. It is in this context, on 02.07.2014, PW1 has given a complaint against the Appellant based on which the case in Crime No. 4 of 2014 was registered on 02.07.2014 for the offences under Sections 417 , 506 (ii) of IPC read with 3 (1) (w) (i) and 3 (2) (va) of The SC/ST, Prevention of Atrocities Act. Ex.P7 is the First Information Report.
3. On receipt of Ex.P-7, P.W-13, Inspector of Police took up the investigation in this case and proceeded to the house of PW1 at about 8 am on 03.07.2014. She drew a rough sketch and observation mahazar, Ex.P-9 in the presence of witnesses Raman and Ashok. She also enquired P.W-1, P.W-2, P.W-3, P.W-4, Shalini-P.W-5, Palanisamy-P.W-6 and Murugan and recorded their statement. Thereafter, she proceeded to Moolanur Bus Stand upon intimation that the Appellant- Accused is waiting to board a bus and arrested him. After arrest, the Appellant was sent to judicial custody for remand. P.W- 13 also taken steps to subject the Prosecutrix to medical examination besides collected the community certificate of P.W-1 as well as the Accused from Pws 10 and 11. On 05.07.2014, both the Prosecutrix as well as the Appellant were subjected to medical examination and she has also recorded the statement of Doctor Ravi and Doctor Divya. P.W-13 also submitted an alteration report to the Court under Ex.P10 as per which the offences for which the case was registered under Ex.P-7 from Section 417 , 506 (ii) of IPC and 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST POA Act was altered into one under Section 376, 417 , 294 (b) , 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. After concluding her investigation, on 30.07.2014, P.W-13 filed the charge sheet in this case against the Appellant in this case before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 376, 417 , 294(b) , 506(ii)

Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage is invalid, constituting cheating under Section 417 of IPC.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not equate to coercion; failure to marry post-consent does not invalidate original consent.
The court ruled that consensual sexual relations among first cousins, lacking fraudulent intent, do not constitute rape or cheating under the IPC.
Consent for sexual intercourse is vitiated by misconception of fact, but mutual consent in a relationship does not constitute rape without evidence of malicious intent.
Criminal Law - Charge of Rape - Conviction Upheld - Age of Prosecutrix - Victim was at her tender age when she met the appellant on her way to school. There is no evidence at all that they were in de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's dishonest inducement of the victim to believe in false promises of marriage constituted the offence of cheating under Section 41....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.