Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Rakesh Rudrapaul - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. No. 44 of 2010Decided On : 07-11-2014
Cheating - Juvenile Justice - Section 417 of IPC, Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2007 - 417, 15 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 417 of IPC and Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, emphasizing the elements of cheating and the responsibility of the accused in cases involving juveniles.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense, was found guilty of inducing a young woman into a sexual relationship with the promise of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy. The victim's parents filed a case, leading to the petitioner's detention and fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of cheating under Section 417 of IPC based on the evidence of deceit and inducement, leading to the victim's suffering and damage to her reputation.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's actions constituted cheating under Section 417 of IPC, and the responsibility of the accused in cases involving juveniles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's deliberate promise of marriage to induce the victim into a sexual relationship, followed by disowning the responsibility of pregnancy, amounted to cheating under Section 417 of IPC.
Final Decision: The revisional application was found to be devoid of merit and dismissed. The Juvenile Justice Board was directed to refer the case to the Legal Services Authority to decide the compensation payable to the victim and her child.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Appeal No. 1(1) of 2010 whereunder the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment and order of detention and fine dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. Juvenile 74/W/BLG/08, which corresponds to G.R. No. 1027 of 2006 under Section 417 of IPC read with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2007.
The Juvenile Justice Board(hereinafter mentioned as 'Board') directed that the petitioner shall remain in detention in the Special Home for a period of six months and shall also pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine to remain in detention in the Special Home for a further period of two months.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Samar Das for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. A. Ghosh for the State respondent.
3. Prosecution case, in short is that the houses of the petitioner and the victim(PW 2) are situated in the same locality, adjacent to each other and the petitioner used to work in his house as a potter. At day time the victim (PW 2) used to stay alone in her house being her parents used to go away to work and her younger brother and sister used to go to school. Taking advantage of loneliness of the victim the petitioner used to visit the house of the victim at day time and would offer to make love with her. He promised to marry her and thereby started sexual intimacy with the victim. Such illicit sexual relation continued for 7/8 months. The petitioner undergone intercourse with the victim on several occasions giving assurance of marriage and the victim did not disclose the fact to anybody. When she became pregnant she asked the accused to marry her but the accused denied. The fact of pregnancy was disclosed to her mother on the day of Maha-astami Puja of Durgapuja festival of the year 2006 and she was badly treated by her parents for such having premarital sexual relation with the petitioner. At the instance of the parents of the victim a village panchayat vaithak was held wherein the petitioner was also called but the petitioner disowned the responsibility of pregnancy of the victim. Thereafter father of the victim(PW 1) lodged the FIR on 10.10.2006 before Amtali P.S. and accordingly Amtali P.S. Case No. 69 of 2006 under Sections 417, 493, 376 of IPC was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC.
3.1. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and thereafter the case was committed to the Juvenile Justice Board since the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of alleged offence. The Board after inquiry/trial acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 376 of IPC and held him guilty of the charge under Section 417 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him as stated hereinbefore.
3.2. On appeal preferred by the petitioner the learned Sessions Judge upheld the order of the Board and hence this revisional application.
4. A revisional Court is to see the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgment/order passed by the inferior Court and to see the regularity of the proceedings. Ordinarily, the revisional Court is not required to re-examine or re-appreciate the evidence on record unless it is apparently shown that the evidence on record has not been correctly appreciated or that there is no legal evidence to arrive at such a finding.
5. It is an admitted position that at the time of alleged occurrence the petitioner was a juvenile. The trial Court has arrived at a definite finding that the victim(PW 2) was more than 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence. The victim(PW 2) alleged that the petitioner undergone intercourse with her with the assuranc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
