The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, distinguishing between consensual sex and the offence of cheating under IPC 417 and 420.

1. This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. on questioning the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.03.2016 delivered in ST/T-1/0000004/2015 by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, convicting the appellant under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.10,000 under Section 417 of the IPC with default imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for 7(seven) years with fine of Rs.30,000/- for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC with default imprisonment.

2. The genesis of the prosecution case is rooted in the written ejahar filed by the victim [PW-1], whose name is withheld for protecting her identity. In the said written ejahar, filed on 10.08.2014, the victim disclosed that through the acquaintance of her sister the appellant proposed her and they were engaged in a love-affair. The appellant promised to marry the victim and they had pre-marital sexual intercourse on ‘promise of marriage’ on several occasions within the period from March 14 to June 26, 2014. Even the appellant started behaving like a son-in-law to her parents. The appellant made the victim to shun her studies, as she would be the wife of a Government Engineer, she need not have more qualification. The appellant identified him as Rahul and impressed her parents to call back her brother Solomon who was working as a Private Security Guard at Bengaluru as he assured that he would provide him a license for carrying on business of the contract works under the PWD department inasmuch as he enjoyed a cordial relation with the Chief Engineer. Moreover, he had impressed her parents that under his control there were sufficient building materials like brick, cement, rod and sand etc. and he would construct two storied building in their house with a limited budget of Rs.3,00,000/- and impressed upon them for another sum of Rs.90,000/- for obtaining a clerical job for her brother, Solomon. The appellant induced and realised a sum of Rs.3,55,000/- from the victim’s parents. On 26.06.2014, the appellant had the last sexual intercourse with her and left their house on assurance that he would return on 17.07.2014 with recruitment letter of her brother, Solomon. Later on, he had stated that for ensuing Panchayat Election, the recruitment for the time being was kept in abeyance. He had assured that he would arrive on 23.07.2014 and on the next date i.e. 24.07.2014, he would proceed to Agartala with her brother for joining the government job. On 23.07.2014 and 24.07.2014, the victim and her family members waited for return of the appellant but all were in vain. Then they started inquiring about Rahul Reang and got to know he was not an Engineer and even he is not a permanent resident of Laxmicherra near Bhaikhora P.S. which he had disclosed as his place of residence. They also discovered that his name was Rathindra Reang @ Rahul Reang.

3. On the basis of the said written ejahar, Kanchanpur P.S. Case No.66 of 2014 under Sections 417/376/420 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the final police report was filed charge-sheeting the appellant and on taking cognizance, the charge was framed on 05.06.2015 by the Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar separately under Sections 376(1)/417 and 420 of the IPC to which the appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial.

4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution adduced as many as 12(twelve) witnesses including the victim and her inmates, her parents and brother Solomon. Even 9(nine) documentary evidence [Exbts.1-11] including the written ejahar [Exbt.1-5] and the medical examination report of the victim [Exbt.11]. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to have his response to the incriminating materials those surfaced in the evidence. The appellant pleaded innocence again and stated that he had been false