Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.
Soyam Krishna - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 118 of 2015
Decided On : 22-09-2023
Deception - Criminal Offences - Sec. 417, 420 IPC - The court discussed the elements of Sec. 415 and 420 IPC and emphasized the necessity of a promise or deceit made to the victim by the accused. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code for deceiving and inducing the victim into a physical relationship with false promises of marriage. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00. The accused challenged the judgment before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It emphasized the necessity of a promise or deceit made to the victim by the accused, which was not established in this case. As a result, the court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and acquitted the accused of the said offences.
Issues: The key issue revolved around whether the accused had deceived and induced the victim into a physical relationship with false promises of marriage, thereby violating Sec. 417 and 420 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of a promise or deceit made to the victim by the accused for the purpose of attributing Sec. 415 and 420 of the IPC. It found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal revision case was allowed, and the judgment confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused was set aside. The accused was acquitted of the said offences, with a directive for providing maintenance to the victim if needed.
JUDGMENT
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dt.27/1/2015 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2012, wherein and where under, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment dt. 31/7/2012 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adilabad in C.C No.281 of 2009against the revision petitioner/accused No.1.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner/accused No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2, 000.00. Though the Trial Court also found the accused No.2 i.e. the father of the petitioner herein, guilty for the offences charged, he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
The revision petitioner, his father and the de-facto complainant are residents of Thosham village and their houses are situated adjacent to each other, and are close relatives. The revision petitioner is a student and pursuing his graduation. He used to call the de-facto complainant daily to his house for watching TV and used to tell love stories to her and as usual, in the month of June 2007, he called the de-facto complainant to his house in the absence of his family members and with a false promise to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her and then onwards he continued the same for four or five occasions. Later, the de-facto complainant was taken to the hospital by her mother, where the doctor informed that she was carrying 6th month pregnancy, on which her mother questioned her as to who was responsible for the pregnancy and the de-facto complainant informed her that the petitioner is responsible for the same and he refused to marry her and thus cheated and deceived her. The father of the petitioner warned the de-facto complainant to take Rs.50, 000.00 from him and get the pregnancy aborted but she denied the same and lodged the complaint with the police. Thus, upon registering the crime and investigating into the matter, the police filed a chargesheet against the petitioner and his father and the Trial Court took coginzance.
4. In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were got marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
5. On appreciating the material on record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the charged offences and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra.
6. Aggrieved thereof, the accused preferred the above criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the petitioner's father, whereas, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved further, the petitioner is challenging the said judgments before this Court.
7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the complainant/State. Perused the record.
8. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below erred in convicting the revision petitioner for the charged offences without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It was further contended that there was no promise of marriage made to the de-facto complainant at any point of time and the Courts below, despite observing that the prosecution did not prove the same, erroneously convicted the revision petitioner. He further contended that the Courts below convicted the revision petitioner based on assumptions and presumptions and not on evidence, including the fact that no independent witness was examined, thus rendering the judgments of both the Courts as illegal. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision case by setting aside the impugned judgments and acquit the revision petitioner.
9. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appe
The necessity of proving a promise or deceit made to the victim by the accused for the purpose of attributing Sec. 415 and 420 of the IPC.
Consent in a love relationship cannot be deemed vitiated unless proven that it was based on a false promise made in bad faith, and mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating under Section 417....
A long-term consensual relationship does not constitute cheating under Section 417 IPC unless deception or misconception of fact is proven.
Deception through false promises of marriage leading to sexual relations constitutes cheating under Section 417 IPC.
Promise to marry does not negate consent given out of love; misleading promises alone do not constitute misconception of fact for statutory cheating.
To establish cheating under IPC Section 420, there must be evidence of fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction, not merely a subsequent failure to fulfill contractual obligations.
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
