The court established that a false promise to marry, coupled with sexual relations, constitutes cheating under IPC, specifically Sections 415 and 417.

1. This criminal appeal, under S.374 of Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, dated 11-2-2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Case No. ST. 55(ST / S) of 2004.
The learned Sessions Judge found the accused appellant guilty of committing offence, punishable under S.420 of IPC and sentence him to suffer RI for 4 (four) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand), in default of payment to suffer further imprisonment for 5 (five) months.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment & order of conviction and sentence the convict - appellant preferred the appeal before this Court.

2. Heard learned amicus curiae, Mr. R. Debnath, for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. C. Debnath, for the State - respondent.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that the accused appellant, Manik Das Baishnav and the victim, Smt. Basanti Das, were residents of village Dolbari under P. S. Sabroom, District - South Tripura. The accused, Manik, being friend of Rabindra Das, elder brother of Basanti, used to frequently visit her house, as a neighbour and with the promise of marring her, the accused developed love affairs with her and with the allurement of such marriage in future the accused enjoyed sex with her at different places and different point of time. The victim, Basanti, believed the accused, on good faith and surrendered her person to the accused for enjoyment of sex and that continued for a few years. The accused even took her to a hotel at Udaipur and introduced the victim as his wife and he put vermillion on her forehead and also made her to wear coanch bangles and, thereafter, they resided in the hotel for one night and the accused enjoyed sex with her for the whole night. He wrote his name in the hotel register as 'Ratan Das' but the victim wrote his name as Basanti Das as wife of the accused. On the following morning they returned and the accused asked her to wipe out vermillion from the forehead and also to unwear the coanch bangles stating that he will marry her after arranging marriage of his sisters. But after marriage of his sisters was over the accused started avoiding her and ultimately refused to marry her. There was a village meeting at the instance of the victim and her father but the issue was not settled. Thereafter, the victim, Basanti Das, lodged FIR and police on investigation submitted charge - sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable under S.493 and S.376 of IPC.

4. In course of trial learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for commission of offence punishable under S.376(1) and S.493 of IPC to which the accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Prosecution in course of trial examined 14 witnesses and defense cross - examined them.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined, under S.313 of Cr. P.C. and the accused declined to adduce any defence evidence.

5. The defence case so far ascertained from the tend of cross - examination as well as from the statement of the accused made while examination under S.313 of Cr. P.C. is that of total denial of the prosecution case.

6. The trial Court, at the conclusion of trial, acquitted the accused from the charges under S.376 and S.493 of IPC but found him guilty of committing offence, punishable under S.420 of IPC, relying on the ratio of a decision of this Court in the case of Maran Ch. Pal v. State of Tripura , reported i