Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 2]

Madras High Court

V.Kotteeswaran vs The State on 4 June, 2020

Author: T.Ravindran

Bench: T.Ravindran

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                           RESERVED ON          : 13.03.2020

                                          PRONOUNCED ON : 04.06.2020

                                                    CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

                                               Crl.A.No.376 of 2014

                 V.Kotteeswaran                         ...           Appellant/Accused
                                                        Vs.

                 The State
                 Represented by the Inspector of Police
                 Periyathachur Police Station,
                 Villupuram District.
                 (Crime No.178/2010)                   ...            Respondent/Complainant

                 Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the
                 Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 28.06.2014 passed in
                 S.C.No.144 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court,
                 Tindivanam.

                               For Appellant            : Mr.K.Selvakumaraswami

                               For Respondent           : Mr.R.Ravichandran (Crl.side)
                                                          Government Advocate




http://www.judis.nic.in
                 1/25
                                                    JUDGMENT

                           The First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, by

                 judgment      dated   18.06.2014    in   S.C.No.144   of   2013   convicted    the

                 appellant/accused under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo

                 Rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in

                 default to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three months and acquitted him

                 of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Impugning the same, the

                 criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Accused.



                          2.Briefly stated, according to the prosecution case, the victim girl aged

                 about 20 years and the appellant/accused are the residents of Rettanai Village

                 and one year prior to the giving of the complaint, the victim girl used to go to

                 the house of the accused for doing house hold works and while so, the accused

                 deceived the victim girl, dishonestly induced her by stating that he would

                 marry her and she is his wife and by saying so, it is put forth that he committed

                 sexual intercourse with the victim girl against her will and consent and thus,

                 the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 417 & 376

                 IPC.




http://www.judis.nic.in
                 2/25
                          3.To sustain the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 12 were examined and

                 Exs.P1 to 9 were marked. No MO has been marked. On the conclusion of the

                 prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.Cwith

                 reference to the incriminating evidence tendered against him by the

                 prosecution witnesses and the accused had denied the same and on the side of

                 the accused, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced and No MO

                 has been marked.



                          4.The victim girl has been examined as PW1. The Criminal action in the

                 matter has been set in motion based on the complaint lodged by the victim girl

                 marked as Ex.P1. Even as per Ex.P1, it is found that the victim girl was

                 described as having 20 years of age. Further, the victim girl has not mentioned

                 in the complaint as to when the accused had committed the offence of rape

                 against her will and consent and she would only state that while she was doing

                 house hold works in the house of the accused about one year back, she and the

                 accused moved closely and the accused induced her by stating that she is his

                 wife and so saying, according to the victim girl, the accused had sexual

                 intercourse with her several times and likewise, it is stated by her that the

                 accused had forcibly sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and

                 thereafter, on seeing her vomiting, according to the victim girl, she being
http://www.judis.nic.in
                 3/25
                 questioned by her mother Venniammal PW2, she disclosed the same to her

                 mother and it is further stated that when she and her mother approached the

                 accused and called upon him to marry the victim girl, in as much as the

                 accused had refused to the same, according to the victim girl, she has been

                 forced to lodge the complaint. As rightly put forth by the accused counsel, the

                 victim girl has not mentioned as to on what date, she had been subjected to

                 forcible sex on the part of the accused and the date of the occurrence itself is

                 not disclosed in the complaint Ex.P1. Very vaguely, it has been mentioned that

                 one year prior to the lodging of the complaintEx.P1 dated 25.05.2010,

                 according to the victim girl, the accused had sexual intercourse with her on

                 several occasions on the false promise of marrying her and that she is his wife.

                 However, as rightly contended by the accused counsel, considering the conduct

                 of the victim girl, when she had admitted that she had been having sexual

                 intercourse with the accused on several occasions, however, she would only

                 state that she had acquiesced to the same on the assurance given by the accused

                 that he would marry her and that, she is his wife, however, the free conduct of

                 the victim girl in submitting and subjecting her body to the accused on several

                 occasions without any serious hesitation and misgivings raises the needle of

                 suspicion in the case projected by the victim girl.


http://www.judis.nic.in
                 4/25
                          5.The entire case of the prosecution merely rests upon the evidence of

                 the victim girl examined as PW1. During the course of cross examination, the

                 victim girl has admitted that she does not know the contents of the complaint

                 and only the author of the same would know the contents of the complaint and

                 further, admitted that the accused sister Sarasu is her friend and that she used

                 to go to the accused house often and further, she would also admit that she and

                 the accused got associated and closely moved and further would state that the

                 accused had three brothers and all had married, the accused mother is also

                 residing with the accused and his three brothers, are also residing in the same

                 house and further would state that Kuppammal and Kannan are residing nearby

                 and also would state thatVeerappan, Balasubramanian and Ezhumalai are also

                 residing closer and would also state that Veerappan, Balasubramanian and

                 Ezhumalai all knew about the relationship between her and the accused and

                 further, she would only state that on becoming pregnant, she met the accused

                 brother and complained about her pregnancy, however, the accused brother

                 challenged her case and further, she would claim that the female baby, which

                 she had conceived,died about 1 ½ years ago and she had disclosed the birth of

                 the baby to the police during the course of investigation. Therefore, when as

                 per the evidence of the victim girl, she had been closely moving with the


http://www.judis.nic.in
                 5/25
                 accused often over a considerable period of time and also would admit that she

                 had sexual intercourse with him on several occasions, in such view of the

                 matter, her case that she had subjected herself to the desire of the accused

                 freely on his mere promise of marrying her and that she is his wife, as such,

                 cannot be readily accepted.



                          6.Furthermore, the Investigation Officer examined as PW11, who had

                 examined the victim girl, has admitted that the victim girl has not mentioned

                 the date and time of the occurrence in the complaint Ex.P1 and further also

                 admitted that the victim girl has not disclosed as to how others had known

                 about her acquaintance and relationship with the accused and further admitted

                 that various persons are residing nearby to the house of the accused and that,

                 he had not examined them and further, admitted that during his investigation,

                 the victim girl had not stated to him that she used to go to the accused house,

                 on being called by the accused mother and at that point of time, the occurrence

                 had happened. Further also admitted that the victim girl had not stated to him

                 that she and the accused sister Sarasu had acquaintance and on that score, she

                 had been going to the accused house often and further admitted that the victim

                 girl has not stated to him that the accused had committed rape on her morning

                 and evening, on several times about three years ago and further admitted that
http://www.judis.nic.in
                 6/25
                 the victim girl has not stated to him that the accused had sexual intercourse

                 with her for more than 10 times and further admitted that the victim girl had

                 not stated to him that on becoming pregnant, she had gone to the hospital and

                 further admitted that the victim girl had not stated to him that she had

                 approached the accused brother and requested him to arrange her marriage with

                 the accused and further admitted that PW2 Venniammal knew about the

                 occurrence only on being informed by the victim girl and also would admit that

                 she does not know as to what had happened to the pregnancy of the victim girl.

                 Therefore, when it is found that the victim girl had not disclosed the

                 investigation officer during the course of investigation that she used to go to

                 the accused house on several occasions, on being called by the accused mother

                 and her acquaintance with the accused sister and thereby, she had moved

                 closely with the accused and further, when she had not disclosed to the

                 investigation officer that the accused had sexual intercourse on several

                 occasions as now put forth during the course of evidence and further, did not

                 disclose that her acquaintance to the accused is known to the others, her

                 evidence, as above pointed out,does not inspire confidence and acceptance in

                 any manner and therefore, it is found that the victim girl had not disclosed

                 anything about the others having knowledge about her relationship with the


http://www.judis.nic.in
                 7/25
                 accused to the investigation officer during the course of investigation as above

                 pointed out and also admitted by PW2 herself, she had come to know about the

                 occurrence only on being apprised about the same by the victim girl. The Sub-

                 Inspector of Police, who had registered the FIR and also examined as PW9, has

                 also admitted that the victim girl had not disclosed the date and time of the

                 occurrence and only stated that the same had taken place one year prior to the

                 lodging of the complaint. The Medical Officer, who had examined the victim

                 girl and examined as PW7 during the course of her evidence, has stated that on

                 examining the victim girl, she found her to be pregnant and also would state

                 that her hymen was absent and no external injury and her vagina admitted two

                 figures and concluded her examination by holding that the victim girl had

                 already sexual intercourse on several times. Therefore, from the medical

                 evidence adduced in the matter, it is found that there is no symptom of the

                 victim girl subjected to any forcible sex, but it is only on her own and with her

                 free consent. No doubt, as pointed out, only belatedly the victim girl had been

                 examined by the medical officer, particularly, after she had become pregnant.



                          7.Considering the abovesaid factors intoto, when it is found that the

                 victim girl was aged about 20 years at the time of the alleged occurrence and

                 when she has clearly admitted that she has yielded to the sexual intercourse on
http://www.judis.nic.in
                 8/25
                 several occasions and when her case that she had submitted to the sexual

                 intercourse only on the assurance of the accused that he would marry her is

                 found to be unreliable and totally unacceptable and accordingly, it is found that

                 her consent so obtained cannot at all be described as consent obtained by

                 misconception on fact and in such view of the matter, when the conduct of the

                 victim girl shows that she had not resisted the accused in any manner and also

                 found to be having sexual intercourse with him on several occasions as

                 admitted by her and the victim girl is found to be having knowledge about the

                 significance and consequences of the sexual intercourse she had with the

                 accused and accordingly, when she is found to have not shown any resistance

                 to the accused at the time of committing the alleged offence, the same would

                 only disclose that she voluntarily had given consent in having sexual

                 intercourse with the accused and there is no misconception with reference to

                 the same as put forth by her, therefore, the trial Court had rightly come to the

                 conclusion that the victim girl had freely and voluntarily consented to the

                 sexual intercourse with the accused. Therefore, according to the trial Court, the

                 act of the victim girl is only an act of promiscuity and not an act induced by

                 misconception of fact and after holding that the consent has been given by the

                 victim girl freely, voluntarily and consciously in undergoing sexual intercourse


http://www.judis.nic.in
                 9/25
                 with the accused, the trial Court had rightly held that the prosecution has failed

                 to establish the commission of the offence on the part of the accused

                 punishable under Section 376 IPC and resultantly, acquitted him of the

                 aforesaid offence.



                          8.The trial Court, after holding that the act of the victim girl in having

                 sexual intercourse with the accused on several occasions can only be an act of

                 promiscuity and not an act induced by misconception of fact and the consent

                 given to the same by the victim girl is only made freely, voluntarily and

                 consciously, however, proceeded to hold that the victim girl had been deceived

                 with the false promise of the accused in marrying her and thereby, the accused

                 had forcible sexual intercourse with her and thus, the accused is liable to be

                 punished under Section 417 IPC. However, as rightly put forth by the accused

                 counsel, when the main offence of rape alleged to have been committed by the

                 accused based on the alleged false promise of marrying the victim girl itself is

                 not made out by the prosecution and consequentially, the accused having been

                 acquitted of the offence under Section 376 IPC, it does not stand to reason as

                 to how the trial Court had proceeded to hold that the accused had given a false

                 promise of marrying the victim girl and that, she would be his wife and

                 accordingly, had forcible sexual intercourse with her. When according to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
                 10/25
                 trial Court, the act of the victim girl does not come under the misconception of

                 fact with reference to the alleged promise of the accused promising to marry

                 her therefore, when the essential ingredients that the accused had deceived the

                 victim girl frequently or dishonestly and thereby intentionally induced her to

                 subject her body to his sexual desire, the above facts having not been made out

                 by the prosecution, in my considered opinion, the accused cannot be held to

                 have committed the offence of cheating as contemplated under Section 415

                 IPC.



                          9.In this connection, the trial Court seems to have mainly relied upon the

                 FIR and by holding that normally in sexual offence, there would be a delay in

                 the lodging of the FIR due to myriad reasons, particularly, the reluctance of the

                 victim girl and her family members to go to the police complaining about the

                 incident as they same would affect their reputation and honour and on that

                 basis, based on the averments contained in the complaint that the accused had

                 deceived the victim girl on the false promise of marrying her, proceeded to

                 hold that the accused had committed the offence punishable under Section 417

                 IPC.




http://www.judis.nic.in
                 11/25
                          10.As rightly put forth by the accused counsel, as to whether the

                 abovesaid facts would constitute the offence of cheating punishable under

                 Section 417 IPC, the apex Court in the decision rendered in Criminal appeal

                 dated 21.08.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1165 of 2019 (@ SLP (Crl) No.2712 of

                 2019) (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

                 had the occasion to go into the question as to what would constitute sexual

                 relations made with the victim girl on the false promise of marrying her and

                 whether her consent given to the acts would only be based on the

                 misconception of facts, the apex Court had analyzed the issues in detail and the

                 same is adverted below for better appreciation of the facts involved in the

                 matter.

                                 “14. In the present case, the “misconception of fact”
                           alleged by the complainant is the appellant’s promise to marry
                           her. Specifically in the context of a promise to marry, this Court
                           has observed that there is a distinction between a false promise
                           given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken,
                           and the breach of a promise which is made in good faith but
                           subsequently not fulfilled. In Anurag Soni v State of
                           Chhattisgarh, this Court held:


                                      “37. The sum and substance of the aforesaid
                                      decisions would be that if it is established and
                                      proved that from the inception the accused
                                      who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to
                                      marry, did not have any intention to marry
http://www.judis.nic.in
                 12/25
                                     and the prosecutrix gave the consent for
                                     sexual intercourse on such an assurance by
                                     the accused that he would marry her, such a
                                     consent can be said to be a consent obtained
                                     on a misconception of fact as per Section 90
                                     of the IPC and, in such a case, such a consent
                                     would not excuse the offender and such an
                                     offender can be said to have committed the
                                     rape as defined under Sections 375 of the IPC
                                     and can be convicted for the offence under
                                     Section 376 of the IPC.”



                          Similar observations were made by this Court in Deepak
                          Gulati v State of Haryana (“Deepak Gulati”):



                              “21. … There is a distinction between the mere breach of a
                              promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court
                              must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a
                              false promise of marriage by the accused…”



                          15. In Yedla Srinivasa Rao v State of Andhra Pradesh11 the
                          accused    forcibly   established    sexual    relations    with   the
                          complainant. When she asked the accused why he had spoiled
                          her life, he promised to marry her. On this premise, the accused
                          repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the complainant. When
                          the complainant became pregnant, the accused refused to marry
                          her. When the matter was brought to the panchayat, the accused
                          admitted to having had sexual intercourse with the complainant
                          but subsequently absconded. Given this factual background, the
                          court observed:



http://www.judis.nic.in
                 13/25
                              “10. It appears that the intention of the accused as per the
                              testimony of PW 1 was, right from the beginning, not
                              honest and he kept on promising that he will marry her, till
                              she became pregnant. This kind of consent obtained by the
                              accused cannot be said to be any consent because she was
                              under a misconception of fact that the accused intends to
                              marry her, therefore, she had submitted to sexual
                              intercourse with him. This fact is also admitted by the
                              accused that he had committed sexual intercourse which is
                              apparent from the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3 and before
                              the panchayat of elders of the village. It is more than clear
                              that the accused made a false promise that he would marry
                              her. Therefore, the intention of the accused right from the
                              beginning was not bona fide and the poor girl submitted to
                              the lust of the accused, completely being misled by the
                              accused who held out the promise for marriage. This kind
                              of consent taken by the accused with clear intention not to
                              fulfil the promise and persuading the girl to believe that he
                              is going to marry her and obtained her consent for the
                              sexual intercourse under total misconception, cannot be
                              treated to be a consent….”


                          16.Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the
                          maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide
                          by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in
                          sexual relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates
                          the woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a
                          promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a
                          false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no
                          intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The
                          “consent” of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the
                          ground of a “misconception of fact” where such misconception
                          was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act. In
                          Deepak Gulati this Court observed:




http://www.judis.nic.in
                 14/25
                              “21. … There is a distinction between the mere breach of a
                              promise, and not fulfilling a false promise. Thus, the court
                              must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a
                              false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the
                              consent involved was given after wholly understanding the
                              nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may
                              be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual
                              intercourse on account of her love and passion for the
                              accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation
                              made to her by the accused, or where an accused on
                              account of circumstances which he could not have
                              foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to
                              marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such
                              cases must be treated differently.

                              …


                              24.Hence, it is evident that there must be adequate
                              evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial
                              stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of
                              keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of
                              course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of
                              intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various
                              unavoidable circumstances. The “failure to keep a promise
                              made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to
                              reasons that are not very clear from the evidence
                              available, does not always amount to misconception of
                              fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term
                              “misconception of fact”, the fact must have an immediate
                              relevance”. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in
                              such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety, and
                              fasten criminal liability on the other, unless the court is
                              assured of the fact that from the very beginning, the
                              accused had never really intended to marry her.”


                          17. In Uday v State of Karnataka12 the complainant was a
                          college going student when the accused promised to marry her.
                          In the complainant’s statement, she admitted that she was aware
                          that there would be significant opposition from both the
                          complainant’s and accused’s families to the proposed marriage.

http://www.judis.nic.in
                 15/25
                          She engaged in sexual intercourse with the accused but
                          nonetheless kept the relationship secret from her family. The
                          court observed that in these circumstances the accused’s
                          promise to marry the complainant was not of immediate
                          relevance to the complainant’s decision to engage in sexual
                          intercourse with the accused, which was motivated by other
                          factors:


                              “25. There is yet another difficulty which faces the
                              prosecution in this case. In a case of this nature two
                              conditions must be fulfilled for the application of Section
                              90 IPC. Firstly, it must be shown that the consent was
                              given under a misconception of fact. Secondly, it must be
                              proved that the person who obtained the consent knew, or
                              had reason to believe that the consent was given in
                              consequence of such misconception. We have serious
                              doubts that the promise to marry induced the prosecutrix
                              to consent to having sexual intercourse with the appellant.
                              She knew, as we have observed earlier, that her marriage
                              with the appellant was difficult on account of caste
                              considerations. The proposal was bound to meet with stiff
                              opposition from members of both families. There was
                              therefore a distinct possibility, of which she was clearly
                              conscious, that the marriage may not take place at all
                              despite the promise of the appellant. The question still
                              remains whether even if it were so, the appellant knew, or
                              had reason to believe, that the prosecutrix had consented
                              to having sexual intercourse with him only as a
                              consequence of her belief, based on his promise, that they
                              will get married in due course. There is hardly any
                              evidence to prove this fact. On the contrary, the
                              circumstances of the case tend to support the conclusion
                              that the appellant had reason to believe that the consent
                              given by the prosecutrix was the result of their deep love
                              for each other. It is not disputed that they were deeply in
                              love. They met often, and it does appear that the
                              prosecutrix permitted him liberties which, if at all, are
                              permitted only to a person with whom one is in deep love.
                              It is also not without significance that the prosecutrix
                              stealthily went out with the appellant to a lonely place at
http://www.judis.nic.in
                 16/25
                                 12 o'clock in the night. It usually happens in such cases,
                                 when two young persons are madly in love, that they
                                 promise to each other several times that come what may,
                                 they will get married…”



                           18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the
                          above cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section
                          375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards
                          the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was
                          vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to
                          marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of
                          marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and
                          with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.
                          The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear
                          a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual
                          act.


                          19. The allegations in the FIR indicate that in November 2009
                          the complainant initially refused to engage in sexual relations
                          with the accused, but on the promise of marriage, he established
                          sexual relations. However, the FIR includes a reference to
                          several other allegations that are relevant for the present
                          purpose. They are as follows:


                                 (i) The complainant and the appellant knew each
                                 other since 1998 and were intimate since 2004;

                                 (ii) The complainant and the appellant met regularly,
                                 travelled great distances to meet each other, resided
                                 in each other’s houses on multiple occasions,

http://www.judis.nic.in
                 17/25
                              engaged in sexual intercourse regularly over a
                              course of five years and on multiple occasions visited
                              the hospital jointly to check whether the complainant
                              was pregnant; and

                              (iii) The appellant expressed his reservations about
                              marrying the complainant on 31 January 2014. This
                              led to arguments between them. Despite this, the
                              appellant and the complainant continued to engage
                              in sexual intercourse until March 2015.



                          The appellant is a Deputy Commandant in the CRPF while the
                          complainant is an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax.


                          20. The allegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that
                          the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant
                          engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There
                          is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to
                          marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the
                          intention to deceive her. The appellant’s failure in 2016 to fulfil
                          his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the
                          promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that
                          the complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to
                          marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the
                          appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after
                          their getting married had become a disputed matter. Even
                          thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the
                          appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends

http://www.judis.nic.in
                 18/25
                            at her residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that
                            she was deceived by the appellant’s promise of marriage.
                            Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant’s
                            statements are accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375
                            of the IPC has occurred.”




                          11.Applying the abovesaid principles of law to the case at hand, when

                 according to the victim girl, as adduced by her during the course of chief

                 examination that her status and the status of the accused are not equal and that

                 the victim girl being aged about 20 years on the date of the alleged occurrence

                 and knew about the consequences of sexual intercourse and also was aware of

                 the position that the accused family would not consent to the accused marrying

                 her on any account, in such view of the matter, when there is no clear case

                 made out by the victim girl that the alleged promise of marriage put forth by

                 the accused was given in bad faith and with the intention of cheating her at the

                 time it was given and considering the conduct of the victim girl in having

                 sexual intercourse with the accused on several occasions and not disclosing the

                 same to any one till she became pregnant and furthermore, though she would

                 claim that her relationship is known to other persons, however the same has not

                 even been disclosed to the investigation officer as above pointed out, in such

                 view of the matter, when the allegation put forth in the complaint, on the face

http://www.judis.nic.in
                 19/25
                 of it, does not indicate that the alleged promise made by the accused was false

                 and that, the victim girl had sexual relationship with the accused on the basis of

                 the alleged promise and as above pointed out, when the victim girl is aware of

                 the various obstacles in marrying the accused and despite the abovesaid

                 factors, the conduct of the victim girl in continuing the sexual relationship with

                 the accused over a period of time and on several occasions as admitted by her,

                 in such view of the matter, the bare allegations in the complaint made by the

                 victim girl that she was deceived by the accused on the promise of marriage, in

                 such view of the matter, when the trial Court has proceeded to hold that the

                 consent of the victim girl in having sexual intercourse with the accused has

                 been given freely, voluntarily and consciously and accordingly, there is a huge

                 delay in the lodging of the complaint, in all, it is found that the offence of

                 cheating alleged against the accused in promising to marry the victim girl and

                 thereby, having forcible sex with or without consent and against her will as

                 such cannot be believed in any manner and therefore, the trial Court is found to

                 have erroneously determined that the accused is liable to be punished for the

                 offence punishable under Section 417 IPC.




http://www.judis.nic.in
                 20/25
                          12.On the same lines with reference to the same proposition of law as

                 outlined by the apex Court above referred to, according to the accused counsel,

                 this Court had also the occasion to consider the same in the judgment rendered

                 in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2007 (Theerthagiri and two others Vs. State

                 rep.by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Harur,

                 Lr.No.12/2004) dated 13.10.2015 and the order dated 04.04.2018 passed in

                 Crl.R.C.(MD).No.914 of 2007 (Amali Arockia Selvi Vs. Maria Michael @

                 Michael and another). The principles of law outlined in the abovesaid

                 decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at

                 hand.



                          13.Furthermore, as above pointed out, the victim girl is alleged to have

                 become pregnant due to the act of rape committed by the accused and even on

                 the date of alleging of the complaint, she is stated to be pregnant and the same

                 has been confirmed by the medical officer, accordingly, it is also admitted by

                 the victim girl that she had given birth to a female baby and the same had died,

                 further according to the victim girl, she had disclosed the same to the police

                 during the course of investigation, however, as above pointed out, the

                 Investigation Officer PW11 has testified that his investigation does not


http://www.judis.nic.in
                 21/25
                 disclose as to what had happened to the pregnancy caused to the victim girl. If

                 the alleged case of the victim girl has any semblance of truth, as rightly put

                 forth, if the victim girl has given delivery of a female child and if the abovesaid

                 birth of the child is only due to the acts of the accused, she would have

                 disclosed the same to the investigation officer and the investigation officer

                 would also have taken steps to take DNA test with reference to the child to

                 ascertain her parentage, however, no such steps has been initiated and directed

                 in the matter. When according to the investigation officer, the birth of the

                 female child to the victim girl has not been disclosed during the course of

                 investigation, it is found that the material facts had been suppressed by the

                 victim girl one way or the other and the abovesaid factor also undermines the

                 truth of the case projected by the victim girl.



                          14.In the light of the abovesaid discussions, when the prosecution case is

                 circumscribed with serious doubts failings, lacunae, suspicions and

                 shortcomings and when with reference to the same, no plausible explanation is

                 forthcoming on the part of the prosecution, resultantly, in my considered

                 opinion, the benefit of doubt emerging from the same should be extended in

                 favour of the accused, thus, it is found that the presumption of innocence of the


http://www.judis.nic.in
                 22/25
                 accused has not been dislodged by the prosecution by adducing acceptable and

                 reliable evidence, in such view of the matter, I hold that the accused is not

                 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and acquit him thereof.



                          15. In conclusion, the impugned judgment dated 18.06.2014 passed in

                 S.C.No.144 of 2013 on the file of the The First Additional District and

                 Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused

                 under Section 417 IPC are set aside and the accused is held not guilty of the

                 offence under Section 417 IPC and is acquitted of the same and resultantly, the

                 criminal appeal is allowed. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/A2

                 shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A2 is ordered

                 to be refunded to him.



                 Index : Yes / No
                 Internet : Yes / No                                            04.06.2020
                 sms
                 To

                 1.The State
                   Represented by the Inspector of Police
                   Periyathachur Police Station,
                   Villupuram District.
                   (Crime No.178/2010).

                 2. Additional District and Sessions Court, Tindivanam.

http://www.judis.nic.in
                 23/25
                                   T.RAVINDRAN, J.

sms Pre-delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.No.376 of 2014 04.06.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 24/25