Nilo Kanta Doley vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8401 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Nilo Kanta Doley vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 10 November, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010011992014




                                                                  undefined

                               THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./279/2014

            NILO KANTA DOLEY
            S/O SRI NUMAL DOLEY, R/O BALIJAN, P.O. and P.S. BOKAKHAT, DIST-
            GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785612


            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
            -

2:BUDHESWARI DOLEY D/O HEMARAM DOLEY R/O BALIJAN P.O. BOKAKHAT P.S. BOKAKHAT DIST- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN-78561

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J C DAS, MR.L K BORAH

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For the Petitioner : Mr. L. K. Borah, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. B. Sarma, Addl. P.P., Assam.

                                                                           Page No.# 2/8



Date of hearing      :    10.11.2025.

Date of judgment :        10.11.2025.


                               JUDGMENT &ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. L. K. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard

Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State

respondent. None has appeared for the informant/respondent No.2.

2. By way of the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 401 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order

dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal

No.04/2008 whereby the appeal of the petitioner/appellant was rejected by

upholding the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.12.2007 passed by the

learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Golaghat in G.R. Case No.37/2007 by

which the petitioner/appellant was convicted under Section 417 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year with

fine of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, another simple

imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that upon information being

lodged on 10.01.2007 by the victim that she had love affairs with the petitioner for

about one year and during that period the petitioner had committed sexual

intercourse with her with a promise to marry her and hence she became pregnant,

however, later on, he refused to marry her in spite of her repeated request and Page No.# 3/8

ultimately fled away from his house, a case was registered before the Bokakhat

Police Station vide Bokakhat P.S. Case No.06/2007 under Sections 493/420 of the IPC.

3. After completion of the investigation and submission of Charge-sheet under

Section 493/420 IPC the case was transferred to the Trial Court. The

accused/petitioner upon pleading not guilty and seeking trial, the trial commenced

wherein the prosecution examined five witnesses including the Investigating Officer.

The prosecution witnesses are as follows : Smti. Budheswari Doley (PW-1), Sri

Hemoram Doley (PW-2), Smti. Lileswari Doley (PW-3), Sri Bharat Doley (PW-4) and Sri

Lileswar Gogoi (PW-5). That apart, the Court has examined four witnesses as CWs, viz.,

Smti. Dipali Hazarika, Advocate-cum- Secretary of the Women Cell, Bokakhat (CW-1),

Sri Saityam Doley (CW-2), Sri Dharmeswar Pegu (CW-3) and Smti. Bhagyashree Doley

(CW-4). Thereafter, the incriminating circumstances having been put before the

accused/ appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied all such incriminating

circumstances.

4. It appears that the victim during her deposition in the Court has deposed that

the accused had promised to marry her and thereby committed sexual intercourse

with her on several occasions. She further deposed that she conceived and became

pregnant from the aforesaid relationship with the accused and when she

approached him for marriage, he refused to marry her. She further deposed that

though PW-2 i.e. her father had organized a village meeting for discussing and

deciding the said matter, however, the accused by then had absconded from his

place and remained absent from the said meeting. She further deposed that upon Page No.# 4/8

being advised to approach the Women Cell of Bokakhat, she filed a proceeding

before the jurisdictional Women Cell. She further deposed that though the Women

Cell had also issued notices upon the accused for appearances but he did not

appear. She further deposed that thereafter she filed the instant case.

5. PW-2, who is the father of the victim, deposed that the accused had been

frequently visiting his home since last two years and he had also promised to marry

the victim. He further deposed that on 27.10.2006 the victim informed that she was

pregnant from the aforesaid relationship with the accused and that after the

accused came to know that the victim has conceived he had asked her to conceal

the said fact from others. He further deposed that by the time they came to know,

she was already 5 months pregnant. He further deposed that immediately he

proceeded to the house of the accused to discuss the matter and the accused

promised to marry the victim on the next day i.e. 28.10.2006. However, he did not turn

up on that day. He further deposed that accordingly a village meeting was held but

the accused absconded. He further deposed that a female child was later on

delivered by the victim on 03.01.2007 at Bokakhat Health Center.

6. Similarly, PW-3, who is the mother of the victim and PW-4, who is the younger

sister of the victim deposed that the accused used to frequently come to their house

and also promised to marry the victim to marry her. They also deposed that after the

victim became pregnant the accused refused to marry her.

7. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court summoned four witnesses as Court witnesses.

CW-1 deposed that the victim had filed a case in the Women Cell, Bokakhat on Page No.# 5/8

03.11.2006 stating that the accused on the false pretext of marriage had sexually

intercourse with her on several occasions for which she has become pregnant. CW-2

deposed that on learning about the pregnancy of the victim he accompanied the

father of the victim to the house of the accused and though he agreed to marry the

victim but later on absconded. CW-3, who is the President of the village meeting

which was organized, deposed that the accused was absent in the said meeting.

CW-4 deposed that the victim had come to her and had informed her about the

pregnancy sometime in the month of Kati, 2006.

8. PW-8, who is the Investigating Officer, deposed that he had conducted the

investigation and submitted charge-sheet and that the accused had absconded

from his place.

9. What transpires from the aforesaid evidence is that there was a love

relationship between the accused and the victim for about two years and the family

of the victim fully knew about the same and never objected to their love affair. It is

further evident that initially the accused had not only promised the victim that he

shall marry her but also to the family members of the victim including the parents and

the younger sister. Thus, it is clear that the accused initially had the intention to marry

the victim. It is further evident that there was physical relationship between the victim

and the accused and both are adults. Hence, it is clearly established that the sexual

relationship between them was consensual. It is further apparent that upon the victim

becoming pregnant, when the father of the victim approached the petitioner to

marry the victim though he initially agreed to marry her the very next date, he later Page No.# 6/8

absconded.

10. In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported

in (2019) 9 SCC 608 the Apex Court held that when 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 but to deceive the woman and to convince her to engage in sexual relation,

there is a misconception of fact which vitiates the woman's consent. However, at the

same time, a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise and to establish

false promise the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his

word at the time of giving it. The Apex Court in that decision further held that consent

of a woman in reference to Section 375 of the IPC must involve an active and

reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. It was also held that to establish

whether the consent was vitiated by misconception of fact arising out of a promise to

marry, two propositions must be established - (i) the promise of marriage must have

been a false promise, given in bad faith and (ii) that no intention of being adhered to

at the time of giving such false promise itself must be of immediate relevance or must

bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.

11. Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, a coordinate Bench of

this Court in the case of Guluk Kathar vs. State of Assam in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.265/2012

by judgment and order dated 22.01.2025 in the context of a case where there had

been a physical relationship of four years between the two consensual adults who

were in love, upon noting that there is no evidence to establish or suggest that the

aforesaid long love relationship and the physical relationship were under Page No.# 7/8

misconception of fact was based on fraudulent representation of marriage and that

there was no materials whatsoever suggesting that at the inception the accused did

not intend to marry the victim, allowed the Criminal Revision Petition by setting aside

the judgment and order of conviction under Section 417 IPC against the accused

therein.

12. In the present case also, this Court finds that there have been a long love

relationship of two years between the petitioner and the victim and that they had

also developed physical relationship. It is also noticed that both of them were majors

and the family of the victim was also aware of their relationship. There is also no

material whatsoever to indicate that the accused did not intend to marry the victim

at the inception. Rather, it appears that though he intended initially to marry the

victim, however, later on, the relationship between them broke down. Be that as it

may, in the absence of any clinching evidence to prove that the victim had

continued her relationship with the accused/petitioner for two years on a

misconception of fact, the petitioner/accused could not have been convicted for

commission of offence under Section 417 of the IPC. Hence, the conviction is

erroneous and perverse.

13. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 28.12.2007

passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Golaghat in G.R. Case

No.37/2007 and the judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Criminal Appeal No.04/2008 upholding the judgment

and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court stand set aside. The Page No.# 8/8

petitioner/accused stands acquitted of the charges and his bail bond stands

discharged.

Send back the TCR.

JUDGE

T U Choudhury

Comparing Assistant