Madras High Court
P.Kumar vs State Represented By The on 23 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
P.Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by the
Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Pondicherry.
... Respondent
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
aside the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry dated 25.08.2014 confirming the
Judgement in C.C.No.28 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
dated 20.08.2013 and allow the above Criminal Revision Case.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Balavijayan
For Respondent : Mr.Balamurugane
Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)
*****
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment of
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry dated 25.08.2014 made in
C.A.No.8 of 2014 confirming the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pondicherry dated 20.08.2013 made in C.C.No.28 of 2010.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is known to the de
fecto complainant PW1 through her Sister/PW3. PW1 was engaged in taking
Tuition along with her Sister for school children at her house. The accused,
who was working as a Hospital Ward Attender, used to come to their house
and associate with them. During that point of time, he developed intimacy
with PW1 and induced her to have sexual relationship with him by promising
that he would marry her. At the request of the accused, PW1 had given her 10
sovereigns of gold jewels to the accused for meeting out his financial needs.
After the accused shifted his job to some other hospital he stopped meeting the
de facto complainant/PW1. He also avoided to talk with her through phone.
PW1 came to know that the accused was going to marry some other girl.
Thereafter, she lodged the complaint stating that he had cheated her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
3. On the complaint given by PW1, a case was registered in Crime
No.14 of 2009 of All Women Police Station, Pondicherry under Sections 417
and 420 IPC by PW6/Krishnaveni-Sub Inspector of Police. She took up the
case for investigation, enquired the witnesses and went in search of the
accused. In the meantime, the accused got anticipatory bail. She sent the
victim and the accused for Medical examination and recorded the statement of
the Doctor, who conducted the Medical examination and got Medical
certificates. After completing her investigation, she filed the charge sheet
against the accused for the offence under Sections 417 and 420 IPC.
4. After the case was taken on file and on being satisfied with the
materials available on record, the learned trial Judge framed the charges
against the accused for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC. When
the accused was questioned, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried and
hence, the trial was conducted.
5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the complainant, 6
witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW6 and 4 documents were marked
as Exs.P1 to P4. On the side of the defence, 2 witnesses have been examined
as DWs1 and 2 and no document was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
6. At the conclusion of trial and on considering the materials available
on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty for the offence
under Section 417 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for Four months. The appeal preferred by the accused before
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in C.A.No.8 of 2013 was
also dismissed by confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over
that the accused has preferred the present revision.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent. Perused the
entire materials available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that
PW1, who is the victim of this case is five years elder than the accused and
she was able to understand the consequences of her relationship with the
accused and hence, no act of cheating was committed. He further submitted
that the complaint has been given only after four years after the occurrence
and hence it is not reliable. In support of his contention, he cited the
judgments reported in 2012 (2) L.W (Crl). 101 (K.U.Prabhu Raj Vs. State
and another) and 2008 (4) CTC 629 (P.Govindan Vs. The State).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
9. The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the
respondent submitted that the accused had induced the victim to have sexual
relationship on the assurance that he would marry her. After some time, he
refused to marry her by stating that she is elder than him and that she belonged
to Scheduled Caste community. That would show the intention to cheat the
victim and hence, the Revision has to be dismissed.
10. Point for consideration:-
Whether the finding of the guilt of the accused for the offence
under Section 417 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge based on the
materials available on record is fair and proper?
11. The fact that the accused and PW1 were known to each other is not
in dispute. The accused gained intimacy with PW1 by associating himself in
the Tuition classes taken by PW1 and PW3 at their house. During that time,
the accused assured to marry PW1 and had sexual relationship with her on
several occasions. After some time, the accused stopped calling her and
avoided her contact. When PW1 learnt that the accused was making efforts to
marry someone else, she knocked the doors of justice.
12. In the context of the events that has alleged by the State that the
delay is natural and incidental. In these type of matters, the delay in preferring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
the complaint can not taken as serious. Because only after knowing the
intention of the accused that he cheated PW1 from his subsequent conduct, the
prosecution came forward to give the complaint. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the victim/PW1, is 5 years elder than the
accused and hence she might be knowing the consequences of her acts and the
accused cannot be convicted for the offence of cheating.
13. From the facts of the case, it is seen that the accused was working as
a ward attender at the hospital and PW1 was taking home tuition to some
students and that she belongs to Scheduled Caste. The Socialisation and the
exposure to her world, when comparing to the accused is very less only.
Despite the victim was 5 years elder than the accused, she is at a dis-
advantageous position in the Society and that is the reason for her
vulnerability to the false promises made by the accused. By believing his
words, she offered her “person” to him.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this
Court held in the case of K.U.Prabhu Raj Vs. State and another and reported
in 2012 2 LW 101 in order to substantiate his point that he has proved before
the Court that there were deception and dishonest intention and hence a case
of cheating is made out. In the case on hand, the victim was deceived by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
accused on a promise to marry someone else. His dishonest intention is patent
through subsequent refusal to marry her by telling that she belonged to
Scheduled Caste. The fact about her community was well within the
knowledge of the accused even while he developed contacts and relationship
with PW1. Knowing fully well that he is not intended to marry a girl
belonging to Scheduled Caste, the accused gave promise to marry her and
induced her to have sexual relationship with him. After using the victim girl
sexually, he refused to marry her by telling the reason that she belonged to
Scheduled Caste. This will clearly show the dishonest intention of the
accused.
15. In yet another judgment of this Court held in the case of
P.Govindan Vs. The State and reported in 2008 4 CTC 629, it is seen from the
facts that the accused of that case had expressed his apprehension that his
father would not agree for their marriage, even while they were in the
relationship. So, the facts of that case is not applicable to the facts of this case
on hand. This case is entirely based on a different factual matrix. Since the
prosecution could prove both the act of deception and dishonest intention of
the accused, the Trial Court is right in recording the guilt of the accused for
the offence under Section 417 IPC. The Appellate Court also had rightly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
appreciated its correctness and confirmed it. Hence, I do not find any factual
or legal infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below.
16. In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The judgment
dated 25.08.2014 made in C.A.No.8 of 2013 on the file of the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry is hereby confirmed.
23.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmi
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Pondicherry.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Pondicherry.
3.The Station House Officer,
All Women Police Station,
Pondicherry.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai-104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
R.N.MANJULA, J
kmi
Crl.R.C.No.1008 of 2014
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
