Nickson Davidraj vs Jothimani
2023 Latest Caselaw 3669 Mad

                                                                                  Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                        Date : 03.04.2023

                                                           CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

                     Nickson Davidraj                        ... Petitioner/Appellant/Sole Accused

                                                                  vs.
                     Jothimani                            ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w
                     401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the learned Sessions Judge,
                     Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur in Crl.A.No.
                     67 of 2016 by Judgment dated 30.11.2016, confirming the conviction and
                     sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
                     No.I, Karur in C.C.No.186 of 2006 by the Judgment dated 07.09.2016
                     and set aside the Judgments of the Courts below and acquit the petitioner.


                                       For Petitioner      : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan

                                       For Respondent      : Mr.K.Suresh

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Revision is filed against the Judgment passed in

Crl.A.No.67 of 2016, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir

Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur, dated 30.11.2016

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur in C.C.No.186 of 2006, dated

07.09.2016

2.The case of the respondent is that the petitioner also belongs to

the same village of the respondent and he was running mike set and cycle

shop. While that being so, whenever the respondent proceeded to the

grocery shop, she has to cross the shop of the Petitioner . While being

so, the petitioner called the respondent, due to which, the respondent

acquainted with the petitioner and on one occasion, he expressed his

affair with the respondent and he also promised to marry her. On the

pretext of marriage, he had sexual relationship with the respondent, due

to which, she got pregnant. When she was under five months of

pregnancy, she requested the petitioner to marry her, however, the

petitioner refused to marry her. Hence, the complaint.

3.On the side of the respondent, four witnesses were examined as

P.W.1 to P.W.4 and exhibited two documents as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. On the

side of the petitioner , two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2

and no documents were exhibited.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

4.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court

found the petitioner is guilty for the offence under Section 417 IPC and

sentenced him to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by

the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned

Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court),

Karur in Crl.A.No.67 of 2016 and the same was also dismissed and

confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, on

30.11.2016. Hence, the present revision.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

alleged occurrence happened in the year 1996. After a period of so long

years, the respondent lodged the present complaint and as such, it was

barred by limitation. Initially, the respondent lodged a complaint, the

same has been registered in Crime No.152 of 1996 and the same has also

been referred as 'Mistake of Fact'. Thereafter, the respondent filed a

private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in the year 2006.

Therefore, it was also barred by limitation. That apart, the respondent

failed to examine any independent witnesses in order to prove the fact

that there was relationship between the petitioner and the respondent

herein. He would further submit that she got married with another

women and gave birth to three children. He is an auto driver. He already https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

undergone nearly ten days imprisonment and therefore, he pray for

reducing the sentence for the period for which he has already undergone

imprisonment.

6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit

that the petitioner on the pretext of marriage, had physical relationship

with the respondent, due to which, she got pregnant. She also gave birth

to a male child through the petitioner. Unfortunately, the Police after

registration of FIR, closed the same as 'Mistake of Fact'. Therefore, the

respondent was constrained to file a private complaint and the same has

been taken cognizance and Courts below confirmed conviction and

sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner. Therefore, it

does not warrant any interference by this Court.

7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

materials available on record.

8.In the year 1996, the petitioner had physical relationship with the

respondent on the pretext of marriage. He assured that he will marry the

respondent, due to which, she also consented for sexual intercourse, due

to which, she got pregnant and also gave birth to a male child. When she https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

was at the stage of six months pregnancy, she requested him to marry her.

However, the petitioner refused to marry her. Therefore, she was

constrained to lodge the complaint on the file of the Inspector of Police,

Thogamalai Police Station, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. The same

was closed as 'Mistake of Fact'. Therefore, the respondent had rightly

filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. After taking sworn

statement of the respondent and supporting witnesses, the trial Court had

taken cognizance of the crime in C.C.No.186 of 2006 for the offence

under Section 417 IPC. In support of the contention of the respondent,

she had examined P.W.1 to P.W.4.

8.A perusal of deposition of P.W.1 revealed that on the false

pretext of false marriage, the petitioner had physical relationship with the

respondent. In fact, it was also corroborated by other witnesses. The

petitioner denied the very relationship itself. Therefore, the petitioner

was subjected for DNA test. It was proved that a male child was born

only through the petitioner herein. Therefore, the respondent

categorically proved the case and the Courts below have rightly

convicted the petitioner and sentenced him.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

9.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Courts

below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.

10.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

03.04.2023

sji

NCC : Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

To

1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Karur.

2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

sji

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.867 of 2016

03.04.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis