Madras High Court
Udaya Kumar vs The State Through on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.A. No.813 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal Appeal No. 813 of 2018
---
Udaya Kumar .. Appellant
Versus
The State through
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dharapuram,
Tiruppur District.
Crime No.4/2014 .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the Judgment dated 03.12.2018 in Spl. S.C. No. 29 of 2014 on the file of
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr. J. Kingsly Solomon
For Respondent : Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated
03.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2014.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
2. The Prosecution came to be launched against the Appellant by the
complainant-PW1, who is also the victim in this case. It is the case of the
complainant that during the year 2011, a phone call was received in her
brother's mobile phone and when she attended it, the line was disconnected.
Therefore, PW1 sent a message as to who he is and why he called the mobile
number of her brother. The Appellant replied by stating that he is the friend of
the brother of PW1. Thereafter, both of them mutually exchanged messages
through the mobile phone number of P.W-1 bearing No. XXXXXXXXXX.
Later, the Appellant Accused said that he fell in love with her. In response, the
Appellant said to have informed that she belonged to a different caste.
However, the Appellant said that he will manage everything. Accordingly, on
30th November 2011, the Appellant called P.W-1 in her mobile number and
ascertained that there is none in the house and P.W-1 is alone. Therefore, at
about 10.30 am the Appellant came to the house of the Accused and under the
pretext of marrying her, had sexual intercourse with her. By adopting this
mode, the Appellant had sexual intercourse with the Prosecutrix for two years.
However, from the year 2013, the Appellant did not attend the phone calls
made by her and also refused to meet her. Ultimately, when the Appellant
attended the phone call, he has categorically said that since the Prosecutrix
belonged to a lower caste,( Uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he could not marry her. When this was informed by
on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
the Appellant to her parents, they went to meet the Appellant Accused, but he
was not in his house. On 01.07.2014, the Appellant Accused came to the
house of PW1 and categorically asserted that PW1 belongs to Sakkiliya
community and therefore, he could not marry her and also abused PW1 and
her family members. The quarrel between the Appellant, PW1 and her family
was witnessed by the neighbours. It is in this context, on 02.07.2014, PW1
has given a complaint against the Appellant based on which the case in Crime
No. 4 of 2014 was registered on 02.07.2014 for the offences under Sections
417, 506 (ii) of IPC read with 3 (1) (w) (i) and 3 (2) (va) of The SC/ST,
Prevention of Atrocities Act. Ex.P7 is the First Information Report.
3. On receipt of Ex.P-7, P.W-13, Inspector of Police took up the
investigation in this case and proceeded to the house of PW1 at about 8 am on
03.07.2014. She drew a rough sketch and observation mahazar, Ex.P-9 in the
presence of witnesses Raman and Ashok. She also enquired P.W-1, P.W-2,
P.W-3, P.W-4, Shalini-P.W-5, Palanisamy-P.W-6 and Murugan and recorded
their statement. Thereafter, she proceeded to Moolanur Bus Stand upon
intimation that the Appellant- Accused is waiting to board a bus and arrested
him. After arrest, the Appellant was sent to judicial custody for remand. P.W-
13 also taken steps to subject the Prosecutrix to medical examination besides
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
collected the community certificate of P.W-1 as well as the Accused from Pws
10 and 11. On 05.07.2014, both the Prosecutrix as well as the Appellant were
subjected to medical examination and she has also recorded the statement of
Doctor Ravi and Doctor Divya. P.W-13 also submitted an alteration report to
the Court under Ex.P10 as per which the offences for which the case was
registered under Ex.P-7 from Section 417, 506 (ii) of IPC and 3 (1) (w) (i), 3
(2) (va) of SC/ST POA Act was altered into one under Section 376, 417, 294
(b), 506 (ii) of IPC and Section 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
After concluding her investigation, on 30.07.2014, P.W-13 filed the charge
sheet in this case against the Appellant in this case before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Dharapuram. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram had
taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 376, 417, 294(b), 506(ii) of
the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA)
Act, 1989, since the offences alleged against the Accused are exclusively
triable by Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram had
taken the charge sheet on file as P.R.C. No. 19 of 2014 and issued summons to
the Accused. On appearance of the Accused on summons, copies were
furnished to the Accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions. The Accused was bound over to the Court
of the learned Principal District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Judge, Tiruppur.
( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
4. On appearance of the Accused before the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and on receipt of records in P.R.C.No.19
of 2014, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur
renumbered the case as Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2014. After hearing the arguments of
the learned Public Prosecutor, Tiruppur and the learned Counsel for the
Defence (Accused), the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur had framed charge against the Accused under Sections 376, 417,
294(b), 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989. Charges were explained in Thamizh to the
Accused. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore,
trial was ordered by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur. In order to prove the charges framed against the Accused, the
Prosecution had examined 13 witnesses as P.W-1 to P.W-13 and marked 10
documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10.
5. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur upon
considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the
Appellant/Accused for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 506 (ii), 376 of
Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (2) (va) of Tamil Nadu SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act, 2015. However, he was found guilty of the offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
under Sections 417 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, failing which to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
6. As against the Judgment of acquittal of the Appellant/Accused,
neither the Prosecution nor the defacto complainant has preferred any appeal.
This appeal is at the instance of the Appellant questioning the correctness and
legality of the Judgment dated 03.12.2018 passed in C.C. No. 29 of 2014,
convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC.
7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this
Court that the Appellant/Accused is alleged to have come to the residence of
the Prosecutrix and in front of the house, while waiting on the road, he abused
them claiming that “m';F te;j cjaFkhu; v';fisg; ghu;j;J rf;fpypa eha;fsh
vd;d ijupak; ,Ue;jhy; vd; tPlo; w;F te;J vd;idf; fy;ahzk; bra;J bfhs;sr;
brhy;fpwPu;fs;/ ,dpnky; v';fhtJ vd;dplk; ,J fwpj;J ngrpdPu;fs; vd;why; c';fis
bfhd;W g[ijj;JtpLntd; vd kpul;odhu;/ nkYk; vd;id ghu;jJ
; ngho fz;nlhnuhyp
njtoah Kz;il vd;W bfl;lthu;j;ijahy; jplo; eP fPH; $hjpff; hup eP vy;yhk;
vd;ndhL gLf;fkl;Lk;jhd; fy;ahzk; bra;Jbfhs;tbjy;yhk; cdf;F mUfij ,y;iy
vd;W nftykhfg; ngrpdhu;/ vd;id jpUkzk; bra;J bfhs;s KoahJ vd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
nfhgkhf ngrpdhu;/ ,jdhy; v';fSf;F gaKk; mtkhdKk; Vw;gl;lJ/ ,jid ghu;jJ
;
mUfpypUe;j Cu;ff; huu;fs; tunt m';fpUe;J brd;Wtpl;lhu;/" Therefore, the
neighbours of the Prosecutrix/complainant insisted them to lodge a complaint
based on which, she lodged a complaint with the All Women Police Station,
Dharapuram.
8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that from
the complaint, it can be presumed that she is a major, she knows the
consequences of having pre-marital sex and had taken the risk. She is not an
illiterate or ignorance and she was a graduate. As per her own complaint, on
the date of lodging the complaint, she has completed 21 years and she had
completed her degree. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also invited the
attention of this Court to the evidence of the Prosecutrix-P.W-1, the parents of
the Prosecutrix as P.W-2 and P.W-3, P.W-4/brother of the Prosecutrix, the
sister-in-law of the Prosecutrix-P.W-5. In their cross examination, they
admitted that the parents of PW1 themselves are Intercaste couples. Therefore,
the claim of the Prosecutrix that the Accused came to their residence and
abused them in harsh words, claiming that they belong to schedule caste and
he could not marry the Prosecutrix is not acceptable. The evidence of P.W-
5/sister-in-law of the Prosecutrix indicates that she belongs to backward class
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
and she is a postgraduate and the elder brother of the Prosecutrix passed 10th
standard and they are not residing with their parents. It is admitted that they
are residing 40 km away from the residence of the Prosecutrix and parents.
The claim of the Prosecutrix that the parents and elder brother, sister-in-law
went to the house of the Accused and the Accused was not at home is therefore
unbelievable. The allegation that the Appellant came to the residence of the
Prosecutrix and abused the entire family members in front of the house is not
proved by examining any witness. When the learned Sessions Judge had
acquitted the Accused from charges under Sections 376, 294 (b), 506 (ii) of
IPC and Section 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
amendment ordinance, 2014, automatically she should have acquitted the
Accused from the charge under Section 417 of IPC also. The reasoning of the
learned Sessions Judge convicting the Accused for offence under Section 417
of IPC is perverse and is to be set aside. P.W-1 is not subjected to cross-
examination. The learned Judge herself had put questions under Section 165 of
Indian Evidence Act to P.W-1 answered. She had stated clearly that from
30.11.2011 till May, 2013, they had sexual intercourse for 25 times. She had
also stated that she had studied up to B.Sc., and she had also completed B.Ed.,
Therefore it is clear that the Prosecutrix clearly consented for the sexual
intercourse with the Appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and she cannot now turn around and claim that
( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
she was exploited by the Accused for sexual pleasures and discarded her on
the ground that she was a member of the schedule caste. Therefore, it is a case
of consensual sex and not a case of rape or sex under the pretext of marriage.
9. The learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the
Investigation Officer had not examined any of the members of the public
regarding the claim that the Accused abused them in filthy language from the
road, opposite to the residence of the victim. The complainant's case has been
demolished in the cross examination of her parents - P.W-2, P.W-3 and
P.W4/elder brother and P.W-5/sister-in-law. The learned Sessions Judge,
without considering those evidence, erroneously convicted the Appellant for
the offence under Section 417 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the
Accused under Section 417 of IPC is perverse and is to be set aside.
10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this
court to Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code which does not define consent.
The complainant/victim claims that she had intercourse with the Accused for
25 times and there are no witnesses. It is the defence of the Accused that the
Accused is the friend of the elder brother and she had attempted to force him
to marry her using the relationship
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the Accused with the elder brother. The
( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
Accused claims that he did not have any intercourse with Prosecutrix at all and
this is a foisted case only to pressurize and to threaten the Accused to marry
the Prosecutrix. There is no proof that the Accused had visited her house as
claimed by the complainant. The evidence of the P.W-13 clearly indicates that
that the mobile number of the complainant and the mobile number of the
Accused were not subjected to any examination with the connected mobile
service providers regarding the messaging or interactions. The learned Judge
failed to consider those aspects and merely based on the evidence of P.W-1 and
P.W-8/Doctor, the Accused was convicted for the offence under Section 417 of
IPC. Under those circumstances, based on the report of P.W-8 under Ex.P-3
and the report of P.W-9 under Ex.P-4, the Accused cannot be convicted for
offence under Section 417 of IPC. In this context, the learned Counsel for the
Appellant relied on the ruling reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 in the case of
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another. In Deepak
Gulati Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 675 : (2013) 3 SCC
(Cri) 660. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
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.”
25. ...........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......”
11. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to set aside
the Judgment of Conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge as
perverse.
12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by way of
reply, submitted that here was a case where the victim was exploited by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
Appellant. After having sexual intercourse, he had cheated her by citing her
caste. Therefore, the complaint was registered by the sub inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station under the provisions of Sections 417, 506 (ii) of
IPC and Section 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
amendment ordinance, 2014. After completion of investigation, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police filed alteration report by including the offence under
Section 376 of IPC. It is to be noted that the Prosecutrix was not at all cross
examined by the learner Counsel for the Accused and that shows that there was
no defence for the Accused to project in this case. The learned Judge, on her
own, had put up questions to the Prosecutrix and it is legally permissible. It is
true that PW1 is a graduate. It is also true that she is a B.Ed., degree holder but
under the pretext of promise to marry, the Accused had indulged in repeated
offences. The learned Sessions Judge had on proper appreciation of evidence,
aquitted the Accused from all the charges but had convicted under section 417
of IPC alone. As per the ruling reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 in the case of
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, cited by
the learned Counsel for the Appellant itself, the Hon’ble Judges of the
Supreme Court had discussed the distinction between obtaining consent and
misconception of fact. The same Judgment applies to the facts of this case to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
record conviction against the Appellant. The fact that the Prosecutrix was not
cross examined itself was considered by the learned Judge. Further, the
evidence of the Prosecutrix inspires confidence of the court and which led to
the conviction of the Appellant. This court, sitting in appeal, cannot acquit the
Accused on the ground that there are loopholes in the prosecution case. The
learned trial Judge had observed the demeanour of the victim/Prosecutrix and
that the Accused who appeared before the trial Court while passing the
judgment of conviction. Therefore, the appreciation of evidence by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, by which, she had recorded conviction against the
Accused for the offence under Section 417 of IPC cannot be said to be
perverse. Therefore, the Judgment of Conviction had to be maintained. The
Appeal lacks merits and is to be dismissed.
Point for consideration:
Whether the Judgment of Conviction recorded by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Spl.S.C. No. 29 of 2014
dated 03.12.2018 is to be set aside as perverse?
13. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-13,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
documents under Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 and the Judgment of the learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
14. The learned Trial Judge had on appreciation of evidence has
rightly concluded that the offences of this nature there will not be any
witnesses and if the testimony of the Prosecutrix is found to be natural and
inspiring the confidence of the Court, a conviction can be recorded. The
contention of the counsel for the Appellant that there are no witness in this
case and merely on the basis of the evidence of the Doctors, the Accused
cannot be convicted. This contention of the counsel for the Appellant cannot
be countenanced. Here is a case the Prosecutrix due to her helplessness was
forced to approach the Police station seeking remedy by registering a case. In
fact, after having sexual intercourse for about two years, the Appellant
neglected PW1. It is her deposition that she repeatedly called the Appellant
but he did not respond. On examining the deposition of PW1, she has
admitted that she is a graduate and had sexual intercourse with the Appellant
for over 25 times under the belief that the Appellant would marry her.
However, by citing the caste or community to which PW1 belonged to she
refused to marry her. In fact, even at the first meeting, the Appellant must
have knowledge about the( Uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
caste on:
to10/03/2025
which 05:17:15
PW1 pm
belonged
)
to. The Appellant is
none other than the class mate of the brother of PW1. Therefore, the Appellant
cannot, at the outset, feign ignorance about the caste to which PW1 belonged
to. Therefore, it is clear that even though PW1 consented for the sexual
intercourse, such a consent was obtained by a false promise to marry or on
misconception of fact. Such a consent cannot be considered to be a consent at
all in the Criminal Law Jurisprudence.
15. PW8 is the Doctor, who subjected PW1 to medical examination.
Upon examination, PW8 submitted her report stating that the hymen of the
Prosecutrix is not intact and her vagina admits two fingers with ease. In the
cross-examination PW8 has said that when enquired, PW1 has informed her
that she had sexual intercourse with a known person. Therefore, the
deposition of PW1 that she got acquainted with the Appellant and had sexual
intercourse with him under the promise that he will marry her cannot be simply
brushed aside.
16. On perusal of the discussion of evidence by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, in paragraphs 12 and 13 the Trial Judge
concluded that the offence under Section 417 of IPC is attracted. The learned
Judge had arrived at such( Uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a conclusion by referring to the fact that from the
on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
inception, the Accused had no intention to marry PW1. He had given a false
belief to the Prosecutrix in order to exploit her and it can be inferred through
the deposition of PW1. Therefore, under the pretext of marriage, he had
obtained consent and such consent is not valid. While so, the Appellant cannot
claim that a false case had been foisted on him.
17. In the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the
counsel for the Appellant, it was a case where the Appellant therein had sexual
intercourse with the Prosecutrix on a false promise to marry her. In that case
also the Prosecutrix consented for sexual intercourse and they had exchanged
sexual bliss for over a period of five years. Ultimately, on coming to know
that the Appellant therein got married to another woman, the prosecution came
to be launched against the Appellant. In that case, it was held that 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. In that case, referring to the
acquaintance of the Appellant and Prosecutrix since 1998 and the complaint
was filed on 17.05.2016, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that even the
plea of the Prosecutrix that there was a false promise to marry her cannot be
believed. This judgment will not help the case of the Appellant in this case in
any manner. In this case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prosecutrix was made to believe that the Accused
( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
will marry her. The Accused was the friend of the elder brother of the
Prosecutrix and it is not denied. Therefore, the Appellant knew the caste to
which the Prosecutrix belong to. There are minor contradictions in the cross
examination of P.W-2 to P.W-5 which, in the opinion of this Court, will not
help the Appellant/Accused to wriggle out of the case. Just because, the
Investigation Officer did not verify the mobile number of the Accused and the
mobile number of the Prosecutrix or did not obtain call records from the
service providers of the mobile phone of Accused as well as the Prosecutrix, it
will not be a ground to disbelieve the testimony of the Prosecutrix. When the
Appellant claims that at no point of time he had sexual intercourse with the
Appellant, he ought to have proved it by stepping into the witness box by
himself. In the present case, the Appellant maintained stoic silence without
examining any witness to strengthen his defence. In such circumstances, even
on the basis of the testimony of the Prosecutrix, which is free from any
blemish or suppression, a conviction can be based against the Appellant for the
offence under Section 417 of IPC. The deposition of PW1 that she had sexual
intercourse with the Appellant for over 25 times cannot be discredited with. It
is also to be pointed out that in the absence of a promise to marry, the
Prosecutrix could not have consented to have sexual intercourse for over 25
times within a period of (two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
years from 2011 to 2013. In such view of the
Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
matter, the Trial Court rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence under
Section 417 of IPC, which does not require any interference by this Court. It is
a case of obtaining consent under the pretext of marriage and a love affair with
an intention to exploit the Prosecutrix sexually and later, by citing the caste as
a reason for not marrying her. The questions put to the Prosecutrix by the
learned Sessions Judge under Section 165 Cr.P.C., indicates that there was
consent on the part of the Prosecutrix as she believed the words of the Accused
that he would marry her.
18. As rightly pointed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in
the above judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that
“misconception of fact amounts to absence of concept- consent based on
misconception of fact is not consent in the eyes of law.” The learned
Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is a distinction between
mere breach of promise and not fulfilling the false promise. The court must
examine whether consent was made at an early stage with a false promise of
marriage by this Accused. Here it was a false promise and initially the
Prosecutrix did not consent. The Appellant prevailed on her that he will take
care of the problems relating to the caste between the two. The Accused did
not have any valid defence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to disprove this and therefore he did not cross
( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
examine the prosecution witnesses. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the reported ruling that “misconception of fact alleged by the
complainant is the Appellant's promise to marry her squarely applies to this
case. The false promise was given by the Appellant/Accused from the
beginning with a clear understanding that he can breach it at a later point of
time by referring to the caste as a reason. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the breach of promise by the Appellant/Accused in this case is not made in
good faith even at the threshold.
19. In the ruling reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 in the case of Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, the case is under
Section 375 of IPC whereas the learned Judge in this case had acquitted the
Accused from the charge under Section 376 of IPC, but convicted the Accused
for the offence under Section 417 of IPC. Therefore, the ruling cited by the
learned Counsel for the Appellant will not be applicable to this case.
20. As rightly pointed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
this is a case where the Accused had obtained consent under the pretext of
marrying the Prosecutrix. Even though the Prosecutrix refused, he made her
believe that he will marry her and she believed such promise. In the cross
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
examination of the parents of the victim, P.W-2 and P.W-3 it was stated that
they belong to two different communities. The elder brother of the victim,
P,W-4 and his wife P.W-5 also belong to different communities and they are
also intercaste couple. Therefore, the Accused is alleged to have made her to
believe that he will marry her as like her parents who belong to different
community. He is aware of the status of the family of the victim and also was
aware that such a promise is false and it was made only to have sexual
intercourse with the Prosecutrix. The Prosecutrix also believed the promise
made by the Appellant, but after he openly neglected and exploited her, the
complaint was given. It is also to be mentioned that the sentence of one year of
simple imprisonment imposed on the Appellant is also lesser and befitting the
nature of offence committed by him. Therefore also, this Court declines to
interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court.
21. In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is
answered in favour of the Prosecution and against the Appellant. The
Judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2014 dated 03.12.2018 is well reasoned
judgment. It is found proper. It does not warrant any interference by this
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
22. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment
passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in
Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2014 dated 03.12.2018 is confirmed. The learned Sessions
Judge, Thirupur is directed to take steps to secure the Appellant so as to
undergo the remaining period of sentence.
03.03.2025
dh
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Dharapuram, Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
dh
Judgment in
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:17:15 pm )
