Telangana High Court

Soyam Krishna, Adilaba Dt. vs State Of Telangana, Rep. By P.P., ... on 22 September, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

          *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


          +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 118 OF 2015

% 22-09-2023

#Soyam Krishna

                                               ....Petitioner/Appellant

Vs.

$ The State of Telangana
                                             .... Respondent/Respondent


!Counsel for the petitioner : Sri. Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent      : Public Prosecutor



<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

Nil
                                 2                                       RRN,J
                                                       Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

         IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                          HYDERABAD

                                    ****

       +CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 118 OF 2015

% 22-09-2023

#Soyam Krishna

                                               ....Petitioner/Appellant

Vs.

$ The State of Telangana
                               .... Respondent/Respondent


JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.09.2023



      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


1.     Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
       may be allowed to see the Judgments?                : Yes


2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?                   : Yes


3.     Whether His Lordship wishes to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?                  : Yes




                                      ____________________________________
                                     NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
                              3                                     RRN,J
                                                  Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.118 OF 2015

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the

judgment dt.27.01.2015 passed by the I Additional Sessions

Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2012, wherein

and where under, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the

judgment dt.31.07.2012passed by the Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Adilabad in C.C No.281 of 2009against the revision

petitioner/accused No.1.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner/accused

No.1 was convicted for the offence punishable under sections

417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay

a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Though the Trial Court also found the

accused No.2 i.e. the father of the petitioner herein, guilty for

the offences charged, he was acquitted by the learned Sessions

Judge in the appeal.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The revision petitioner, his father and the de-facto

complainant are residents of Thosham village and their houses

are situated adjacent to each other, and are close relatives. The 4 RRN,J Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

revision petitioner is a student and pursuing his graduation.

He used to call the de-facto complainant daily to his house for

watching TV and used to tell love stories to her and as usual,

in the month of June 2007, he called the de-facto complainant

to his house in the absence of his family members and with a

false promise to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her

and then onwards he continued the same for four or five

occasions. Later, the de-facto complainant was taken to the

hospital by her mother, where the doctor informed that she

was carrying 6th month pregnancy, on which her mother

questioned her as to who was responsible for the pregnancy

and the de-facto complainant informed her that the petitioner

is responsible for the same and he refused to marry her and

thus cheated and deceived her.The father of the petitioner

warned the de-facto complainant to take Rs.50,000/- from him

and get the pregnancy aborted but she denied the same and

lodged the complaint with the police. Thus, upon registering

the crime and investigating into the matter, the police filed a

chargesheet against the petitioner and his father and the Trial

Court took coginzance.

                              5                                         RRN,J
                                                      Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

4. In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 9 were

examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were got marked. No evidence

was adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. On appreciating the material on record, the Trial Court

found the accused guilty of the charged offences and convicted

and sentenced the accused as stated supra.

6. Aggrieved thereof, the accused preferred the above

criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and the

learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the petitioner's

father, whereas, confirmed the conviction and sentence

imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved further, the petitioner is

challenging the said judgments before this Court.

7. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing for the complainant/State. Perused the record.

8. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the

petitioner that both the Courts below erred in convicting the

revision petitioner for the charged offences without properly

appreciating the evidence on record. It was further contended

that there was no promise of marriage made to the de-facto

complainant at any point of time and the Courts below, despite 6 RRN,J Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

observing that the prosecution did not prove the same,

erroneously convicted the revision petitioner. He further

contended that the Courts below convicted the revision

petitioner based on assumptions and presumptions and not on

evidence, including the fact that no independent witness was

examined, thus rendering the judgments of both the Courts as

illegal. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision case by setting

aside the impugned judgments and acquit the revision

petitioner.

9. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the complainant/State had contended

that the impugned judgments suffer no infirmity as they are

well reasoned. He further contended that the DNA test of the

child born to the revision petitioner and the de-facto

complainant proved that the revision petitioner is the child's

biological father. Thus, there was a physical relationship

between the revision petitioner and the de-facto complainant.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the

exhibits, made out a clear case against the revision petitioner.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

10. Upon a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the

trial Court observed that the element of deception or fraud at 7 RRN,J Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

the time of making a promise by the revision petitioner could

be seen from the subsequent conduct of the revision petitioner

when he refused to marry the de-facto complainant after the

pregnancy. With this observation, the trial Court found that the

ingredients of sections 417 and 420 of IPC were very much

proved.

11. It is essential advert to the observations of the learned

Sessions Judge at para Nos. 11 and 12 of its judgment, and the

same are extracted and reproduced as hereunder:

"11. In this case both victim and A1 are close relatives and she believed A1 on his telling love stories to her that he will marry her.

Though there was no specific promise of marriage from the side of A1, she believed that he will marry her and in that belief she continued the relationship with him. It was also proved that the male child born to the victim was the biological child of A1 and victim and even after that he denied to accept the same and refused to marry the victim. Now it is to be seen what section 415 IPC shows:

"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any 8 RRN,J Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

12) In the case on hand, the victim girl would not have consented to the sexual relationship with A1, unless there is no belief of continuation of the relationship by way of marriage. Here she believe that A1 will definitely marry her, so she continued the said relationship and same falls under the second limb of section 417 IPC. Therefore, the ingredients of sections 417 and 420 IPC are proved against A1 only and the lower court has rightly decided the issue against A1 by convicting him for a period of six months and two years for the offences under sections 417 and 420 IPC respectively."

12. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner

relied upon a decision of the High Court of Karnataka in

Criminal Petition No.5865 of 2021, wherein a learned Single

Judge, at para no.8 held as follows:

"8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also has categorically held in the case of S.W.

                                 9                                              RRN,J
                                                              Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

      PALANITKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF

BIHAR AND ANOTHER reported in (2002) 1 SCC

contract cannot give rise to any criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Here in this case, petitioner No.1 is said to have promised to marry respondent No.2, but failed to marry her. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent No.2 has failed to make out a case of criminal intention of petitioner No.1 from the beginning for cheating the complainant. That apart, the aforesaid judgment of High court of judicature at Madras is applicable to the case where the promise of marriage will not attract Section 420 of IPC. This Court has held in Crl.R.P.No.223/2020 dated 24.02.2020 in the case of Sri.D.Ramesh Sinha Vs. State of Karnataka that as a promise of marriage and breach of contract will not attract the provisions of Sections 417 and 420 of IPC. Such being the case, nothing, continuing the proceedings or investigation against the petitioners is abuse of process of law and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed."

13. This court, having considered the rival contentions of

both learned Counsel, is of the considered view that the 10 RRN,J Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge would reveal

that the learned Sessions Judge found that there was no

specific promise of marriage from the side of the revision

petitioner. At this juncture, it is appropriate to extract

Sections 415 and 420 IPC. Section 415 IPC is already

extracted supra.

Cheating is defined in section 415 of the IPC. Section 420 lays down the punishment for aggravated forms of cheating where the offender dishonestly induces a person so deceived to deliver any property or interfere with any valuable security. In other words, Section 420 specifically punishes aggravated cases of cheating. Any act of cheating, whether fraudulently or dishonestly, is punishable under Section 417. In contrast, Section 420 specifically punishes a case where cheating is done by dishonest inducement and its subject matter is property or valuable security. Under this section, the person so deceived is

1. Either induced to deliver any property to some other person, or

2. Make, alter or destroy

1. The whole or any part of valuable security, or

2. Something that is signed, sealed and is capable of being converted into a valuable security

3. A guilty intention must exist at the time of inducement or of delivery of property. Here, it is essential to prove that the parting of the property is by virtue of dishonest inducement of the accused. Moreover, the delivered property has to be of some monetary value to the person who has been cheated.

                           11                                     RRN,J
                                                Crl. RC No.118 of 2015

14. The very ingredient which is necessary for the purpose of

attributing section 415 and 420 of the IPC is that there must

be a promise or deceit made to the victim by the accused. In

the present case, despite the learned Sessions Judge finding

that there was no specific promise of marriage made by the

revision petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge upheld the

conviction of the revision petitioner based on assumptions and

presumptions as to his subsequent mindset and attitude.

Further, the decision relied upon by the counsel for the

revision petitioner is applicable to the present case as even in

the present case, there is no intention of cheating the de-facto

complainant at the beginning. The above observations are

enough to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of

the revision petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore,

the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner

must be set-aside.

15. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed. The

judgment dt.27.01.2015 passed by the I Additional Sessions

Judge, Adilabad, in Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2012, wherein

and where under, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the