Chitra vs Ravikumar and Another

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Chitra, the petitioner herein, being the victim in the case relating to the offence u/s 417 and 420 I.P.C.,

challenging the judgment acquitting the accused/Ravi Kumar, the first respondent herein, has filed this

revision.

According to the petitioner, the first respondent, who was residing opposite to her house, developed relationship with her and as he promised

her that he would marry her, she shared bed with him and consequently, she became pregnant. Ultimately, she delivered a female child, named

Arul Jothi"".

(a) It is the case of the prosecution that even though before the Panchayatdars, the first respondent agreed to marry the petitioner on a specified

date, he and his parents suddenly locked their premises and absconded, and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to give a complaint to the

Police, the second respondent herein.

(b) On receipt of the complaint, the Police investigated the matter, examined necessary witness and filed charge-sheet against the first respondent

under Sections 417 and 420 of I.P.C.

On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. No evidence was adduced on the side of the

accused.

While the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he said that he was not responsible for the pregnancy of the petitioner and that the case has

been falsely foisted against him.

The trial court, ultimately acquitted the accused, the first respondent herein.

Though the State did not choose to prefer an appeal against acquittal, the victim in this case has filed this revision.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the acquittal was mainly on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was

responsible for the petitioner''s pregnancy, since, the D.N.A. test, namely, the paternity test, has not been performed between parties, even though

an application was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police before the Court requesting for a direction for performance of such a test to the authorities

concerned, and as such, the non-performance of the said test is fatal to the prosecution case. This ground is factually incorrect, since no such

application has been filed by P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that pending revision,

the petitioner has filed a petition to order for direction for the performance of the said test on the parties to find out the real truth.

I have heard learned counsel for the first respondent/accused and learned Government Advocate for the second respondent. I have also gone

through the records and the judgment impugned.

It is settled law, as laid down by this Court as well as Supreme Court that if on false promise, assuring marriage, the victim shared bed with an

accused, as a result of which, the victim became pregnant, and subsequently, the accused did not keep up his promise, then, it would attract the

offence u/s 417 of I.P.C. If there are materials to show that at the time of sharing the bed, the accused did not have the intention to marry the

victim and he made the false promise, then the offence u/s 417, I.P.C. is clearly made out.

Instead of appreciating the above aspect, the trial Court, in my view, made a wrong approach by referring to the minor contradictions between

the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 with regard to the petitioner being taken to the Hospital for abortion. The trial Court miserably failed to take into

consideration the evidence of P.W.8 who is none other than the paternal uncle of he accused, who would specifically refer to the extra judicial

confession made by the accused to him that he was responsible for the petitioner''s pregnancy, because, he had intercourse with her several time

promising to marry her.

Furthermore, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the main ground on which the judgment of acquittal was delivered in non-

performance of the said D.N.A. test. The trial Court wrongly held that even though P.W. 10 filed a requisition for D.N.A. test, the same was not

pursued. No such evidence is available in the case records. As a matter of fact, P.W.10 did not file such an application. But however, the trial

Court mainly rejected the case of the prosecution because of the non-performance of the said D.N.A. test.

Pending revision, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.1751 of 2002 requesting for a direction for performance of the said D.N.A. test on the

petitioner, the first respondent and the child in the Government General Hospital, Chennai.

Since this is a revision against acquittal, it may be appropriate to remand the matter to the trial Court for giving opportunity to the petitioner by

giving suitable direction to the Government General Hospital, Chennai for performing the said D.N.A. test.

Learned counsel for the respondents also would submit that the matter may be remanded for the said purpose. They would further contend

that the first respondent shall be given an opportunity for adducting fresh evidence in order to prove the defence. Learned counsel for the first

respondent has also produced some of the copies of the letters before this Court, alleged to have been written by the petitioner to her lovers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in reply that those letters have not been written by the petitioner and that the letters are not in the

handwriting of the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner only finished her L.K.G. and did not

study further.

However, it is to be observed that whether the evidence of P.W. 1 as already recorded, is corroborated by the report on the said D.N.A. test,

is the main point to be considered by the trial Court.

Under those circumstances, the judgment of acquittal of the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court. The trial

Court is directed to entertain the requisition of the petitioner by ordering performance of the said D.N.A. test between the parties in the

Government General Hospital, Chennai and after obtaining the report from the Hospital, opportunity shall be given to both parties to adduce

additional evidence and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

The trial Court shall order for performance of the said lest between the parties to the Government General Hospital, Chennai on receipt of a

copy of this order immediately and on receipt of the report from the Government General Hospital, Chennai, the trial Court shall dispose of the

case within six months thereafter. The revision is allowed accordingly. Crl. M.P.No. 1751 of 2002 is closed.