Khanindra Mazumdar vs Subarna Kalita And Anr

Heard Mr. D.M.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 18-06-2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, in Crl. Appeal. No. 13/2009.

By the said judgment, learned Sessions Judge partly allowing the appeal, upheld the judgment and order dated 4-2-2009 passed by learned CJM,

Kamrup in GR Case No. 4157/04, whereby the petitioner was convicted u/s 417/312 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and one year

respectively.

As per prosecution case, the informant and the present petitioner were in love for long time and petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the

informant with false promise to marry her. As a consequence of the sexual relationship, the informant became pregnant and the present petitioner in

connivance with other accused named in the FIR, got her pregnancy terminated against her will. The petitioner also threatened her, that unless the

pregnancy is terminated, he would not marry her. The petitioner ultimately arranged marriage with another girl and therefore, the informant lodged an

FIR. On the basis of said FIR, police registered a case being Palashbari PS Case No. 130/2004 and after usual investigation submitted charge sheet

against the petitioner u/s 417/493 IPC.

In course of trial, charges were framed against the accused petitioner u/s 417/312 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. Eleven witnesses were

examined by the prosecution to establish the charge and on appreciation of evidence learned trial court convicted the petitioner u/s 312/417 IPC and

awarded sentence as indicated above.

Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of sessions and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order

partly allowing the appeal acquitted the petitioner of the charge u/s 312 IPC and upheld the conviction and sentence u/s 417 IPC.

Aggrieved by the appellate judgment, the petitioner preferred the instant revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.M. Khan submits, that the testimony of the victim was not at all worthy of trust, as in her previous

statement she never stated, that she subjected herself to petitioner for sexual activities on promise of marriage by the petitioner, and as such, on the

basis of solitary testimony of the victim, who was not a reliable witness, no conviction could be recorded. Learned Addl. P.P., Mr. D. Das submits

that testimony of the victim, a young girl, who came to the court and deposed at the risk of exposing her to life long social stigma, cannot be discarded

merely for certain discrepancies here and there.

Apparently both the courts below recorded conviction of the petitioner u/s 417 IPC, basically relying on the solitary testimony of the victim, who

was examined as PW 1. The victim in her evidence in court stated, that she was in love with the accused for about 25 years since 1979 and the

accused petitioner induced her to have sex with him on promise of marriage by the petitioner, and upon such promise of the accused petitioner, she

continued to maintain physical relationship with the petitioner. She became pregnant thrice and the accused got her pregnancy terminated. However,

the accused petitioner made all preparation to marry another girl and knowing about the accused, preparing for marrying another girl, she lodged the

FIR. During cross-examination she admitted, that in her previous statement before police and also before the Magistrate, she did not tell that she

subjected herself for sexual relationship on promise of the petitioner to marry her.

The statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 CrPC was proved and marked as Ex. 2. In her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC, PW 1 stated, that

she was in love with the accused for long time and the accused promising to marry her committed sexual intercourse with her and consequently she

became pregnant. She also stated in her statement, that when she asked the accused petitioner about the marriage, he used to delay marriage on

various pretext. Therefore, the statement made by the victim before the Magistrate u/s 164 CrPC and her evidence before the court cannot be said to

be contradictory on material particulars, inasmuch as, both in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC and also in court, she candidly stated, that she

subjected herself for sexual activities only on promise of marriage by the petitioner and both the courts below on appreciating the evidence did not find

any significant infirmity, to discard the evidence of the victim and reached the concurrent finding holding the accused guilty of cheating the PW 1.

The petitioner was convicted u/s 417 IPC for cheating, which is defined in Section 415 IPC. The provision of Section 415 IPC contains two parts.

The first part deals with fraudulent or dishonest inducement to a person deceived, to deliver any property and the second apart deals with intentional

inducement to a person so deceived to do or omit to do anything, which he/she would not have done, had he/she not been deceived by the accused. So

far the present case is concerned it would come under the second part of Section 417 IPC. If it can be proved that the act or omission on the part of

the victim was the result of deception or misconception of facts or in other words, had he/she not been deceived or intentionally induced by the

accused, she would not have subjected herself to do any act, harmful to her body, mind and reputation, the offence of cheating will be complete.

Having considered the evidence and materials brought on record, I find that offence u/s 417 IPC against the accused has been established beyond

doubt, and as such, the concurrent findings of the courts below, convicting the petitioner u/s 417 IPC, has not suffered from any illegality or

irregularity.

Though, the power of the revisional court is sufficiently wide and it is empowered to exercise all the power of the appellate court, yet the power of

the revisional court cannot be equated with that of appeal, inasmuch as, revisional court has got its own limitation, as would appear from sub-section

(3) of Section 401 of the CrPC. Therefore, usually a revisional court is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and facts, unless the findings of

facts and appreciation of evidence is found to be perverse or the finding suffers from serious illegality or irregularity causing miscarriage of justice.

Even if two views are possible on appreciation of evidence, the revisional court is not expected to replace the views of the courts below, by its own

view. Therefore, when both the courts below, on appreciation of the evidence, reached the concurrent findings that the petitioner committed the

offence u/s 417 IPC and such findings apparently, having not suffered from any serious illegality or manifest error, in my considered view, does not

warrant interference so far the conviction of the petitioner is concerned.

It appears from the record, that the petitioner was behind the bar for about a month during the investigation and trial. Having considered the nature

of offence and the facts and circumstances, under which the occurrence took place, I am of the view, that the sentence for the period, which the

petitioner had already undergone during investigation and trial, would meet the ends of justice in the instant case.

Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period which the petitioner had already undergone. In addition, the petitioner is sentenced

to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, he will undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial court and to pay the fine within two months or serve out the default sentence. On

realization, the fine amount shall be paid to the PW 1 (victim). Â

With the above modification in the sentence, the revision petition is partly allowed.

Send back the LCR.