The State of Tripura vs Sri Dilip Das

P.K. Musahary, J.—Heard Mr. A. Ghose, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Tripura, appearing for the Appellant State and Mr. A.C. Bhowmick, learned Counsel appearing for the accused/Respondent.

Not being satisfied with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura ,vide judgment and order dated 12.3.2003, rendered in S.T. Case No. 56(ST/B)/2001, the State has preferred this appeal.

Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Tripura, placing the evidence on record, particularly, the deposition of PW-5, the victim girl, fairly submits that the ingredients of Section 375 IPC are not found for convicting the accused/Respondent u/s 376 IPC, in as much as, from her evidence, it appears that she was indulging in sexual relationship with the accused/Respondent for quite a long time, without any protest or disclosing the facts to her parents and/or any person which led to pregnancy and giving birth to a female child. Her allegation to the effect that she was given promise of marriage by the accused/Respondent and believing in such promise held out by the accused/Respondent she has been maintaining the sexual relationship with him, but ultimately the accused/Respondent refused to marry her would not improve her case in any way. Her own evidence proves that she was a consenting party and the accused/Respondent cannot be held guilty u/s 376 IPC. However, according to learned Addl. P.P., the Respondent/accused can be convicted and sentenced u/s 417 IPC.

Although the allegation of making false promise has been made against the Respondent/accused, no material or evidence has been placed to the effect that he had given false promise with intention to commit cheating from the beginning, that is to say at the time of persuading the victim girl for sex with him and subsequently when she became pregnant, he refused to marry her by breaking the promise and thus deceived her.

This Court in Momi Gogoi v. Smti. Sarumani Hazarika and Anr. reported in (1992) 2 GLR 113, held that-

Breach of promise/contract simpliciter without any proof of the fact that such promise/representation was made by the Petitioner with knowledge that he would not marry the opposite party will not bring the case within the meaning of Section 415 and 417 IPC.

This Court in another case of Jintu Das Vs. State of Assam, held as follows:

If a full grown woman consents to act of sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to indulge in such activity until she becomes pregnant, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact. In such facts and circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that the accused had sexual intercourse with her consent. More so, when this act has been corroborated by circumstances that she did not tell anybody about the sexual intercourse with the accused/Appellant till she became pregnant. In such a case, conviction of accused for offence of rape is not proper.

Following the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that in the present case, the charge u/s 417 IPC has also not been made out and proved. I, therefore, find that there is no illegality and/or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order in acquitting the present accused/Respondent and hence, no interference is called for.

This appeal, therefore, must fail. The impugned acquittal order stands upheld. Appeal stands dismissed. Return the LCR forthwith.