Paneer @ Paneerselvam v. State by Inspector of Police, Chithamoor Police Station, Kancheepuram District

Crl.R.C.No.1484 of 2006The Petitioner /Accused viz. Paneer @ Paneerselvam wasdirected to be released on bail as per the order of this Courtdated 28.12.2006 and made in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2006 inCrl.R.C.No.1484 of 2006.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 06.10.2010CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAMCRL.R.C.No.1484 of 2006Paneer @ Paneerselvam .. Petitioner/AccusedVs.State by Inspector of Police,Chithamoor Police Station,Kancheepuram District.(Crime No.365 of 1995) .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer:-Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment passed by the learned PrincipalSessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Crl.A.No.31 of 2006, dated22.12.2006 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakam, Kancheepuram District,in C.C.No.21 of 1998, dated 24.02.2006.For Petitioner : Mr.R.VijayakumarFor Respondent : Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)- - - - -O R D E R The revision petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.21 of1998 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakamand he was convicted by the trial Court for an offence underSection 417 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of six months. The said conviction and sentence werealso confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Chengalpattu, in Crl.A.No.31 of 2006. Challenging said convictionand sentence, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal RevisionCase. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.1, agedabout 18 years, was a resident of Kavathur Colony. P.W.2 is herfather and P.W.3 is her brother. P.W.1 was going for agriculturalcoolie work. At that time, the accused used to follow her and usedto talk with her. The accused assured P.W.1 that he would marryher and also made a promise that he would not marry any otherperson except P.W.1. P.W.1 believed his words and moved closely.She also shared the bed with the accused. Once, P.W.3 had seenboth P.W.1 and the accused in a compromised position. P.W.1conceived and even after conceivement, the accused promised tomarry her. P.W.2, father of P.W.1 enquired P.W.1. She revealedthat the accused had intimacy with her. When P.W.2 approached theaccused, he had refused to marry P.W.1. A panchayat was convenedin the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5. But the accused has not acceptedto marry P.W.1. Therefore, P.W.1 gave a complaint-Ex.P.1 beforethe Chithamoor Police Station.(ii) On receiving the complaint from P.W.1, the Sub-Inspectorof Police, Chithamoor Police Station, registered a case in CrimeNo.365 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 417 and 506(ii)I.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report-Ex.P.6. P.W.1 wassent to the Hospital. P.W.6, Dr.Chakravarthy examined P.W.1 andalso found that she was pregnant and he issued Ex.P.2-AccidentRegister. The accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer.As the Sub-Inspector of Police who conducted the firstinvestigation died, P.W.10, Sub-Inspector of Police took up furtherinvestigation and after completing the investigation, he laid afinal report against the accused.3.In order to establish the case, the prosecution hasexamined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of theaccused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.4.Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, afteranalyzing the oral and documentary evidence, have found the accusedguilty under Section 417 I.P.C.5.Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner/accused submitted that even as per the evidenceof P.W.1, there was no inducement on the part of the accused andP.W.1 voluntarily had sexual intercourse with the accused and therewas no intention on the part of the accused to cheat P.W.1 and assuch, the ingredients of the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. arenot attracted.6.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)submitted that it is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that theaccused promised to marry P.W.1 and only on such promise, P.W.1 hadlove with the accused and she consented for the sexual intercourse.P.W.1 was conceived and she also delivered a female child. It isfurther submitted that the fact that the accused refused to marry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.1 would lead to show that the accused had an intention to cheatP.W.1.7.This Court has considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side and perused the records.8.It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that it was only theaccused who had come forward to speak with P.W.1 and he promised tomarry her and he also promised that he would not marry any otherperson except P.W.1. Only on such promise, P.W.1 fell in love withhim and they developed intimacy with each other. It is the furtherevidence of P.W.1 that when she conceived, P.W.1 informed theaccused and he told her not to reveal the matter to any one andagain he promised to marry her. But subsequently, he had failed tomarry P.W.1. Even though a panchayat was convened, the accused hadrefused to marry her. While the accused was questioned underSection 313 Cr.P.C., he had totally denied his affair with P.W.1.Even in the cross-examination it had been suggested by the accusedtotally denying the affairs. Both the Courts below have acceptedthe evidence of P.W.1. This Court also does not find any reason toreject the evidence of P.W.1. If the evidence of P.W.1 isaccepted, then the fact remains that P.W.1 consented for the sexualact with the accused only on the basis of the promise made by theaccused to marry her. If the accused has not made any suchpromise, definitely P.W.1 would not have had any sexual intercoursewith him. As the accused had now totally denied his affair, itleads to show that even at the initial stage the accused had anintention to cheat P.W.1. Even after P.W.1 having become pregnant,the refusal made by the accused to marry her establish the factthat the accused had made a false promise. As the accused made thepromise to marry P.W.1, he had induced P.W.1 to give her consent,which attracts the ingredients that are required under Section 415of I.P.C., which is as follows:-"415. Cheating. - Whoever, by deceiving any person,fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person sodeceived to deliver any property to any person, or toconsent that any person shall retain any property, orintentionally induces the person so deceived to do oromit to do anything which he would not do or omit if hewere not so deceived, and which act or omission causes oris likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body,mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".Explanation. A dishonest concealment of facts isdeception within the meaning of this section."As per the above Section, on the facts available it is to beheld that P.W.1 would not have done any such act if she had notbeen deceived by the accused.9.In the result, the conviction imposed on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner/accused under Section 417 I.P.C. by the learned JudicialMagistrate, Maduranthakam, in C.C.No.21 of 1998, is confirmed.10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accusedhad prayed for leniency with regard to the sentence of imprisonmentimposed on the petitioner/accused and submitted that according tothe instructions to him, P.W.1-victim had married another personand she is living peacefully and the accused had already been injail for a period of one month.11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andnearly about 15 years had elapsed, the sentence of imprisonmentimposed on the petitioner/accused is modified and reduced to theperiod of imprisonment already undergone by him. Instead, thepetitioner is imposed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner isdirected to pay the fine amount before the learned JudicialMagistrate, Maduranthakam, Kancheepuram District, in C.C.No.21 of1998, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of acopy of this order.12.Except the above modification regarding the sentence ofimprisonment imposed on the petitioner/accused, this CriminalRevision Case is dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarjrlTo1.The Principal Sessions Judge,Chengalpattu.2.The Judicial Magistrate,Maduranthakam,Kancheepuram District.3. -Do-Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram.4.The Inspector of Police,Chithamoor Police Station,Kancheepuram District.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR.73975CRL.R.C.No.1484 of 2006NG(CO)sra 25/10/2010