THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.551 OF 2005 DATED 10th FEBRUARY, 2011. BETWEEN : L.Parvateesam @ Eswara Rao … Petitioner-accused and The State of A.P. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.551 OF 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused challenging the judgment dated 25.03.2005 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Parvatipuram. Initially, the petitioner-A.1 and other accused i.e. A.2 and A.3 were prosecuted in S.C.No.80 of 2003 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bobbili, wherein by judgment dated 16.07.2004 A.1 was convicted for the offence under Sections 417 and 493 of Indian Penal Code and A.2 and A.3 were convicted for the offence under Section 493 read with 109 IPC. Challenging the same, A.1 to A.3 filed an appeal. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court against A.1 for the offence under Section 417 IPC, acquitted A.1 for the offence under Section 493 IPC and A.2 and A.3 for the offence under Section 493 read with 109 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, A.1 filed the present revision. Heard. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that A.1 herein had sexual intercourse with P.W.1 under the pretext of marrying her. When a panchayath was held before the elders, A.1 admitted the offence and agreed to marry P.W.1 but later at the instance of A.2 and A.3, A.1 refused to marry P.W.1. Hence, the case. Now the point for consideration before this Court is ‘whether the petitioner-A.1 can be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC?’ Material on record reveals that the petitioner and the victim girl had intercourse with each other for a long period. P.W.1 also deposed before the Court that A.1 promised to marry her and under the pretext of marriage, he induced her to have sexual intercourse with him. There is no dispute that the petitioner promised to marry P.W.1, due to which P.W.1 had intercourse with the petitioner. But, the fact remains that the petitioner could not marry the victim girl. Even though he intended to marry P.W.1, but since because of the refusal by the parents of the petitioner, he could not marry the victim girl. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel to attract an offence under Section 417 IPC, the explanation to section 415 has to be read. As per section 415 IPC, to attract an offence under Section 417 IPC there should be the main ingredient of intention of deception at the inception. It is the admitted case of the prosecution and also the prosecutrix that the petitioner herein intended to marry her and he also tried to convince his parents. As such, by no stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the petitioner with an intention to cheat the prosecutrix promised and had intercourse with the victim. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the prosecution or the circumstances, which do not warrant to presume that the petitioner with an intention of deception at the inception had intercourse with P.W.1, the victim girl, this Court is of the view that the conviction imposed on the petitioner-A.1 for an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-A.1 by the trial Court and modified by the Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 10.02.2011 sur