HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No.1188 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The sole accused was charge sheeted for the offences under Section 493 and 420 IPC. Though cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 420 IPC, as there is no incriminating material on record, a charge under Section 420 IPC was not framed. Hence, he was charged initially for the offence under Section 493 IPC and was later charged for the offence under Section 417 IPC. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. Considering that while the offence under Section 493 IPC was not made out, the trial Court held that the offence under Section 417 IPC was made out. The accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 493 IPC. He was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 417 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused preferred Criminal Appeal. The learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, dismissed the appeal both regarding the conviction and the sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence, the revision case. 2. The offence under Section 493 IPC is made out when a man cohabits with a woman by inducing her to believe that such woman is lawfully wedded wife of such a man. The offence under Section 417 IPC is made out when any person resorts to cheating. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed both the offences. 3. The accused is the maternal uncle of P.W.2 who is the victim in the present case. It is the case of the prosecution: The accused induced P.W.2 more or less to cohabit with him promising to marry her, and he practically evaded marrying P.W.2 when P.W.2 became pregnant. Thus, the accused committed the offences under Sections 493 and 417 IPC. The accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 493 IPC by the trial Court. The appellate Court confirmed the same. I, therefore, need not examine the merits of the prosecution case for the offence under Section 493 IPC. 4. Regarding the offence under Section 417 IPC, it is the contention of Sri T.Bal Reddy, learned senior counsel for the accused, that the offence is not made out as the evidence of P.W.2 primarily, and the circumstances of the case in general, are not convincing to record a conviction against the accused. 5. On the other hand, Smt. Zarina Afsar, learned counsel representing the prosecution, submitted that the case of the prosecution is made out and that the same is evident from the evidence of P.W.2. 6. Inter alia, learned counsel for the accused took me through the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that she gave a police report and that P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the parents of P.W.2 accompanied P.W.2 when she went to the police station to lodge the complaint against the accused. The alleged complaint of P.W.2 has not seen the light of the day. 7. The learned counsel for the accused contended that P.W.2 never lodged a complaint against the accused and that the complaint of P.W.1, in fact, set the criminal law in motion. The learned counsel for the accused pointed out that P.W.8, Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the investigation in this case, deposed that he did not receive any report from P.W.2. The very first sentence in cross-examination of P.W.2 is that P.W.2 did not lodge any complaint with him. 8. The learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor, however, contended that P.W.2 lodged complaint with P.W.9. P.W.9 is the Inspector of Police. He merely lodged charge sheet in this case. He did not depose that P.W.2 lodged a complaint with him. Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 that she lodged a complaint with police has not been proved. 9. Curiously, the evidence reads that P.W.1 who is the Village Administrative Officer heard a rumor in the village that the accused had illicit intimacy with P.W.2 and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint with police. P.W.2 did not state in categorical terms that there was illicit intimacy between her and the accused. 10. However, she admitted that she had carnal acquaintance with the accused for about two years prior to the complaint by P.W.1 and that she became pregnant on account of her intimacy with the accused. She further deposed that she used to have physical meeting with the accused in the fields of the village. Thus, P.W.2 more or less claimed that the physical relation between the accused and herself was a clandestine affair. 11. Be that as it may, be it noticed that P.W.2 did not depose that the accused induced P.W.2 to sleep with him promising to marry her and thus cheated her. At the outset, to establish the offence of cheating, the prosecution must show that when the accused slept with P.W.2, he had no intention of marrying P.W.2. While so, it is the evidence of P.W.2 herself that when P.W.2 informed the accused that she was pregnant, accused promised to marry P.W.2 when he secured a job. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused evaded to marry P.W.2 on hearing that P.W.2 became pregnant. Thus, assuming that the whole story of the prosecution is true, I am afraid that the offence of cheating is not made out. 12. It is also the case of the learned counsel for the accused that the whole story of P.W.2 is unbelievable in the sense that she contended that till about six days prior to lodging of Ex.P-1 report, her parents (P.Ws.3 and 4) were not aware about the intimacy between P.W.2 and the accused. By then, P.W.2 was in the 5th month of her pregnancy. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that it would be absurd for the parents of P.W.2 not to know that P.W.2 was pregnant, even when P.W.2 was in the 5th month of her pregnant. On the other hand, if the parents of P.W.2 were aware that she was pregnant, they would have questioned P.W.2 and would have known about the intimacy of the accused with the P.W.2 long before the date of Ex.P-1. The evidence of P.W.2, therefore, is not sufficient to conclude that P.Ws.3 and 4 came to know about the illicit intimacy of the accused with P.W.2 about six days prior to Ex.P-1. 13. Barring for P.W.2, there is no direct evidence linking P.W.2 and the accused. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the parents of P.W.2. They came to know about the illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.2 from the representation of P.W.2 only. P.W.1 was the Village Administrative Officer. He did not know about the illicit intimacy between the accused and P.W.2. He claimed that he merely heard a rumour. P.Ws.5 to 7 are the villagers. They did not support the prosecution story and were considered to be hostile. Consequently, there is no evidence regarding the illicit intimacy between P.W.2 and accused barring for the evidence of P.W.2. 14. I am afraid that the mere uncorroborated evidence of P.W.2 cannot be accepted where it is not as though the illicit intimacy was a one day affair but continued for about two years according to P.W.2. More importantly, P.W.2 did not depose that the accused induced P.W.2 to allow the accused to develop physical relationship with P.W.2 making a false promise or by cheating P.W.2. The offence of cheating under Section 417 IPC, therefore, is not made out in the present case. The accused, however, was acquitted by the trial Court itself for the other offence under Section 493 IPC out of the two charges leveled against him. 15. I wholly agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the offence under Section 417 IPC. The observations of the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court are erroneous regarding the appreciation of the evidence of P.W.2. The offence under Section 417 IPC is fairly not made out. The accused is accordingly entitled to be acquitted of the offence under Section 417 IPC. 16. Consequently, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 417 IPC and is acquitted. His bail bonds stand discharged. ________________ 15-09-2011 kvr