IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26 -04-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.No.1369 of 2007 M.S.Rupeena .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Parveen Kumar Sharma 2. State rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District (Crime No.2 of 2005) .. Respondents Criminal Revision Case against the order dated 12.6.2007 in C.C.No.113 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam. For petitioner : Mr.C.Ramkumar For respondents: Mr.V.Purushothaman for R-1 Mr.S.Rajendiran, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R-2 ORDER This Crl.R.C. is filed against the order of acquittal dated 12.6.2007 in C.C.No.113 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, for the offence under Section 417 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1 Rubeena and the first respondent/accused were working in Lake View Hotel at Udhagamandalam and from 1996, when P.W.1 was taken by the first respondent/accused to his house for "Ayutha Pooja" and gave a false promise, had sexual intercourse with her under the pretext of marrying her. After that, the first respondent/accused was having illicit sexual relationship with P.W.1 and when P.W.1 demanded for marriage in 2002, he has stated that he will marry after one year. But he has not married her, and he married another woman. Immediately, she gave a complaint before All Women Police Station, where P.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police took the complaint in Ex.P-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2005 for the offence under Section 417 IPC and prepared Ex.P-6 FIR. He examined the witnesses and sent P.W.1 for medical examination where P.W.6 Dr.Sulochana treated her and gave Ex.P-2 out-patient slip and she has stated that she has not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ recently gone for medical termination of pregnancy. P.W.10 Sub- Inspector of Police arrested the accused and he also sent him for obtaining a potentiality certificate. P.W.8 Dr.V.P.Karthikeyan treated and examined him as an out-patient and issued Ex.P-4 out- patient chit and issued Ex.P-5 accident register which shows that he is capable of performing sexual intercourse. P.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police examined the other witnesses, namely P.Ws.2 to 6 and concluded his investigation and filed the charge sheet against the first respondent/accused for the offence under Section 417 IPC. 3. The trial Court took the final report in C.C.No.113 of 2005 and furnished copies to the accused who pleaded not guilty and hence, the trial Court examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 10 and Exs.P-1 to P- 6 and acquitted the first respondent/accused stating that the prosecution has not proved that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 417 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, against which, the present Crl.R.C. has been preferred by P.W.1/complainant. 4. Challenging the impugned order of acquittal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/P.W.1/complainant submitted that the trial Court committed error in acquitting the accused, stating that there is no independent witness to support the complaint, and the trial Court failed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 and prayed for setting aside the impugned order of acquittal and for ordering re-trial. 5. Repudiating the said contentions, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-accused submitted that the trial Court acquitted the petitioner on the ground of delay in preferring the complaint and P.Ws.4 to 6 turned hostile who are the vital witnesses and the other witnesses, namely P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 are interested witnesses and their evidence was discarded and so, even though he is having relationship from 1996 to 2004 and she filed the complaint belatedly after the marriage and so, there being no merits, he prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, and the materials available on record, it is seen that the charge sheet has been filed against the first respondent-accused for the offence under Section 417 IPC. It is now appropriate to incorporate Section 417 IPC, as follows: "Section 417: Punishment for cheating: Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine. or with both." From the above extraction of Section 417 IPC, it is evident that the maximum punishment for Section 417 IPC, is one year or fine or both. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. To prove the guilt of the first respondent/accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined. P.W.10 is the investigating officer and P.Ws.7 and 8 are the Doctors. As per the evidence of P.W.7 Doctor and Exs.P-2 and P-3, P.W.1 was not virgin, but there is no evidence that recently, P.W.1 underwent medical termination of pregnancy. Exs.P-4 and P-5 and the evidence of P.W.8 Doctor proved that the first respondent/accused is a potent and capable of performing sexual intercourse. 8. This Court has to now decide as to whether the trial Court's order of acquittal, is sustainable. 9. It is true that the charge sheet has been filed indicating the offence under Section 417 IPC, viz., the punishment for cheating. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the first respondent/accused has given false promise of marrying P.W.1 and had sexual intercourse with her. While perusing the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that she is the victim girl. It is well settled principle of law that in sexual offences, the victim's evidence is sufficient to conclude the guilt of the accused, provided the evidence of the victim must be cogent, natural, convincing and trustworthy and then only, it is reliable. 10. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner and the first respondent were working in the same Hotel (Lake View Hotel) at Ooty. Admittedly, P.W.1 is a Muslim and the accused is a Jain (Settu), but P.W.1 in her evidence has stated that they were having sexual relationship from 1996 to 2004, and since the first respondent/accused got married to a girl on 9.12.2004, P.W.1/revision petitioner/complainant has given a complaint on 10.2.2005. Admittedly, it is the case of the prosecution that for eight years, they were having illicit intimacy with each other. 11. P.W.2 is one Geetha, who in her evidence stated that both the first respondent/accused and P.W.1 were having intimacy with each other. In his cross-examination, a reason has been assigned that all were working in the same Hotel, and at that time, her husband misappropriated Rs.25,000/- and a suggestion was posed to her that the first respondent/accused was supporting the administration of the Hotel and so, she has given a false complaint, has been denied by her. Considering the evidence of P.W.2, I am of the view that it is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. 12. P.W.3 Dilshath stated that he has received information only from P.W.1 that the first respondent/accused was having illicit intimacy with her. 13. P.Ws.4 and 6 turned hostile. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. P.W.9 Gurucharan Sharma is the father of the first respondent/accused and he deposed that his son got married on 9.12.2004 at Baroda. 15. P.Ws.2 and 5 are all admittedly the friends of P.W.1. They deposed that P.W.1 has intimated that she was having sexual intercourse with the first respondent/accused. It is pertinent to note as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable. It is well settled principle of law that the evidence of single eye-witness is sufficient, that too, in sexual offences, i.e. the victim's evidence, to convict a person. The conduct of the parties has to be considered. P.W.1 (complainant/revision petitioner/victim) in her evidence stated that from 1996 she was having sex with the first respondent/accused till 2004. But she has not taken any steps to marry him and after the first respondent/accused got married on 9.12.2004, the revision petitioner/P.W.1 gave a complaint and for the past eight years, they were having illicit sexual intercourse. In such circumstances, it is painful to accept that the first respondent/accused has given a false promise to marry the revision petitioner/P.W.1/complainant and had sexual intercourse with him. So, the trial Court has considered these facts and came to the correct conclusion. 16. It is to be noted that this is not an appeal against acquittal filed by the State and it is only a revision and the revisional Court's power is very limited and when once the finding is perverse or there is illegality or irregularity in the view, then only the revisional Court shall appreciate the evidence and set aside the findings of the trial Court and remit the case for re-trial. 17. In this case, the trial Court considered each and every evidence, especially P.Ws.1 to 6, even though P.Ws.4 and 6 turned hostile and came to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the first respondent/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 417 IPC. 18. I do not find any illegality or irregularity or perversity or infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. 19. There being no merits, the Crl.R.C. is dismissed, confirming the impugned order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam. 2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris District (Crime No.2 of 2005) 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4. The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To M/s.V.Purushothaman , Advocate, SR.28648 Crl.R.C.1369 of 2007 sai(co)pmk.3.5.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/