HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.684 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against judgment dated 6.4.2004 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam against the petitioner-A1 for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code in S.C. No. 306 of 1998, dated 18.10.2002. According to the prosecution, some time prior to 24.10.1997, when Padma Kumari, the victim was cutting grass in her land, the petitioner-A1 had sexual inter course with her forcibly without her consent and threatened her not to reveal the same to anybody by saying that he would marry her soon. Subsequently also, A1 had induced her to have sexual inter course with him on several occasions by promising her that he would marry her and she also believed his words and did not reveal about it to anybody. Subsequently, she became pregnant and when her mother enquired her about it, then she informed about what happened to her mother. Then her parents approached A1, his parents and brother (A2 to A4) , who in turn agreed to perform the marriage of the victim with the 1st of them. It is also alleged that twenty days thereafter, on one day, while the victim was alone in her fields, A1 took her to his house and from there A1 to A4 took her to a hospital and caused miscarriage, without her consent. Having come to know about it, the parents of the victim placed the matter before the elders of the village where A1 to A4 admitted that they caused the miscarriage to the victim, but also stated that A1 was not intending to marry the victim and also threatened the victim and her family members with dire consequences. Subsequently, the victim lodged a report with the police, basing on which the case was registered and investigated into. The victim was also sent for medical examination to Machilipatnam and from there to Vijayawada, which revealed evidence of sexual inter course. On the completion of the investigation of the case, charge sheet was laid against A1 to A4. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge tried the revision petitioner-A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of IPC and A2 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 417 and 506 of IPC respectively. . In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and on behalf of the revision petitioenr-A1, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court found the revision petitioner-A1 guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months under the 1st count and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months under the 2nd count and directed that both the sentences of imprisonment should run concurrently. It however, acquitted A2 to A4 of the offences with which they were charged. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against A1. Hence, the present revision has been filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-A1 that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 376 of IPC against A1. It is his contention specifically that as the victim is not a minor, she would be definitely knowing what she was doing and in fact, the victim had sexual intercourse with the accused voluntarily and as the victim is a consenting party, the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is not made out, placing reliance in that context on a decision of this Court in K. LAXMANA RAO vs. STATE OF A.P. & OTHERS ([1]). It is pertinent to note here that it is a case of A1 promising the defacto complainant to marry her and having inter course with her for three months with her consent as disclosed by the record whereas the trial Court and also the appellate Court upheld the version of the prosecution holding that it would amount to committing rape against the defacto complainant, which is an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. I have gone through the record. In K. Laxmana Rao’s case, referred to above, it was alleged that the victim concerned therein got illicit intimacy with the accused concerned therein as induced by the accused, which was known to her brother in-law and her mother, but in spite of that she continued her illicit intimacy with the accused for two years, without any objection; whereas in the present case, A1 and P.W.1 got illegal intimacy for three months as a result of which she became pregnant and thereafter the mother of P.W.1 asked about the pregnancy, following which, the mother of the victim girl asked A1 to marry the victim and then the matter was referred to the elders and so on and under those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the victim who was above 16 years old was a consenting party and the prosecution failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Having gone through the record, I do not find any distinction between the two cases. Here, the knowledge of the mother and other relatives of the girl about the conduct of the girl and the accused and so also the conduct of the victim during the relevant period is very important. Admittedly, the victim was not a minor at the time of commission of offence. In other words, she was a major then and therefore it has to be held that the victim got a discretion to know what was good and what was bad while involved in her illegal intimacy with him. The circumstances of the case, amply prove that the victim had sexual inter course with A1 voluntarily and hence it would not amount to committing rape against her. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is very much applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and consequently, the charge under Section 376 of IPC goes. Alternately, it is to be seen whether the charge under Section 417 IPC is established or not. Section 417 of IPC reads as under:. “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.” After examining the relevant factors, including the fact that A1 induced the victim girl to have sexual inter course with him by making a false promise of marrying her, upon which, she gave consent for having sexual inter course with him, I feel that it is a fit case to be brought within the purview of Section 417 of I.P.C. Further I feel it reasonable to impose punishment of six months for that offence in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner-A1 for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is set aside however, while upholding the conviction recorded against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C. the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him for that offence is reduced to six months maintaining the fine clause in tact. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 27.6.2011 pnb [1] 1999(1) ALD 543