Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, convicting the appellant under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.60,000, with default rigorous imprisonment, and compensation to the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, a married woman with a child, alleged that the appellant, a chartered accountant, promised to marry her, provide a flat, and maintain her and her daughter. She claimed that after the promise, the appellant took her to a temple, solemnized a marriage, and established physical relations. The grievance was that from March 2002, the appellant removed her from service, failed to pay rent, and discontinued the relationship, leading to a complaint on 7 May 2002, resulting in FIR under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed; the case was committed to Sessions. The trial court framed charges under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. The trial court acquitted under Section 376 IPC but convicted under Section 417 IPC, holding that sexual relations were on a false promise of marriage. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed. The single question was whether the prosecution proved that the appellant cheated the prosecutrix by inducing her to have sexual relations on a false promise of marriage. The appellant’s counsel argued that the prosecutrix knew both were married, so no deception could exist; essential ingredients of cheating were not made out. The State contended that evidence of promise and subsequent refusal proved cheating. The High Court examined the evidence. The prosecutrix admitted she was married since 1998 and had a child. She was aware that the appellant was married, his first wife expired, and his second wife had filed for divorce; the appellant told her he would marry after divorcing his second wife. She also admitted that after joining service, she stayed in a rental room and later in the office, and had consensual sexual relations. The court noted that the real reason for the complaint was the appellant’s removal from service and denial of accommodation, not refusal to marry. The court relied on Tilak Raj vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (2016) 4 SCC 140, which held that for cheating under Section 415 IPC, there must be fraudulent or dishonest inducement by deceiving a person, causing delivery of property or doing/omitting an act causing harm. In the present case, the prosecutrix’s full knowledge of the marital status of both parties negated any deception; she voluntarily entered the relationship. The prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of cheating beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 417 IPC was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and the appellant acquitted. Fine, if deposited, was ordered to be refunded. The decision favored the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cheating - Ingredients of Cheating under Section 415 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 415, 417 - The accused was convicted on the ground that he had sexual relations with the prosecutrix on a false promise of marriage. The High Court observed that the prosecutrix was married and knew the accused was married, thus no deception existed. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 415 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Held: Conviction under Section 417 IPC cannot be sustained in the absence of deceit or fraudulent inducement. (Paras 8, 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution has established that the accused cheated the prosecutrix by inducing her to have sexual relationship with him on a false promise of marriage.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted of offence under Section 417 IPC. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded.
Law Points
- Ingredients of Section 415 IPC cheating require fraudulent or dishonest inducement by deception
- mere failure to keep promise not cheating
- consent with knowledge of marital status negates deception
- prosecution must prove all essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt
- conviction under Section 417 IPC unsustainable without proof of deceit
- consensual relationship with full knowledge not cheating
