Mr. John Bosco vs State by Inspector of police, Singampuneri

Rengasamy, J.—This revision is directed against the conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at

Madurai, in C.A. No. 51 of 1987 for the offence u/s 417 of the Indian Penal code, sentencing to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- .

The revision petitioner was prosecuted before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai, in S.C.No.117 of 1985, for the offences under

Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code and after trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Devakottai, acquitted the revision petitioner for

the offence u/s 376 of Indian Penal Code, but found him guilty u/s 417 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- .

The learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram confirmed the sentence on appeal and therefore, the revision is directed against that order

The Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr.Thiagarajan, has raised two points in this revision. First is that there is no proof in

this case to show that the revision petitioner had intention to deceive the victim girl even at the time when be made the promise and Section 417 of

Indian Penal code is not applicable for the cases of this nature because Section 417 Indian Penal Code, is classified under Chapter 17 of the

Indian Penal Code which is applicable only for the property and not for the person

With regard to the first point, the Learned Counsel has relied upon a decision in Hari Majhi Vs. The State, ,''wherein the Calcutta High Court

has held that unless it is substantiated in the evidence that the representation of the accused to marry the victim girl was false to the knowledge of

the accused at the time when it was made, he cannot be convicted u/s 417 of Indian Penal Code. That is a case in which subsequent to the

prosecution of the accused, he married the prosecutrix. Therefore, the accused therein fulfilled his promise by marrying the prosecutrix. But, in this

case, it is not so. The intention of the accused can be gathered only from the subsequent conduct and it is very difficult to procure direct evidence

with regard to the mens rea he had at the time of the occurrence. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that this revision petitioner when

caught red handed for having sexual affair with the prosecutrix, promised to marry her and even swore in the name of Christ that he would marry

her. But subsequently when it was told to him that P.W. I became pregnant, he refused to marry her. There is no circumstance to point out that the

revision petitioner became incapable of complying with this promise, which he made when he was caught red handed. Therefore, the subsequent

conduct of the revision petitioner makes it clear that only to escape from the punishment he made such representation that he would marry P.W. 1.

Hence, the conduct of the revision petitioner in this case exposes his mens rea, that his promise was false to his knowledge.

Coming to the next point, it is true that Section 417 of Indian Penal Code is classified under Chapter 17 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals

with offences relating to the property. Section 417 is only a punishment Section, for the offence u/s 415 of Indian Penal Code. The earlier part of

Section 415 deals with regard to loss of property on account of cheating and only the latter part deals with the damage to the person on account of

such cheating. Therefore, as this Section deals with the loss of property also, it has to come under the Chapter relating to the offences against

property. The latter part of Section 415 I.P.C specifically deals with the damage, or harm to the body, mind, reputation or property of the victim,

when cheated. When the Section is so clear, the revision petitioner cannot take shelter under the heading of the Chapter. Therefore, this point also

has no significance.

Both Courts below accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 have found that this revision petitioner has committed the offence u/s 417 of Indian

Penal Code, though he was acquitted for the offence u/s 376 I.P.C. The illicit intimacy and the sexual intercourse between them have been

narrated by P.W. I on account of which she became pregnant and also has delivered a child. The evidence also establishes that this revision

petitioner is the father of the child. Under those circumstances, there is no reason to interfere in the conviction awarded by the Courts below.

Having rejected the grounds urged by the revision petitioner, the result is that this revision is dismissed.