IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.352 of 2006 (In the matter of an application under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Saroj Kumar Pradhan ……. Appellant -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 14.05.2026 : Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026 S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No. 33 of 2005, whereby the appellant and other accused persons faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 493, 313, 417 and 380/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Some of the co-accused persons were also charged under Sections 313, 380/109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the other accused persons of all the charges and also acquitted the present appellant of all the charges except under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was convicted under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Heard Mr. Kamalakanta Sethi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sobhan Panigrahi, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State. 3. The prosecution case originates from a private complaint filed by one Sarala Mishra. The case of the complainant is that during the years 2001 and 2002, she was working as an Anganwadi Worker at Jhankarapada Centre and was residing with her father and brother in a room situated behind her father’s medicine shop at village Sagada. It is alleged that accused Saroj Pradhan, who was serving as a Livestock Inspector at Sagada prior to the year 2001. On 02.01.2001, taking advantage of the absence of the complainant’s father and brother, entered into her room at about 7.00 P.M., closed the door, and threatened her at knife point. Thereafter, the accused allegedly established physical relationship with her on the assurance of marriage and continued to maintain such relationship from time to time. It is further alleged that on 24.06.2002, accused Saroj Pradhan asked the complainant to proceed to Sonepur and stay at the residence of her elder sister with an assurance that he would arrive there on the following day for solemnization of their registry marriage. Believing such assurance, the complainant went to Sonepur and waited there for two days, but the accused did not turn up. Subsequently, she returned to Boudh and found the quarter of accused Saroj Pradhan locked. On enquiry, she came to know that he had left for Bhubaneswar. It is further alleged that the accused had taken away several articles belonging to the complainant, including PATTO sarees, shawls, bed sheets, saya-blouse sets, gold rings, silver ornaments, and gold bangles, valued at approximately Rs.6,000/-. The complainant further alleged that later she came to know that accused Saroj Pradhan had been transferred to Poibari Livestock Inspection Centre in the district of Nayagarh. Accordingly, she along with her father went there in search of him, but failed to meet him. During their stay at Daspalla, her father met one Dinabandhu Das, a retired Sanskrit teacher, and disclosed before him all the facts relating to the complainant. Said Dinabandhu Das allegedly assured them that he would meet accused Saroj Pradhan and communicate his views. Subsequently, when the complainant’s father again contacted Dinabandhu Das after receiving a phone message, he was informed that accused Saroj Pradhan had confessed to the allegations but had refused to accept the complainant as his wife or execute any deed relating to marriage, allegedly under the influence of the other accused persons. Finding no other alternative, the complainant approached Boudh Police Station to lodge a report. However, the I.I.C., Boudh P.S., allegedly advised her to file a complaint case before the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh. Accordingly, after consultation with her lawyer, the complainant instituted the present complaint case. Upon examining the complainant and conducting the necessary enquiry, the learned S.D.J.M., Boudh took cognizance of offences under Sections 376, 493 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Saroj Pradhan; under Sections 313, 380 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the other accused persons, and thereafter committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Subsequently, charges under Sections 493, 313, 417 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act were framed against accused Saroj Pradhan; charges under Sections 313, 380 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act were framed against accused Ghanasyam Pradhan, Baidehi Pradhan and Pradeep Sahu; and charge under Sections 313 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused Sulochana Khatei, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and stood their trial. 4. To substantiate the prosecution case, the complainant examined seven witnesses and proved documents which were marked as Ext.1. On the other hand, the defence examined two witnesses in support of its plea of denial. 5. The learned trial Court, by meticulous analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the other accused persons were not liable for the offences alleged against them and accordingly acquitted them of all the charges. However, the learned trial Court held the present appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him thereunder. The relevant part of the judgment of the trial Court is quoted herein under for the convenience of ready reference: “10. Relating to the charge u/s. 417 I.P.C. it is found that complainant speaks of her relationship with accused Saroj and their living as husband and wife at Boudh. Though the evidence adduced on alleged, marriage at Siva temple Dengijhole are not cogent to rely upon, the evidence of the complainant herself and that of P.W.2 and P.W. 3 one of the occupant of a neighbouring quarters in Veterinary Colony, Boudh are quite cogent to come to a conclusion that complainant and the accused Saroj were free in their physical relationship and even both staying together. It is obvious that one unmarried woman will entertain a man for such cohabitation only with a hope of a marital status for her. Irrespective of any inconsistency and discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution, the materials on record including the photograph relating to Saroj and Sarala clearly reflects hope of marriage or marital life given by accused Saroj to Complainant Sarala. The evidence of the complainant P.W.6, her father-P.W.2 KER that Saroj left his quarter at Boudh on his transfer clandestinely and in spite of their efforts to search him out after moving from place to place reveals a clear case of deception of accused Saroj to Sarala which amounts to an offence u/s, 417 I.PC. and he is liable for the same.” The appellant is aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence and has filed the present appeal. 6. So far as the acquittal of other accused persons and the acquittal of the present appellant in respect of the remaining charges are concerned, the same has not been challenged by the complainant by filing any appeal or revision. Therefore, this Court does not find it necessary to venture into those aspects and confines itself only to examine the legality and propriety of the conviction of the appellant under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 7. Mr. Sethi, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting the appellant of all the other charges; however, it erred in convicting the appellant under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch as the essential ingredients constituting the offence of cheating have not been established by the complainant. It is further contended that merely because the appellant left his place of posting after transfer and shifted to another place, the same by itself cannot give rise to an inference that he had dishonest or fraudulent intention from the very inception so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, it is submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code are unsustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be set aside. 8. This Court is of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant deserves acceptance, inasmuch as the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code are not sustainable in the eye of law. A plain reading of the observations made by the learned Trial Court clearly reveals that the conviction has been primarily based on the assumption that since the complainant and the appellant were residing together and had physical relationship, there must have been a promise of marriage extended by the appellant. However, such inference, based merely on presumption and surrounding circumstances, cannot by itself constitute the offence of cheating unless it is established by cogent and convincing evidence that the appellant had a dishonest or fraudulent intention from the very inception of the relationship. The learned Trial Court itself observed that the evidence relating to the alleged marriage at Shiva Temple, Dengijhole was not cogent and reliable. Further, the materials available on record only indicate that the complainant and the appellant were in a consensual relationship and were staying together for some period. Merely because the appellant subsequently left the place after his transfer or could not be traced immediately thereafter, the same cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that he had intentionally deceived the complainant from the very beginning. In order to bring home a charge under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to establish intentional deception and dishonest inducement at the inception, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the appellant under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code is liable to be interfered with. 9. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Boudh in S.T. No.33 of 2005 convicting the appellant under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 22nd Day of May 2026/ Subhasis Mohanty Designation: Personal Assistant Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.