Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010125392014 2025:GAU-AS:15583 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./294/2014 RAJIB LOCHAN BORA S/O SRI SRIRAM BORA R/O DISOI NAGAR, GOHAINGURI CHUK, UNDER JORHAT POLICE STATION, IN THE DIST. OF JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR 2:SMTI REKHAMONI DUTTA D/O SRI BUDHIN DUTTA R/O NAOBOISA BODIA CHUK P.O. PATIGAON UNDER JORHAT P.S. IN THE DIST. OF JORHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D CHAKRABORTY, MR.P KATAKI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 01/11/2025 Heard Mr. P Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S H Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 2. The instant criminal revision petition has been instituted assailing the judgment dated 29.03.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, in Crl. A. No. 5/2004, dismissing the same and thereby, upholding the judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat in C.R. Case No. 162/2000. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the respondent No. 2, herein, had lodged a complaint petition, which was registered as C.R. Case No. 162/2000. In the complaint petition, it was contended by the respondent No. 2, herein, that she had a love affair with the petitioner, herein, for a considerable period of time and the petitioner, herein, had promised to marry her and thereby, got her induced to have sexual intercourse with him. It was also projected in the complaint that they had entered into a marriage agreement on 21.01.2000. It was further projected that the petitioner, herein, thereafter, used to visit the house of the respondent No. 2, herein, frequently and also used to stay there sometime during night and they had physical relationship, resulting in the respondent No. 2, herein, becoming pregnant. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 2, herein, insisted upon the petitioner, herein, to marry her, but he refused to perform marriage with her and even threatened to physically assault her. Accordingly, the victim girl instituted the complaint case under Section 493 IPC. The said complaint on being transferred came to be taken up for disposal by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jorhat. A trial was held in the matter and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2003 proceeded to convict the petitioner, herein, under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months and to pay a Page No.# 3/9 fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred). The learned Trial Court also directed the petitioner, herein, for payment of a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). The compensation amount, on being realized, was directed to be paid to the respondent No. 2, herein. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his conviction by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 16.12.2003, assailed the same before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jorhat, by way of instituting an appeal being Crl. A. No. 5/2004. The learned Appellate Court upon appreciating the evidences coming of record, proceeded vide judgment dated 29.03.2014, to dismiss the appeal and thereby, uphold the conviction of the petitioner, herein, by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner, herein, has instituted the present proceeding. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned Trial Court upon appreciating the evidences coming on record had drawn the following conclusions:- “(6) Thus on appraisal and appreciation of evidence so tendered by the prosecution witnesses, I am of the opinion that as PW1 deposes in chief that the accused person proposed love and promised to marry her and taking that promise in good faith, the complainant offered her body to the accused person and the accused person had sexual relationship with PW1 out of which PW1 became pregnant and ultimately naturally got aborted the inborn child. Though the learned defence counsel did not dispute the ‘deed of marriage agreement’ entered into between the complainant and the accused person but it is crystal clear, more so the law is clear that ‘Deed of Marriage agreement’ is itself a void- ab-initio and has no legal sanctity. The learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. BC Dolakhahoria, urged about responsibility of this Court towards society and I fully Page No.# 4/9 appreciate the anxiety so expressed by Mr. B.C. Dolakhahoria. The learned defence counsel for the accused, Mr. P.C. Bordoloi has failed to appreciate the fact that even though ‘Deed of Marriage agreement’ entered into between the parties is void-ab-initio but the agreement was made between the parties when already discontentment has arisen between the parties. It is long back that the accused promised to marry the complainant and as a result of this took advantage of the complainant’s body and had sexual intercourse. The learned defence counsel failed to appreciate the fact that due to inducement and deception made by the accused upon the complainant, the complainant agreed to have sexual intercourse with the accused. Had the complaint not been so induced and deceived by the false promise of the accused that he would marry the complainant, the complainant would not have agreed to have sexual intercourse with the accused and as a consequence of such sexual intercourse with the accused, the complainant became pregnant and ultimately naturally set aborted which had damaged or harmed complainant in body, mind and reputation. The learned defence counsel did not dispute the fact that the parties have sexual intercourse and the complainant set naturally aborted. 7. Above being the discussions, I am of opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the offence U/S 415 IPC against the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused is convicted. 8. Heard the accused person pleads per mercy. I have carefully gone through the provision of sec 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, considering the nature and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that since out society has regarded and moral values have gone down to such an extent, that if an accused lake him is accused is allowed to go on, by merely imposing a fine Justice would not be done. The accused does not deserve any sympathy from the Court.” 6. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court on the basis of the said conclusions, convicted the petitioner, herein, under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him along with payment of Page No.# 5/9 compensation amount, as noticed hereinabove. 7. The learned Appellate Court on an appeal being filed in the matter by the petitioner, herein, on consideration of the evidences coming on record as well as considering the contention raised before it by the petitioner, herein, proceeded vide judgment dated 29.03.2014 to draw the following conclusions:- “14) From a careful examination of the evidence of PW-1, coupled with medical evidence and also evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 there remains no doubt that accused/appellant had undergone sexual intercourse with PW-1 at her own residence where she was residing with her parents. Despite the fact that PW-1 has been subjected to detailed cross-examination, nothing could be elicited by the defence to show that her evidence given to the effect that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her is unfounded or unbelievable. However, it also transpires from her evidence that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her consent on being induced by the accused/appellant to marry her soon. The appellant as per her evidence visited several nights and had sexual intercourse. Her allegation is that he (accused) promised to marry her and she gave the consent to sexual intercourse. 15) It is important to note that unlike the victim of any other offence, whose testimony may necessitate corroboration, the victim of a sexual assault needs no corroboration for and she is not an accomplice. There is therefore no impediment in law in founding conviction of an accused on sole testimony of the victim [2008(1) GLR 111 followed] 16) In the case of Bipual Medhi & Etc. –versus-State of Assam, 2008 Crl. L.J. 1099, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held in Para Nos. 35, 36 and 37 as follows: PARA NO-35 “Turning to Section 417 IPC, it needs to be noted that Section 417 of IPC makes punishable offence of cheating. Cheating has been defined in Section 415 of IPC. The ingredients of offence of cheating requires [i] deception of a person [ii] whereby, fraudulently or dishonestly, inducing the person, so deceived, to deliver any Page No.# 6/9 property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or [iii] intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything, which he would not do or omit if her were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Deception of a person is common to the second and third requirements of the provisions of Section 415. The ingredients, as pointed out under [i] and [ii] hereinbefore, are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction “or”. The definition of the offence of cheating embraces cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and also cases in which such a transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence” PARA NO.-36 “When an accused makes a false promise to marry, which he never intends to carry out, and induces thereby the victim, so deceived, to have with him sexual act, which the victim would not have indulged in or permitted, had she not been induced by such deception and, when such act of having sexual intercourse by her with the accused causes, or is likely to cause, damage or harm to her body, mind or reputation, the act of the accused would amount to cheating. Thus, when a woman is induced to part with her chastity or virginity, which is the most valued possession of hers, the person, who so induces the woman by making false representation, would be liable for punishment under Section 417 of IPC. If the victim’s having sexual intercourse, with such a person, causes or is likely to cause harm to her body, mind or reputation for, in such a case, unless so deceived, the victim would not have permitted sexual act by the accused. To put it differently had such a victim not been deceived, she would not have permitted sexual act or would have refrained from allowing such sexual act and, clearly in such a case, but for her permitting such sexual act, she would not have suffered harm to her body, mind or reputation”. PARA NO. 37 “Since the definition of the offence of cheating indicates, as already pointed Page No.# 7/9 out above, that even when no parting of property is occasioned by deception, the deception may still amount to cheating if, as a result of the deception, a woman does anything or omits to do anything, which she would not have, but for such deception, done or omitted to do, it logically follows that when an accused, not intending to marry a woman, induces the woman, so deceived, to have sexual intercourse with him or induces such a woman to omit from resisting the act of sexual intercourse by him with her, the act of the accused of having sexual intercourse with such a woman would amount to offence of cheating if the act of the woman in letting such a man have sexual intercourse with her or the act of the woman in omitting to resist the act of sexual intercourse by such a man with her causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person of such a woman, her mind or reputation.” 17) In view of the above observation of our Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, I am of the view that the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jorhat, has rightly held that the accused appellant induced the victim to undergo sexual intercourse with him by giving false promise to marry her consequent upon which she became pregnant. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant are found to be given totally under different context not at all similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, I find nothing to interfere with the order of conviction & sentence passed against the accused appellant by the learned Trial Court. In the result, the conviction & sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against the accused appellant is upheld and the instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8. I have perused the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court, in the light of the evidences coming on record and find that the conclusions were drawn on a due and proper appreciation of the evidences coming on record. No infirmity has been found in the conclusions so drawn by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Appellate Court. 9. The concurrent findings of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, not having been demonstrated by the petitioner, herein, before this Court to be erroneous and/or to be suffering from any jurisdictional error, this Court is of the considered Page No.# 8/9 view that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, under Section 417 IPC would mandate an acceptance. 10. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court notices that the complaint was instituted by the respondent No. 2, herein, in the year 2000, 25 years have lapsed since the date of institution of the said complaint against the petitioner, herein. 11. The learned Trial Court had considered the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the same was not extended to the petitioner, herein, only by noticing the nature of the offence committed by him. No reasons have been assigned as to why the petitioner, herein, was not entitled to be extended with the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The benefits under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, being permissible to be extended by this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, this Court considering the long lapse of time occasioning since the institution of the complaint case against the petitioner, herein, is of the considered view that the petitioner, herein, is entitled to be extended with the benefits under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 12. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded, hereinabove, the petitioner, herein, is given the benefit under the Act of 1958 and the sentence is modified to the effect that instead of sending the petitioner, herein, to jail, he should be given the benefit under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the punishment of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court as well as the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) imposed upon him is not interfered with. 13. Considering the fact that the conviction of the petitioner, herein, has been upheld, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation amount awarded is required to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed to the fact that this Court having exempted the petitioner, herein, from undergoing the sentence of imprisonment, the amount of compensation be adequately enhanced by this Court. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner, herein, shall pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Page No.# 9/9 Thousand) as compensation. The said amount, on being deposited before the learned Trial Court, the same be released to the respondent No. 2, herein, i.e., Rekhamoni Dutta. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is directed that the petitioner, herein, will file two sureties to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) along with a personal bond before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat and undertake to the effect that the petitioner, herein, shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of 1 (one) year from the date of filing of the bond. The aforesaid bond be filed by the petitioner, herein, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of this order along with the deposit of the fine and the amount of compensation. 15. With the above observation and direction, the present criminal revision petition stands disposed of. 16. Send down the records of the case to the learned Trial Court along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. JUDGE Comparing Assistant