PANEER ALIAS PANEERSELVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is an accused in C.C.No.21 of 1998 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakam and he was convicted by the trial Court for an offence under Section 417 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. THE said conviction and sentence were also confirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in Crl.A.No.31 of 2006. Challenging said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.1, aged about 18 years, was a resident of Kavathur Colony. P.W.2 is her father and P.W.3 is her brother. P.W.1 was going for agricultural coolie work. At that time, the accused used to follow her and used to talk with her. THE accused assured P.W.1 that he would marry her and also made a promise that he would not marry any other person except P.W.1. P.W.1 believed his words and moved closely. She also shared the bed with the accused. Once, P.W.3 had seen both P.W.1 and the accused in a compromised position. P.W.1 conceived and even after conceivement, the accused promised to marry her. P.W.2, father of P.W.1 enquired P.W.1. She revealed that the accused had intimacy with her. When P.W.2 approached the accused, he had refused to marry P.W.1. A panchayat was convened in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5. But the accused has not accepted to marry P.W.1. THErefore, P.W.1 gave a complaint-Ex.P.1 before the Chithamoor Police Station. (ii) On receiving the complaint from P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chithamoor Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.365 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 417 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report-Ex.P.6. P.W.1 was sent to the Hospital. P.W.6, Dr.Chakravarthy examined P.W.1 and also found that she was pregnant and he issued Ex.P.2-Accident Register. THE accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer. As the Sub-Inspector of Police who conducted the first investigation died, P.W.10, Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation and after completing the investigation, he laid a final report against the accused.

(3.) MR.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, there was no inducement on the part of the accused and P.W.1 voluntarily had sexual intercourse with the accused and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cheat P.W.1 and as such, the ingredients of the offence under Section 417 I.P.C. are not attracted.