CRL A/643/2018 of SIVAKUMAR Vs STATE REP BY ITS on 9 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appeal challenges the Judgment passed in SC.No.73 of 2015, holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 417 IPC and sentencing him to one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. 2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and the victim are closely related to each other; that they were in a romantic relationship since October 2011; that thereafter, the appellant had promised to marry the victim and on the said promise, forced her to have sexual intercourse; that when the victim asked the appellant to marry her in the year 2014, the appellant refused to marry her; and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

(ii) On the compliant given by the victim, a FIR was registered which was marked in Ext.P10. The complaint was marked as Ext.P2. The investigation was conducted by PW10 and a final report was filed for the offences under Section 376 IPC before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Section 376 and 417 IPC and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty’.

(iii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Exts.P1 to P12. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. On the side of the defence, the appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any documents.

(iv) The trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offences under Section 376 IPC and convicted him for the offences under Section 417 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

3. Heard Mr.M.Govindaraju, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Ms. Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. This Court also perused all the materials available on record.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of the victim and the other evidence adduced by the prosecution would clearly show that the physical relationship was due to their close acquaintance and not on the false promise of marriage; and that the relationship turned sour and therefore, even the offence under Section 417 of IPC would not be made out. He relied on the Judgment of this Court in Ameen Batcha Vs. State rep. by its Inspector of Police reported in (2025) 1 MLJ (Crl) 391.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor per contra submitted that even though the trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 376 IPC, the evidence discloses that the victim was made to believe that the appellant would marry her and the consent was obtained only on the said false promise; and that therefore, there is no infirmity in the Judgment of the trial Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 417 IPC.

6. As stated above, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW1 is the victim. PW2 is the sister of the victim. PW3 is the maternal aunt of the victim. PW4 is the cousin of the victim. PW5 is the mother of PW4. PW6 is the doctor who had examined the appellant. PW7, is the doctor who had examined the victim. PW8 is the Magistrate, who had recorded

Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim. PW9 is the cousin of the victim and PW10 is the investigating officer.

7. In this case, the following facts are admitted; (a) that the victim and the appellant are closely related and that the appellant is the aunt’s son of the victim; (b) that both the victim and the appellant were in a romantic relationship from 2011 onwards and had continuous physical relationship ever since then.

8. It is the case of the victim that she had consented to the physical relationship only because of the false promise of marriage made by the appellant and that thereafter, the appellant had refused to marry her. The nature of the evidence discloses that the relationship was continuous and the appellant and the victim had consented to the physical relationship not only because of the false promise of marriage but, also due to mutual love between the appellant and the victim. It is a case of a relationship that turned sour; and at best only a breach of promise can be inferred. Breach of promise cannot be equated to false representation. It is well settled that in so far as the offence of cheating is concerned, the prosecution must establish deception at the inception. The evidence does not disclose deception at the inception.

9. It is useful to refer to PW1's evidence, which would show that the relationship was consensual and was not due to any false promise of marriage; “vd;dplk ; fy;ahzk ; nra;J nfhs;tjhf $wpajhy; ehq;fs ; ,UtUk ; 5 tUlkhf gofpNdhk;. Kjypy ; ehd; Ntz;lhk; vd;W kWj;Njd; mth; vd;id iftpl khl;Nld; vd;W nrhd;djhy; ehDK; Xg;Gf;nfhz;Nld;. ehq;fs; ,utUk; gofpa fhyj;jpy; gPr;Rf;F NghNdhk;. vq;fs; Chpy; mj;ij tPL vjphpapd ; tPl;bw;F vjphpy ; cs;sJ. mg;NghJ vjphp vd; mj;ij tPl;bw;F Te;jhh;. mg;NghJ vd ; mj;ija}la Ngj;jp ,Ue;jhh;. Vq;fs ; ,UtPl;lhUf;Fk ; vjphpa}k ; ehDk; fy;ahzk ; nra;J nfhs;Nthk ; vd;W njhpa}k;. vd ; mj;ij tPl;bw;F vjphpy ; cs;s $iu tPl;bw;F $l;b nrd;W vd;Dlk ; clYwt} nfhz;lhh;. Njjp vdf;F Qhgfkpy;iy. nrd;idapYk; vd; mf;fh tPlby; ehd; ,Uf;Fk; NghJ vd; mf;fh tPl;bw;Fk; te;J mq;F itj;Jk; ehq;fs; ,UtUk; clYWT nfhz;Nlhk;. gpd;dh; irjhg;Ngl;ilapy; XU khjk; vd; mj;ij kfs; tPl;by; jq;fpapUe;Njd;. mq;NfAk; vjphp ehd; jq;fpapUe;j NghJ te;jhh;. Vd ; mj;ij kfSf;Fk ; ehq;fs; goFk ; tptuk;njhpAk;. mq;F itj;Jk ; ehDk ; vjphpAk; clYwT nfhz;Nlhk;.”

10. This Court in the case of Ameen Batcha (cited supra) had relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare Vs. The State of Maharashtra [(2024) 11 SCC 378] and held as follows; “12.The evidence of PW1 therefore would make it clear that the physical relationship was not only due to the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry the victim. The victim was aged 24 years at the time of occurrence and she was aware of the consequences of her act and it cannot be said that the consent to have sexual intercourse is only on the false promise of marriage. The victim is not naive or gullible and she was capable of understanding the consequences of her acts. Further, the complaint that the appellant committed sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage was made for the first time 25 months after the alleged occurrence. It this case, delay would certainly assume significance. The evidence of the other witnesses at best reveals that the appellant and the victim had a close relationship and therefore, those witnesses would be of no avail to the prosecution to establish the alleged false promise or that the consent was on the alleged false promise. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 at best would reveal a breach of promise and would not establish that the alleged deception said to have been made. 13….

14. The above observations would be applicable to the facts of this case. The evidence only reveals a consensual relationship for a prolonged period of time that turned sour and hence, the offence under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC, are not made out on the facts of the case. It is also to be noted that the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution version with regard to the offence under Sections 294(b) and 352 of the IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence.”

11. The above observations would clearly apply to the facts of the instant case as the evidence of the victim as well as the other witnesses only discloses that the appellant and the victim had close relationship and they were continuing with their relationship for about five years. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 417 of IPC cannot be sustained. Hence, the appellant is acquitted of the said offence.

12. Accordingly, the Judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.73 of 2015 dated 22.10.2018 is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The fine amount deposited and paid as compensation to the victim shall not be recovered from the victim. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand discharged. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To

1. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Royapuram, Chennai.

2. The Mahila Judge, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 643 of 2018 09-10-2026