SEEYATHAMMAL Vs. VINAYAGAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, rendered in C. C. No. 7133 of 1999 whereby the first respondent herein had been acquitted of the charge under Section 420 IPC but had been convicted for the offence under Section 417 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner basing reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in CDJ 2002 APHC 749 (Suram Kiran Kumar Reddy Vs. State of A. P.) submitted that from the facts established in the case, by the evidence adduced and by the prosecution an offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out, since as per the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court ?chastity? and / or ?virginity? of a woman is covered by ?property? under Section 415 IPC. He further submitted that the betrothal between the petitioner and the accused / the first respondent herein was performed eight months prior to 23. 03. 1999, but since the parents of the petitioner could not comply with the demand of 15 sovereigns jewels made by the mother of the first respondent the marriage proposal was dropped, but thereafter the first respondent assured the petitioner that he would take her as his wife and under that pretext he had sexual intercourse with her and due to that she became pregnant; inspite of the petitioner?s fervent request to the first respondent to marry her, he flatly refused to marry her but tortured the petitioner to abort the child; the above heinous act of the first respondent will definitely amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC.

(3.) I have carefully considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.