AMRUTA GADTIA Vs. TRILOCHAN PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant assails the acquittal of the two respondents who are respectively son and father. While respondent No. 1 had been charged under Section 493, IPC, respondent No. 2 had been charged under Section 354, IPC. The allegations against the respondents were that respondent No. 1 had been proposing marriage to the appellant and was asking her for having sexual intercourse. On the Dola Purnima day of 1983 the appellant was called to the house of respondent No. 1 by his sister Ila Pradhan. There one Indu Pradhan gave two garlands and the appellant and respondent No 1 exchanged the garlands. They closed the door and had sexual intercourse. Thereafter on several occasions they had sexual intercourse for which the appellant became pregnant. Respondent No. 1 promised the appellant to marry her properly and proposed to take her to Titilagarh to keep her there. He gave her some medicines and suggested her to take some injections which she refused. She informed the matter to her parents. Her father convened a caste Panchayati. Both the respondents attended the Panchayati but nothing was, decided. While the appellant was returning from the Panchayati along with her father, the respondent No. 2 and others quarrelled with them and respondent No. 2 dragged her cloth. It is the further case that the appellant has in the meantime given birth to a child who is still with her. The defence of the respondents is denial of the allegations. Respondent No. 2 has taken the stand that the caste people had asked him to accept the appellant but both the father and son did not abide by their desire and therefore the case has been falsely started.

(2.) The prosecution case rests solely on the evidence on P.W. 2. So far as P.W. 1, the complainant is concerned, his statement is only of what he learnt from his daughter and hence is not very much relevant far decision of the case as regards the offence under Section 493 IPC. An offence under Section 493, IPC to be established needs the following to be proved :-

(3.) As such the essence of the offence is that while a woman is not in reality the wife of the accused, it must be shown that he deliberately caused the deception so as to induce belief in the mind of the woman that she is or has become his wedded wife and that in pursuance of such idea he induced her for which she agreed to cohabit with the man or to have sexual intercourse with him. As such, unless the practice of such deception on the woman by the accused is established, the offence would not be taken to have been committed. A Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in AIR 1987 Kerala 184 (1987 Cri LJ 1106) (Moideenkutty Haji v. Kunhikoya) considering the law on the subject held :