Kiran Raj

The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of a man under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant's consent to the relationship was obtained under a misconception of fact. The court observed that the accused and the complainant were in a consensual relationship for over four years, and the mere refusal to marry does not amount to an offense under Section 417 IPC unless there is clear evidence of deception at the outset.

The criminal revision petition was filed by the accused, Guluk Kathar, challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, in CR Case No. 87/2008. The trial court had convicted him under Section 417 IPC, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹1,000, with an additional two months of imprisonment in case of default in payment. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 4/2011.

According to the prosecution, the complainant, Jyoti Deka, had been in a relationship with the accused since 2004-05. She alleged that the accused had promised to marry her, and based on this assurance, they had engaged in a physical relationship, leading to her pregnancy in 2007. She further stated that the accused asked her to terminate the pregnancy, assuring her that they would get married in the first week of the Assamese month of Magh. However, on January 30, 2008, the accused allegedly refused to marry her and suggested that she marry someone else.

Following this, the complainant filed a case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon. The trial court took cognizance of the offense under Section 417 IPC and summoned the accused. After trial, in which the prosecution examined four witnesses, including the complainant, the court convicted the accused. The appellate court later upheld the conviction.

Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, examined whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had deceived the complainant by making a false promise of marriage, thereby obtaining her consent under a misconception of fact.

The court referred to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 9 SCC 608], where the Supreme Court held that to establish the offense of cheating in the context of a false promise of marriage, two conditions must be met:

• The promise must have been false at the time it was made.

• The false promise must have been of immediate relevance and directly influenced the complainant’s decision to engage in the relationship.

The judgment noted: "In the case at hand, from the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that there had been a long love relationship of four years between the petitioner and the victim, and they had a physical relationship. Both were majors. There is no evidence to establish or suggest that this long relationship and physical intimacy were under a misconception of fact or that the consent of the victim was based on fraudulent representation of marriage."

The court further observed: "What is discernible is that the relationship between them broke down. There is nothing on record to indicate that, at the inception, the accused had no intention to marry the complainant. In the absence of any clinching evidence proving that the complainant continued her relationship with the accused for four years due to a misconception of fact, the accused could not have been convicted under Section 417 IPC."

The court held that a mere refusal to marry does not constitute cheating unless the prosecution proves that the accused had a fraudulent intent at the outset. Since the complainant and the accused were in a relationship for several years before the alleged refusal to marry, the court found no basis for the conviction.

In light of the findings, the Gauhati High Court issued the following directives:

• The conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, on December 14, 2010, in CR Case No. 87/2008, and upheld by the Sessions Judge, Morigaon, on April 9, 2012, in Criminal Appeal Case No. 4/2011, are set aside.

• The accused, Guluk Kathar, is acquitted of the charges under Section 417 IPC.

• The bail bond stands discharged, and the lower court records are to be returned.

• The court directed that Advocate V.A. Chowdhury, who served as Amicus Curiae for the complainant, be paid legal fees as per the norms of the Legal Services Authority.

Case Title: Guluk Kathar vs. State of Assam & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.Rev.P. 265/2012
Bench: Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

[Read/Download order]