GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 17 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aog. 19:

1. 1. Heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The present revision petitioner, namely, Kutub Ali @ Kutub Uddin faced prosecution under Section 417 IPC in a complaint case being CR Case No.404/2003, before the Court of learned CJM, Hailakandi and after completion of trial, he was found guilty of an offence under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) for 6(six) months and imposed with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, (S.I for 7 days).

3. The complaint was filed with an allegation that the revision petitioner and the daughter of the informant developed intimacy followed by physical relationship on a promise of marriage, as a result of which she became pregnant and later gave birth to a baby girl. It was alleged that the promise of marriage was false and thereby, the petitioner cheated the informant's daughter.

4. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused/petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Session Judge, Hailakandi registered as Criminal Appeal No.4/2008 but he was not successful in the said appeal which was dismissed upholding the conviction under Section 417 and the sentence was also upheld, holding that the same cannot be said to be hard or excessive.

5. Aggrieved by this failure in the second tier, the revision petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision invoking the powers under Section 397/401 Cr.PC seeking interference with his conviction and sentence.

6. The TCR in original was procured and available for perusal while adjudicating this revision.

7. The learned counsel has painstakingly taken the court through the materials on record, including the depositions, the impugned judgments of the court's below and submitted that the prosecution case suffered from several infirmities and that the story of the prosecutrix was not believable.

8. It is submitted that the complaint was lodged 6 (six) months after the alleged relationship of the petitioner and the prosecutrix ; that, there is also an aspect of a dispute between the families; it has emerged from the victim's testimony that another person was residing in their house and that there is a possibility of that person being responsible for the pregnancy of the girl.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner denies the relationship and the pregnancy altogether.

10. It is also submitted that he has faced the process of this criminal prosecution ever since the alleged incident in 2003 and thereby, suffered substantial prejudice.

11. In support of his contentions, the learned petitioner counsel has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raju Krishna Shedbalkar Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 2024 and another decision of this Court rendered in Criminal Revision Petition No.265/2012.

12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State who succinctly submitted that during the trial, only four witnesses were examined and two of them were in the nature of hearsay. The prosecution submits that admittedly no medical documents pertaining to pregnancy are on record as well. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State supports the concurrent findings of fact by the learned courts below with regard to the conviction.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=LfKgAEL6K8Sqqfv6TysK%2BIjgqIZ%2FxGj9vDQvxMfRwSqyTFMG7JV17d6NhajY00v5&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./588/2012&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010183402012&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.