SIVAKUMAR vs STATE REP BY ITS

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 643 of 2018
CNR: {HCMA013700782018}
Sivakumar
..Appellant(s)
Vs
The State Rep. by its
The Inspector of Police,
All Women Police Station,
Royapuram, Chennai.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.,
against the Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Mahila Judge,
Chennai dated 22.10.2018 in S.C.No.73 of 2015.
For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Govindaraju
For Respondent(s): Ms. Sharada Vivek
Additional Public Prosecutor
Asst. by. Mr. M.Arul Raj
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
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
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’.
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
(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
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
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
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
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
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
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;
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
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
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
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
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
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.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )

CRL A No. 643 of 2018
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
TSG
CRL A No. 643 of 2018
09-10-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )