LINGARAJA RATH, J. ( 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. ( 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 :- (1) The accused must have practised deceit upon a woman who is not his wife to induce her believe that she is lawfully married to him, and (2) to persuade her to cohabit with him or to have sexual intercourse with him being induced by such belief. ( 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 :"the Section does not penalise mere cohabitation pr sexual intercourse with a woman who is not lawfully married to him. The Section is attracted only when certain other ingredients are also associated therewith. The Section envisages the case when a man deceitfully induces a. woman to have sexual intercourse with him causing her to believe that she is lawfully married to him. The essence of the Section is therefore the deception caused by a man on a woman, in consequence of which she is led to believe that she is lawfully married. In order to establish deception there must first be allegations that the accused falsely induced her to believe that she is legally wedded to him. In the complaint in this case there is no allegation of any such deception or inducement. In order to establish deception there must first be allegations that the accused falsely induced her to believe that she is legally wedded to him. In the complaint in this case there is no allegation of any such deception or inducement. In a case where both the man and woman fully knew that they are not husband and wife and no ceremony of marriage took place between them, there is no question of one of them believing otherwise. Even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken as true the Section is not being attracted. The allegation is that though they are not husband and wife they had sexual union during late hours in the night for a pretty long time. What is alleged in the complaint is only a promise to marry in future The strange part of it is, there is the further allegation that one day they went for registering the marriage but the petitioner ran away from there and even thereafter she was submitting herself to him regularly for liaison. The facts cannot at any rate attract S. 493, IPC. "air 1957 Orissa 198 (1957 Cri LJ 989) (Raghunath Padhy v. The State) was case where a window was persuaded by a youth of twenty years who had a wife living, to marry him to which she was reluctant because of the presence of his wife, and hence insisted that if at all there would be a marriage, it should registered. There was some exchange of letter and in one of those letters the man expressed that he had no objection to get the marriage registered and also handed over to her boned saying that he was going to marry her and further specified certain terms regarding their conjugal life. He assured that the bond would be registered in due course. Lured by such assurance the widow left her parents' house and came to the accused to Bwrhampur where in a room in a choultry some sort of marriage ceremony was performed between them in presence of two friends of the accused. The widow was made to put on new clothes, new bangles and also vermilion mark on her forehead. There was exchange of garlands between the two. The accused assured the widow that these ceremonies were sufficient to complete the marriage between them. The widow was made to put on new clothes, new bangles and also vermilion mark on her forehead. There was exchange of garlands between the two. The accused assured the widow that these ceremonies were sufficient to complete the marriage between them. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife for some time at different places but when after some time she became pregnant, he deserted her and went to the first wife. The Court referring to the deposition of the widow in Court to the effect that :"i told him to marry if he executes a written bond. Accordingly, lie wrote a bond on the 29-9-1951 Land a copy was given to me. Accordingly, I went to Berhampur and put on bangles, exchanged garlands and I thought we were married. But the bond was not registered. "came to hold that she had agreed to marry him because of the bond given to her and that his promise about registration was not a condition precedent to the marriage. It was found that to prove deception it has to be established that the accused had dishonestly or fraudulently concealed some facts or made false statements knowing the same to be false. His act of handing over the bond, and the conduct on the day of the marriage admitting that ha had taken her as his wedded wife and participating in some sort of ceremony at Berhampur showed that till the date of the so-called marriage at any rate he had acted in good faith and his subsequent conduct after the marriage would not make him liable under Section 493, IPC. In (1990) 3 OCR 467 (Janaki Kumar Das v. Gajendra Das) a similar case came up before this Court where both parties had gone to a Mahadev temple and there, after performing some Punja, there was exchange of garlands between them with the accused declaring that the complainant had become his wife and on that day they had sexual intercourse. The Court analysing the evidence came to hold that no deception was at any time practised by the accused on the lady and held the offence not to be proved. ( 4 ) IN this background of law, it has to be seen how far the charge against the respondent No. 1 has been established. PW. The Court analysing the evidence came to hold that no deception was at any time practised by the accused on the lady and held the offence not to be proved. ( 4 ) IN this background of law, it has to be seen how far the charge against the respondent No. 1 has been established. PW. 2 nowhere has stated that respondent No. 1 practised deception on her or that by such deception she was induced to believe to have become his wife. All her evidence is that once they met at the house of respondent No. 1, there was exchange of garlands and then they closed the doors and had sexual intercourse. There was not a single utterance of the respondent No. 1 holding out that by such process they had become husband and wife and that it was a form of marriage. On the contrary it is her positive statement that when she became pregnant the. respondent No. 1 promised to marry her properly which would go to show that the appellant was conscious of the fact that there was no proper marriage between them, a fact which was also admitted by herself saying that she was conscious of the fact that in their caste a marriage means a bridegroom coming with his relative, the priest chanting, feast being given to the relatives and the caste people, and then the bride being taken to the house of the bridegroom. She also admitted that she had never seen any marriage performed by exchange of garlands. There is thus singular lack of any evidence of any deception having been practised upon P. W. 2 and hence whatever may be his responsibility otherwise, the charge under section 493 IPC cannot he sustained against respondent No. 1. Failing in such attempt, it has been submitted by Mr. B. P. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that as the girl was a minor at the time of commission of the offence, the case should be remitted to the trial court for making respondent No. 1 stand trial under Section 376 IPC. The evidence of P. W. 2 shows that the Court below had assessed her age to be eighteen years on 27-9-85. P. W. 1 has given her age as sixteen years. In the judgment the court below has assessed her age to be between 16 and 18 years. The evidence of P. W. 2 shows that the Court below had assessed her age to be eighteen years on 27-9-85. P. W. 1 has given her age as sixteen years. In the judgment the court below has assessed her age to be between 16 and 18 years. There is hence no conclusive proof that P. W. 2 was a girl of below sixteen years on the date of the occurrence. The being so, I am not inclined to agree with Mr. Ray to make respondent No. 1 stand a trial again under Section 376 IPC. ( 5 ) ABOUT the charge under Section 354 IPC against respondent No. 2, it has to be said that there is no evidence worth the name. Though in the complaint petition the appellant made allegation of respondent No. 2 having pounced upon her and stripping her naked, yet all that she stated in her evidence was that while she was returning along With others from the caste meeting. 4 to 8 persons quarralled with them and respondent No. 2 dragged her cloth. There learned trial court did not believe her statement because of the admitted enmity between the families and acquitted the respondent No. 2 of the charge. In an appeal against acquittal I am not inclined to take a different view of the evidence and convict the respondent No. 2. 5a. In the result, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.