S. C. DATTA, J. ( 1 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 along with two others persons viz. , his father and brother stood their trial before the Asst. Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur for committing the offences under Ss. 493/376/294/506 Indian Penal Code (for the 'ipc' ). They were acquitted of the charges under Ss. 375/294/506, IPC, but the Assistant Sessions Judge found opposite party No. 1 guilty of the charge under S. 493, IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. ( 2 ) AS against the order of conviction and sentence opposite party No. 1 carried an appeal to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide order dated 18-5-1994 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against opposite party No. 1. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court in revision. ( 3 ) THE case was lodged on the complaint of the present petitioner. The petitioner and opposite party No. 1 are agnatic relations. During the absence of other inmates of the family of the petitioner, accused Jula Mohammed used to visit their house. Accused Jula promised to marry her and on such promise committed sexual intercourse at intervals and in consequence thereof she conceived. Since the accused was cousin of the informant, she felt ashamed of disclosing the fact to the parents. Later, the complainant gave birth to a female child and asked the accused to marry her to which the accused declined. Thereafter she lodged a complaint before the police. That is how the case was started. ( 4 ) THE petitioner challenges the order of the learned Sessions Judge holding that no offence under S. 493, IPC has been made out. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the view of the appellate Court is erroneous. ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is to be remembered that in order to establish the offence under S. 493, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove; (i) That the accused caused the woman in question to believe that she was lawfully married to him; (ii) That he induced the woman to cohabit with him under that belief; (iii) That he caused such belief by deceit. ( 6 ) IT appears that the appellate Court on an analysis of the evidence adduced by the victim girl (P. W. 8) concluded that no offence under S. 492, IPC has been made out. I have scrutinised the evidence of the victim girl, P. W. 8 thoroughly and find that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate Court is quite justified. In that view of the matter, I think that no interference with the order of the appellate Court is necessary. The revision petition, therefore, cannot succeed and it is dismissed as such. Petition dismissed.