Judgment :- Criminal Revision Case is preferred against the judgment and conviction for the offence punishable under Section 493 IPC passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ooty in C.C.No: 184 of 2004 dated 10.2.2004, which was confirmed by the District Sessions Judge, Ooty in C.A.No:3 of 2004 on 7.7.2004 and consequential sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.4,000/= fine and three months simple imprisonment on failure to pay the fine amount. 2. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of this revision are as follows: - (a) On 18.2.1994 at about 11.30 at door No.43, the accused who is the cousin of the complainant Sakunthala promised to marry her and had intercourse with her resulting in the birth of a male child on 30.10.1994. But he refused to marry her. Hence on the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered in Crime No.672 of 1994 under Sections 417 and 493 IPC against the accused by the Inspector of Police, G.1, Town West Police Station, Ooty. The Inspector of Police examined the witnesses, Mallamma, Rajkumar, Rajamma, Saroja, Puttusamy and Raju and also the victim Sakunthala. He also arranged for medical examination of Sakunthala, the victim and Ramesh, the accused. On the medical examination report received stating that the accused is incapable of pregnation, he closed the case. (b) Thereafter on the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13564/2000 filed by the complainant, the accused was again sent for medical examination and after obtaining the certificate that he is capable to procreate a child again the case was taken up on file and witnesses were examined and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 417 and 493 before the trial court. (c) Before the trial court, on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.O.1 ring were marked. On behalf of the accused no witness was examined and no document was produced. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same as false. 1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.O.1 ring were marked. On behalf of the accused no witness was examined and no document was produced. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same as false. (d) The trial court on the evaluation of the evidence let in by both sides and on hearing the arguments of the counsel appeared on either side, came to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of offence punishable under Section 493 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.4000/= IDSI for three months and ordered Rs.2,000/= out of the fine amount to be paid as compensation to the victim. Against the said judgment and conviction, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.3 of 2004, who heard the appeal and ultimately confirmed the judgment and conviction of the accused. Aggrieved over the same, the present Revision has been preferred by the accused. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the prosecution has failed to take steps to conduct DNA test on the child to decide the paternity of the child born to the complainant. He also submitted that the incident had happened on 18.2.1994 according to the prosecution and the complaint was closed on the certificate issued by P.W.11 that the accused was impotent. But on the direction of this Court passed in the Criminal Original Petition filed by the complainant, the accused was again sent for medical examination on 20.9.2001, ie., 7 years later, before the Coimbatore Medical College Board, Coimbatore and found capable to procreate children, by which time the accused may have developed fertility. Thus Ex.P.6 potency certificate, which was only after 7 years, based on which the courts below have convicted the accused is not sustainable that too without conducting a DNA test to prove the paternity of the child. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the judgment of this court in Ravichandran Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perambalur, reported in 2006 (2) CTC 827 wherein this court sustained the order of the trial court which ordered DNA test to prove paternity. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the judgment of this court in Ravichandran Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Perambalur, reported in 2006 (2) CTC 827 wherein this court sustained the order of the trial court which ordered DNA test to prove paternity. But admittedly, in this case the accused has not chosen to file any petition before the trial court to conduct such DNA test to disprove his paternity of the child born to the complainant. No doubt, the Investigation Officer has not opted for DNA test to prove the paternity of the child born to the complainant, though it is the duty of the prosecution when the accused was charged under Sections 417 and 493 IPC. But, inasmuch as the charge sheet was clear that a child was born to PW.1 through the accused, consequent to the intercourse, the accused alone should have filed a petition before the trial court for DNA test. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.1 is clear, cogent and unambiguous and there cannot be an eye witness to the act of intercourse. Hence the courts below are right in believing the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4, P.W.5 who would corroborate the relationship between the accused and the complainant. P.W.4 and 5 are not interested witnesses and they are also not relatives of the complainant. Even the evidence of interested witnesses is not to be discorded if it is found to be natural, competent and reliable. The accused is cousin of the complainant. There is nothing to show that the prosecution witnesses had any hostile animus towards the accused. Their evidence does not suffer from any inherent infirmity or improbability. Even during cross examination in detail, no discrete versions were brought to light to favour the accused. 5. As rightly held by the courts below from the evidence of P.W.11, Dr.Vanaja Krishnan, who gave Ex.P.4, impotency certificate initially, it is clear that she has not physically examined the accused but based on the report of the RMO she has given such certificate. But, curiously, the said RMO or the other person who medically examined the accused have not been examined by the prosecution. At the time of such examination he was aged 22 years. This would even create a doubt as to whether the semen of the accused was taken actually for such analysation. But, curiously, the said RMO or the other person who medically examined the accused have not been examined by the prosecution. At the time of such examination he was aged 22 years. This would even create a doubt as to whether the semen of the accused was taken actually for such analysation. Considering all these aspects, it is clear that the offence punishable under Section 493 IPC is proved against the accused. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court (Full Bench) in Moideenkutty Haji and others Vs. Kunhikoya, reported in 1987 Cri.L.J. 1106, wherein S. Padmanabhan,J., speaking for the Full Bench held that "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 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"....."Where the allegation was that though they were not husband and wife they had sexual union during late hours in the night for a pretty long time and there was only a promise to marry in future and the further allegation was that one day they went for registering the marriage, but the man ran away from there and even thereafter she was submitting herself to him regularly for liaison, the facts could not at any rate attract Section 493". But, in the present case, the accused during February 1994 promised her to marry and also inserted M.O.1 ring in her fingers and also told that he would not abandon her even if any set backs that would come in his way. In this case the accused on such false promise had intercourse with the complainant on several times. Hence the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. However, considering the age of the accused and he is having a family, I am inclined to reduce the period of rigorous imprisonment from two years to One year and in other aspects, no interference is called for with the judgment and conviction of the appellant. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ooty is directed to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 8. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ooty is directed to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of with the modification of sentence alone as stated above.