Judgment :- This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole appellant-accused assailing the judgment dated 3-06-2003 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla, in S.C. No. 159 of 2003, convicting and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W-1 the victim and the accused-Salagala Prabhudasu, are neighbours at Bapatla, the accused deceived P.W-1 promising to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her several times. On account of that, she became pregnant, the accused got the pregnancy terminated and thereafter refused to marry her. On a complaint, a case in Crime No. 95/2002 was registered by Bapatla town police against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 420 IPC, investigated into and the charge sheet was filed. 3. Charges under Sections 376 and 420 IPC were framed against the accused for which he pleaded not guilty. 4. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. 5. On the basis of the above material on record, the learned trial Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 IPC instead of Section 420 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence to show that the accused has committed the offence, to show that the victim was aged below 16 years and also to show that he promised to marry her. 7. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of P.W-1 and the medical evidence show that P.W-1 the victim was aged below 16 years, that the accused deceitfully had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly promising to marry her and thereafter refused to marry her. 8. 7. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is that the evidence of P.W-1 and the medical evidence show that P.W-1 the victim was aged below 16 years, that the accused deceitfully had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly promising to marry her and thereafter refused to marry her. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 9. The evidence of P.W-1, the victim is that the accused was her neighbour. She got acquaintance with him since 13 months prior to giving the complaint. The accused started having sexual intercourse with her making her to believe that he would marry her, that in the absence of her mother the accused used to have sexual intercourse with her, and believing his words that he would marry her, she cooperated with him. She became pregnant and the accused got the pregnancy terminated by taking her to the Nursing Home of P.W-4, who turned hostile. After termination of pregnancy, when she insisted the accused to marry her, he refused, she informed about the same to her mother, the matter was placed before the elders, and the accused confessed his association with her, but refused to marry her. Thereafter, she gave complaint to police. The evidence of P.W-2, mother of P.W-1, is that P.W-1 informed her that as she was having sexual intercourse with the accused, she got pregnancy and the accused got her pregnancy terminated. She placed the matter before the elders, but the accused failed to appear before them. The evidence of P.W-3, the mediator, is that P.W-2 informed them about the affair of the accused and P.W-1, that they sent for the accused and the accused admitted about the affair, but refused to marry her. P.W-4 is the Medical Officer, who allegedly terminated the pregnancy of P.W-1, turned hostile. P.W-5 is the Medical Officer that examined P.W-1 and gave opinion that P.W-1 was habituated to sexual intercourse. P.W-6 the Medical Officer that examined the accused about the potency. P.W-7 is the Investigating Officer. P.W-8 is the Medical Officer that examined P.W-1 for determination of age who opined that P.W-1 was aged 16 or 17 years. In his cross-examination he admitted that the margin of error of age would be an year. 10. P.W-6 the Medical Officer that examined the accused about the potency. P.W-7 is the Investigating Officer. P.W-8 is the Medical Officer that examined P.W-1 for determination of age who opined that P.W-1 was aged 16 or 17 years. In his cross-examination he admitted that the margin of error of age would be an year. 10. The evidence of P.W-8 who stated that P.W-1 was aged between 16 and 17 years and who in cross-examination admitted that the margin of error would be an year shows that there is no authentic evidence to show that P.W-1 was aged below 16 years on the date of the incident. Thus, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out. 11. Now the question is whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 417 IPC can be sustained. For answering this, it has to be proved that the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W-1 promising to marry her and thereafter refused to marry her. As per Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.W-1, the accused promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her. Though it is the contention on behalf of the accused that there was some enmity between both sides and he had filed a private complaint against P.W-1’s people, it is very difficult to believe that P.W-1 went to the extent of falsely stating that the accused continuously had sexual intercourse with her for a period of time and got her pregnancy terminated also. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W-1 to say that she is giving false evidence about the accused having sexual intercourse with her. Thus, I am inclined to believe that the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W-1, no doubt, with her consent. 12. The next question would be as to whether the consent of P.W-1 was obtained by making her to believe that he would marry her. In Ex.P-1 complaint and in her evidence P.W-1 has stated so. In the entire cross-examination of P.W-1, nothing is elicited to say that her statement that the accused had sexual intercourse with her promising to marry and thereafter refusing to marry is false. Only at the end of the cross-examination a suggestion is given stating that “It is not true to say that the accused never had sexual contacts with me and he never promised to marry.” 13. Only at the end of the cross-examination a suggestion is given stating that “It is not true to say that the accused never had sexual contacts with me and he never promised to marry.” 13. Thus, the evidence on record shows that the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W-1-victim promising to marry her and then refused to marry her. I am inclined to accept the same. 14. The cases of this nature, where innocent girls are being trapped, on the name of marriage and then discarding are on increase. In cases where the evidence of the victim, an unmarried girl, with regard to the allegation of an unmarried boy having sexual intercourse with her, is found to be acceptable, her evidence that such an intercourse was with a promise to marry has to be accepted, unless there are compelling and exceptional circumstances to disbelieve the same. 15. Thus, the prosecution case that the accused had sexual intercourse with P.W-1 several times promising to marry her, made her pregnant, got the pregnancy terminated and thereafter refused to marry her stands proved. There cannot be any dispute that such acts would constitute an offence under Section 417 IPC, as the definition of cheating provided in S. 415 IPC, includes deception and dishonest inducement of the person deceived to do or omit to do anything, which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceived and further includes the act or omission causing damage or harm to body, mind or reputation of the person deceived. 16. The act of an unmarried girl consenting to have sexual intercourse on promise of marriage, which she otherwise would not have, would definitely come within the scope of the above ingredients. 17. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to accept that the accused, promising to marry P.W-1 had sexual intercourse with her several times, made her pregnant, got the pregnancy terminated, thereafter refused to marry her, and thus, committed the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC, as rightly found by the learned trial Judge. 18. Under these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is set aside, however, his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 417IPC is confirmed. 19. 18. Under these circumstances, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is set aside, however, his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 417IPC is confirmed. 19. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in part, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bapatla, in S.C. No. 159 of 2003 dated 03-06-2003, against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC are hereby set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC are hereby confirmed. The remand period undergone by the appellant shall be given set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.