JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J (Oral). Appellant, Ashok Kumar and his co-accused Sanjeev Kumar were tried and charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 406, 418 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On the conclusion of the trial, co-accused Sanjeev Kumar was acquitted, whereas appellant Ashok Kumar, hereinafter referred to as “the accused” was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of “five” years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-for the offence punishable only under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period for “six” months, qua the other offences, he was also acquitted. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused filed the present appeal. 3. Precisely, the case of the prosecution, as is evident from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, can be stated thus. The prosecutrix (aged about 30 years) was residing with her brother Mukhtiar Singh in V illage Chhanni, Tehsil Indora, Distt. Kangra, H.P., where she had a tailoring and knitting shop. (ii) In the month of March, 2009, the prosecutrix had gone to ‘Baba Balak Nath’ temple alongwith her two women relatives where she met Sanjeev Kumar, co-accused. He took her mobile number, thereafter he had been talking to her on various occasions. One day, he proposed to settle her marriage with the appellant-accused. Thus, he informed her to meet the appellant-accused at ‘Durga Mata Mandir’, Damtal. She alongwith her sister-in-law PW-2 Rekha Devi and one Seema Devi, a worker in her shop, visited aforesaid place and found the appellant-accused as well as acquitted co-accused Sanjeev Kumar of his village, present there. Sanjeev Kumar introduced her with the accused. Thereafter, PW-2 Rekha Devi left to visit ‘Sheetla Mandir’. Others kept on waiting for her, discussed about the marriage and future plan for about 2-3 hours and the prosecutrix returned back to her village. (iii) Sanjeev Kumar gave cell number of the prosecutrix to the accused. After few days, the accused visited her house. The accused had pretended that he was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of pre-owned vehicles and was a resident of Dina Nagar. (iv) The accused kept on paying visits to her and one day told her that he was constructing a building at Pathankot, thus needed money. She gave him Rs. The accused had pretended that he was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of pre-owned vehicles and was a resident of Dina Nagar. (iv) The accused kept on paying visits to her and one day told her that he was constructing a building at Pathankot, thus needed money. She gave him Rs. 50,000/-, thereafter, he demanded some more money, which was given to him. (v) In April 2009, the accused insisted her to have a sex with him on the pretext that ultimately he was going to marry the prosecutrix, to which they had. Thereafter, they had repeated sex as prosecutirx having assurance of marriage. (vi) On 31.5.2009, the accused visited her shop and took her to the shop of PW-4 Bharat Bhushan at Nangal Bhoor and got her two gold rings sold to the said jeweler for Rs. 7,000/-. He also took her ear rings and gold chain with locket and sold it at Pathankot for 8,000/-to PW-6 Dharam Pal. Thereafter, the accused was not traceable. (vii) The prosecutrix started searching for the accused in his Village Khialla. She visited his house. It was then, she came to know that the accused was already married and having a son. (viii) Co-accused Sanjeev Kumar was found running a shop at Village Khialla. He already knew that the accused was already married. (ix) According to the prosecutrix, she gave money and ornaments to the accused as he had assured to marry her, but having felt cheated, she lodged complaint Ext. PW-1/A in Police Station, Indora. (x) The accused was arrested on 14.4 .2010. On 15.4.2010, he made disclosure statement Ext. PW-1/B during his interrogation, pursuant to which, he led the police party to the shop of PW-4 Bharat Bhushan at Nangal Bhoor and got recovered two gold rings Ext. P-2 and Ext. P-3, which were identified by the prosecutrix as her own. The same were sealed with seal impression “K” in a parcel and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/C. (xi) Thereafter, the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement recorded, led the police party to his house and got recovered the gold chain with locket Ext. P-5, which was identified by the prosecutrix of her own and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/D. (xii) The prosecutrix was got medically examined from PW-7 Dr. Neerja Gupta. She issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. P-5, which was identified by the prosecutrix of her own and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/D. (xii) The prosecutrix was got medically examined from PW-7 Dr. Neerja Gupta. She issued Medico Legal Certificate Ext. PW-7/A. (xiii) The accused was also got medically examined from PW-5 Dr. Swati Shah Roy . His Medico Legal Certificate is Ext. PW-5/A. (xiv) During the interrogation, statements of various witnesses were recorded. 4. After completing the challan, it was presented in the Court for trial of the accused-appellant and his co-accused. They were accordingly charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. At the end of the trial, the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as aforesaid, whereas he was acquitted for the other offences, against which, the State did not file any appeal. His co-accused was also acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt for the offences charged against him. Hence, the present appeal by the accused/convict. 6. Shri Virender Singh Rathore, the learned Counsel for the accused forcefully argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR, the statement of the prosecutrix is full of contradictions and does not inspire confidence and also that the other witnesses are her relatives. Further that she did not disclose about the lending of the money and selling of the ornaments at the instance of the accused to any other person, makes her statement doubtful. 7. On the other hand, Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix is natural and that there is no material contradiction in her statement. It is also submitted that the delay, as alleged, is not fatal to the prosecution, in any way, for the reason that the prosecutrix as well as the accused carried on their relationship secretly from other relatives till the accused went missing and on inquiry she faced reality and felt cheated, immediately thereafter, without any further delay, she lodged the FIR. 8. Regarding the delay on the above facts, the case has to be approached from a different angle. Once the allegations are proved to be correct, the delay cannot be said to be fatal at all. 9. For that, the re-appraisal of the evidence on record is necessitated. 8. Regarding the delay on the above facts, the case has to be approached from a different angle. Once the allegations are proved to be correct, the delay cannot be said to be fatal at all. 9. For that, the re-appraisal of the evidence on record is necessitated. As a matter of fact, an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has the following ingredients: There must be deception that the accused must have deceived someone, too that by the said deception, the accused must induce a person- (a) to deliver any property to any person, or (b) to make alter or destroy the whole or part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property. 10. In other words, for a person to be convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which is to be established is not only that he has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver any property etc. 11. To prove the above ingredients, the prosecutrix has substantiated the allegations, as summed up supra. She was subjected to meticulous cross-examination. Though, she also admitted that she did not disclose to any of her relatives about the relationship which had developed inter-se them, yet it is important that the prosecutrix was not of a tender age that she was not able to differentiate between good or bad. The evidence on record established that she was allured by the accused, who was already married, having a son in his village. These facts have not been disputed in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. Though, an attempt has been made to dispute the advancement of an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, but she stated in the cross-examination that this amount was given to the accused because she was having it in cash having received her share awarded to her in a claim case on account of the death of her brother in a motor-accident. She denied that no disclosure statement or any recovery pursuant to that, was ever made or effected by the accused in her presence or in the presence of the other witnesses. She admitted that it was her independent decision to marry the accused without any pressure. 12. She denied that no disclosure statement or any recovery pursuant to that, was ever made or effected by the accused in her presence or in the presence of the other witnesses. She admitted that it was her independent decision to marry the accused without any pressure. 12. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was put to her as to what was the malice against the accused which prompted her to frame him in a false case. PW-2 Rekha Devi and PW-4 Veena Devi, both have afforded corroboration to the statement of the prosecutrix in material particulars. In their cross-examinations, both of them as well as the prosecutrix admitted that the prosecutrix was engaged earlier to a person from Sujanpur and the engagement lasted only for six months, but according to the prosecutrix, it broke off because the person to whom she was engaged, was a drug addict. Rekha Devi and Veena Devi, both of them stated that there was no pressure from anyone on the prosecutrix to marry the accused. Veena Devi aforesaid stated that the prosecutrix did not take her or her brother Mukhtiar Singh into confidence nor talked about the said relationship. 13. PW-4 Bharat Bhushan stated that the prosecutrix was already known to him and he had prepared the gold rings Ext. P-2 and Ext. P-3 for her and sold to her, but later on, she alongwith the accused visited his shop and sold it for Rs. 7,000/-and on 15.4.2010, both these rings were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/C by the police. His testimony was disputed on the ground that he was not maintaining any record of sale and purchase nor he was having the registration of his shop/establishment and also not having the sale tax number, which is of no consequence. 14. PW-6 Dharam Pal, the another jeweler, also stated that about one year and four months back, the prosecutrix alongwith a man visited his shop. She was well known to him as being his customer. She sold a pair of gold ear rings (tops) to him for Rs. 8,000/-, which were manufactured by him. But he could not identify the person who was accompanying the prosecutrix at the time of its sale. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not produce the pair of ear rings to the police as he had already sold it. 15. 8,000/-, which were manufactured by him. But he could not identify the person who was accompanying the prosecutrix at the time of its sale. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not produce the pair of ear rings to the police as he had already sold it. 15. PW-10 Roshan Lal is the photographer with respect to the recoveries. PW-12 Inspector Ramesh Kumar had recorded the FIR, partly conducted the investigation and got the prosecutrix medically examined. PW-13, S.I. Karam Singh had recorded the statement Ext. PW-1/B given by the accused on 15.4.2010, to which he proves and pursuant to that , the recovery of the gold ornaments, as aforesaid, was effected, to which the prosecutrix identified to be her own. His testimony on this point was also intended to be challenged on the ground that he did not obtain any copy of licence or any other document with respect to the sale and purchase from the jeweler. He denied that he had wrongly directed the investigation to implicate the accused, but pertinently, no allegation has been made against the Investigating Officer if his investigation was tainted. 16. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case of the accused is denial simplicitor and he only made the statement that he was falsely implicated, but as already stated above, the reason for his false implication has not been spelt out by him through out the trial. 17. On the critical examination and re-appraisal of the evidence, in my opinion, the statement of the prosecutrix qua the offence of cheating remains unshaken. The accused developed relationship with the prosecutrix on a false pretext and tried to win over her confidence on the ground that he was going to marry her knowing fully that he was already married and having a child. The dishonesty in the mind of the accused is from the very inception. Under this, he took money from the prosecutrix; made her to sell her ornaments; grabbed that money as well, thereafter, he went missing, speaks volumes of his guilty mind. Once, the offence stands proved, the delay is not fatal in the above factual background. Thus, the offence charged stands proved against the accused and I find no fault in his conviction. 18. Once, the offence stands proved, the delay is not fatal in the above factual background. Thus, the offence charged stands proved against the accused and I find no fault in his conviction. 18. Confronted with the above situation, the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant prayed for leniency in the sentence on the ground that at the time of the alleged offence, the accused was aged about 29 years and he is in jail from the day of his arrest, i.e. 14.4.2010. The accused-appellant is already married and having a minor son, as is evident from the record, who are totally dependent upon him. 19. The learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the manner in which the prosecutrix was cheated, h e deserves no leniency. 20. I have considered the above points. Keeping in view the above background, extenuating and mitigating circumstance and also the age of the accused and further that there is no criminal history to his credit, the ends of justice would meet in case his sentence is reduced and substituted for “2 ½” years instead of and in place of “five” years, as imposed by the learned trial Court, without disturbing the fine and default clause. 21. The appeal is dismissed with the above modifications in the sentence. 22. The learned trial Court is hereby directed to send the modified warrants to the Superintendent Jail concerned in conformity with this judgment. 23. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Send down the records.