JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-03-2005 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Appeal No. 1(1) of 2005 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and upheld the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharmanagar, North Tripura in G.R. 428 of 2003 convicting the accused-petitioner of having committed an offence punishable under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1(one) year for commission of offence punishable under section 417 of IPC and also to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for 2(two) months. Normally, this Court is very reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisionary or extraordinary jurisdiction in matters related to pure finding of fact. However, if such finding of fact is based on no evidence or is such which no prudent person can arrive at, then the Court would be failing in its duty if it did not interfere. 2. The allegations in the complaint are that the prosecutrix used to live with her maternal uncle since her father had died. The accused used to live in a house close to the house of her maternal uncle. The accused started visiting her house and proposed to marry the prosecutrix. She agreed to do so if the marriage was performed in accordance with social rites. Thereafter, the accused allegedly raped the prosecutrix and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. She threatened to inform her relatives about this, but the accused requested her not to disclose these facts to her other family members. Thereafter, he had sexual intercourse with her on many other occasions. Lastly, she and the accused were caught committing sexual intercourse by her maternal uncle when she was slapped by her maternal uncle. The accused prayed for mercy and agreed to marry the prosecutrix. He actually married the prosecutrix and a male child was also born. 3. The prosecutrix alleges that thereafter her husband forced her to file a false complaint against one Matab Uddin alleging that Matab Uddin had raped her and he was the father of the boy. The prosecutrix alleges that she was cheated by the accused. He actually married the prosecutrix and a male child was also born. 3. The prosecutrix alleges that thereafter her husband forced her to file a false complaint against one Matab Uddin alleging that Matab Uddin had raped her and he was the father of the boy. The prosecutrix alleges that she was cheated by the accused. Both the Courts below have convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo 1(one) year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-. 4. Cheating is defined under section 415 of the IPC as follows:-- Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". 5. The allegation of the prosecutrix is that she was cheated by the accused who promised to marry her if she had sexual intercourse with him. However, she in her statement admits that after the sexual intercourse took place and both were caught red handed, a marriage did take place between her and the accused Abdul Mutlib. Thereafter, relations between them may have soured and the accused may have tortured her, but that does not mean that he committed any offence of cheating. The present case is one of cheating. According to the prosecutrix, she was compelled by her husband to file a false case against Matab Uddin on 02-11-2003 and she also gave a statement on oath against the said person on 04-11-2003. Thereafter, she was driven out of her house by the accused. 6. I fail to understand how both the Courts below have convicted the accused. No case of rape is made out. Even if the statement of the prosecutrix is taken as the gospel truth, she indulged in sexual intercourse with the accused on many occasions. The accused and the prosecutrix were caught by her maternal uncle and thereafter, they both got married. Once the marriage has taken place, there is no question of any cheating. Even if the statement of the prosecutrix is taken as the gospel truth, she indulged in sexual intercourse with the accused on many occasions. The accused and the prosecutrix were caught by her maternal uncle and thereafter, they both got married. Once the marriage has taken place, there is no question of any cheating. Now the prosecutrix wants this Court to hold that because she filed the false case at the instance of the accused and he has again driven her out of her house, he has had sexual intercourse with her by cheating. This is totally impossible to believe. Here is a woman who is saying that at the asking of her husband who had married her under coercion, she filed a false case of rape against somebody else and made statement on oath against the second person. How can the Court even rely upon the statement of such a witness who has no qualms in filing a false complaint in a serious offence of rape against some other person and making a statement on oath in Court making such false allegation? The statement of such a witness cannot be relied upon in any case and, therefore, I have no hesitation in setting aside both the judgments of the learned Courts below. 7. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the judgments of the learned trial Courts. The accused is acquitted. Bail bond is discharged. Send down the lower court records forthwith.