JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anup Kr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 09.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner F.T.C., Khunti, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khunti Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 18 of 2000, corresponding to Trial No. 102 of 2002, by which the petitioner had been convicted for offences punishable u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the First Information Report is that the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 were on intimate terms and on the pretext that marriage of the opposite party no.2 was to be solemnized the petitioner had established sexual relationship with the opposite party no.2. It is alleged that a Bachan Data ceremony was held which was performed by the priest of Torpa Catholic Church. Subsequently the complainant gave birth to a male child on 12.02.1999. It is alleged that the petitioner on one pretext or the other had postponed the marriage to be solemnized and finally he declined to solemnize marriage with the opposite party no.2. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation Complaint Case No 18 of 2000 was instituted. Upon conducting an inquiry u/s 202 of the Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken for the offence punishable u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter trial proceeded. 5. In course of trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Nirmal Soy is the brother of the opposite party no.2 who had stated that the love affairs between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 continued from 1998 to 1999. He has further stated that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the opposite party no.2. This witness has also stated that a Bachan Data ceremony was performed by the priest according to the Christian rites and customs. He has further disclosed that the petitioner had subsequently refused to marry the opposite party no.2. This witness has stated that after the birth of the child no sexual relationship was established by the petitioner with the opposite party no.2. He has further disclosed that the petitioner had subsequently refused to marry the opposite party no.2. This witness has stated that after the birth of the child no sexual relationship was established by the petitioner with the opposite party no.2. P.W.2 Jaymasi Soy is the father of the opposite party no.2 who had supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 Benidict Naurangi has also supported the prosecution case with respect to the petitioner establishing physical relationship with the opposite party no.2 and subsequently even after the Bachan Data ceremony he had denied to perform marriage with the opposite party no.2. P.W.4 Paul Singh has stated that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and the marriage was also fixed but the petitioner subsequently denied solemnizing marriage with the opposite party no.2. P.W.5 Shushil Soy was not produced for cross-examination and therefore his evidence was never taken into consideration. P.W.6 Dulari Soy is the informant who has stated that she had developed intimacy with the petitioner and on the pretext that the marriage of the petitioner and the informant was fixed the petitioner had established physical relationship with her. She has also disclosed that she had become pregnant and had given a birth to a child on 12.02.1999. She has further stated that a Bachan Data ceremony was also held. This witness has disclosed about the Panchayati which was held after the birth of the child and the villagers has imposed a fine of one male goat upon the petitioner. She has further stated that the physical relationship with the informant continued but the petitioner postponed the marriage on one pretext or the other and ultimately he refused to marry the informant. 6. Since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khunti Ranchi vide judgment dated 17.05.2002 had been pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year as also a fine of Rs. 200/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 45 of 2002, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti, Ranchi on 09.02.2005. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. 200/-. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Cr. Appeal No. 45 of 2002, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Khunti, Ranchi on 09.02.2005. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 had declared herself to be a virgin till 23.11.1998 and if at all the petitioner had established physical relationship with her it was not possible for a child to have been born on 12.02.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no case u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code is made out as the petitioner had not deceived the opposite party no.2 in establishing physical relationship with him. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already served out his sentence. 8. It appears from the allegations levelled in the complaint petition as also from the evidence of the witnesses that a Bachan Data ceremony was held which is a sort of an engagement and which was presided over by the priest of Torpa Catholic Church. The petitioner had established physical relationship with the opposite party no.2 on the pretext that the marriage will be solemnized and the same resulted in the birth of a child. The witnesses are consistent with respect to the said fact. However, it is to be seen as to whether in the facts and circumstances narrated above a case u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not. Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code deals with cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage and the same is quoted hereunder:- “Section 493. Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. This Section does not penalize mere cohabitation or sexual intercourse with a woman who is not a lawfully married to him. This Section does not penalize mere cohabitation or sexual intercourse with a woman who is not a lawfully married to him. This Section envisages a case that a man deceitfully inducing the women to have sexual intercourse with him causing her to belief that she is lawfully married to him. The complainant was of the belief that her marriage will be solemnized with the petitioner as the Bachan Data ceremony was also held and she had readily agreed to the physical advancement made by the petitioner on such basis. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner made her to believe that she is lawfully married to him. The complainant was well aware of the engagement ceremony held and was also aware of the impending marriage between her and the petitioner and therefore had without any inhibitions accepted the advancement made by the petitioner. The situation would have been otherwise if the petitioner had deceived the opposite party no.2 and made her believe that she is the lawfully married wife and therefore on such pretext he had established physical relationship with her. The factual aspect with respect to the impending marriage was not unknown to the complainant and therefore it cannot be said that there was a deceit on the part of the petitioner in establishing physical relationship with the complainant. 10. Such factual and legal aspects have not been considered by either of the courts below while convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code. Since as has been held above the ingredients while resorting to an offence punishable u/s 493 of the Indian Penal Code has not been made out the judgment dated 09.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner F.T.C., Khunti, Ranchi, in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2002 and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khunti Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 18 of 2000, corresponding to Trial No. 102 of 2002, are hereby, set aside. 11. Since it has been submitted that the petitioner has already completed his sentence, no further order need be passed. 12. This application stands allowed. Application allowed.