ORDER : 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both, dated 17.08.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 330 of 2003, whereby the sole appellant Allex @ Allexzender Baig has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report submitted by Salomi Tudu before the Officer-in-Charge, Dumka Mufassil Police Station on 20.03.2001, alleging therein that since 1991, she was residing with Allex Baig, who has assured her to marry but did not marry with the informant, rather living in relationship as husband and wife and has kept her at different places. From the said relationship as husband and wife, the informant and Allex have been blessed with three children, two are daughters and one is son, who are living with their father Allexander Baig. The informant has claimed that she has asked Allexander Baig for marriage but he has assured that when paper will come from Rome, he will marry her but he has not solemnized marriage with her and also assaulted the informant, dragged her from the house separating her from the children. The informant went to the tribal welfare council, Kathikund, where the father and the sisters have tried to convince Allexander Baig to solemnize marriage with the informant, but he is not agree to marry with her. The written report has been drafted by one Munni Hansda, on which the informant has put her signature. 3. On the basis of the written report, police registered Dumka Muffasil P.S. Case No. 32 of 2001 dated 20.03.2001 under Sections 493 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet vide charge-sheet no. 92 of 2001 dated 31.08.2001 under Sections 376, 493 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 11.09.2001 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 21.10.2003. 6. 4. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet vide charge-sheet no. 92 of 2001 dated 31.08.2001 under Sections 376, 493 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 11.09.2001 and the case has been committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 21.10.2003. 6. The charge has been framed against the appellant Allex @ Alexander Baig under Sections 493, 376 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code on 02.12.2003, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and thus, he was put under trial. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether three witnesses and also exhibited three documents. Munni Hansda, social worker who has drafted the First Information report has been examined as P.W. 1, Salomi Tudu, victim and the informant of the case, has been examined as P.W. 2, Rani Margaret Tudu who has been examined as P.W. 3 has been tendered by the prosecution. The written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1, signature of Munni Hansda on written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/1 and signature of Salomi Tudu on the written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/2. 8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 29.04.2004, to which he has denied allegations and has claimed to be innocent. 9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. By the same impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 376 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble Court, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 10. Heard, Mr. Sreenu Garpati, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is missing. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code is missing. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the evidence of only P.W.2, i.e. Salomi Tudu is relevant but she has not supported her case, as made out in the first information report written and drafted by Munni Hansda. The victim has been examined as P.W.2. During examination as P.W.2, Salomi Tudu has never stated before the Court that on false assurance or inducement made by this appellant, sexual intercourse was committed with her and subsequently the appellant has refused to solemnize marriage with her and as such in absence of such evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court has already acquitted the appellant under Section 376 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that P.W.2, Salomi Tudu, has only alleged in the first information report that she has been dragged out of the house by the husband forcefully. She has given her identity, which has been recorded in the deposition sheet, as wife of Allexander Baig. She has further stated in her examination-in-chief that Allexander Baig is not allowing her to meet her children. She has proved her signature on the First Information Report written by Munni Hansda as Exhibit- 1/2. She has also been cross-examined and during cross-examination, she has stated that her son is aged about seven years, eldest daughter is aged about eleven years and second daughter is aged about ten years. She has further stated that she is residing in the house constructed by the appellant, Allexander Baig. This witness has further stated that there is no quarrel between them and she has compromised the case by her sweet will. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that offence committed under Sections 493 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable in nature but only Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable in nature. This witness has further stated that there is no quarrel between them and she has compromised the case by her sweet will. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that offence committed under Sections 493 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable in nature but only Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable in nature. The learned Trial Court has rightly refused the compromise entered between the parties as those are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that evidence of P.W. 1, who is author of the First Information Report, has not been supported by P.W.2, Salomi Tudu, victim of the case, in totality nor the allegation which has been levelled in the First Information Report, written by Munni Hansda (P.W.1) has ever been supported by the informant/victim of this case. 11. Munni Hansda (P.W.1) has stated that after hearing the story of the informant, she drafted the application and put her signature and thereafter, Salomi Tudu has also put her signature. The entire First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1 and the signature of the Munni Hansda has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/1. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that before taking the signature of P.W. 2, Salomi Tudu, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 1/2, the author of the First Information Report, Munni Hansda (P.W.1) has never read over the application drafted by her before the informant (victim) of the case, Salomi Tudu nor Salomi Tudu has read over herself the contents of the First Information Report. From reading of the First Information Report and the evidence of P.W.2 Salomi Tudu, there appears, vital contradictions and it seems that whatever she has deposed in the court, is the only evidence against the appellant, as she has not supported the prosecution case as made out in the First Information Report. Salomi Tudu has never alleged that any sexual intercourse has been made with her, by the appellant on deceitful manner by inducing her, that, he will solemnize marriage with her rather as per the evidence of P.W.1, during cross-examination at paragraph- 6, the entire prosecution case has been demolished as P.W.1 Munni Hansda has stated, that the maintenance case, filed by Salomi Tudu (P.W.2) has been decided two months ago in favour of Salomi Tudu and she (victim) is getting maintenance allowance. Learned Amicus Curiae has further stated, that if a maintenance allowance is given to a lady, the first and foremost duty of the court is to establish that there is a relationship between the male and female, as wife and husband. Further, Salomi Tudu, who has been examined as P.W.2, has claimed herself to be wife of Allexander Baig. Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that nowhere it has been brought on record to suggest that Allexander Baig has kept the lady as his keep and has not solemnized the marriage, as Salomi Tudu (P.W.2) has claimed herself to be the wife of Allexander Baig in her deposition and as per P.W.1 in paragraph-6 of the cross-examination, it has also been disclosed that Salomi Tudu is getting maintenance allowance from Allexander Baig, who is none other than the husband of the Salomi Tudu (P.W.2). 12. P.W.3, Rani Margaret Tudu has been tendered by the prosecution. Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in absence of any evidence to constitute any offence under Section 493, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant mechanically, without scrutinizing or appreciating the evidence brought on record. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant may be acquitted of the charges and conviction under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code, as half of the prosecution case has already been disbelieved by the learned trial court and the appellant has been acquitted from the charge under Sections 376 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Heard, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well-founded, based on the material available on record and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Heard, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well-founded, based on the material available on record and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that victim being a tribal lady has been deceitfully and on false assurance by this appellant has been kept as keep and from the said relationship three children have been borned and all the children are residing with the appellant, Allexander Baig, who has not allowed the victim to meet her children and she has been dragged out of the house by assaulting and as such the learned trial court was justified in convicting the appellant. 14. Heard, Mr. Sreenu Garpati, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and from perusal of the records including the F.I.R., charge, evidence of three witnesses, two exhibits and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this court has found that P.W.2 Salomi Tudu, victim and informant of the case, has not stated the facts during her examination in the court, as P.W.2, which has been alleged in the First Information Report. This court has taken judicial notice of the statement of P.W. 1 recorded in paragraph-4 of her examination-in-chief, where she has stated that she has drafted the application and put her signature. The entire fardbeyan has been marked as exhibit 1 and the signature of Munni Hansda on the fardbeyan has been marked as exhibit- 1/1. This witness has further claimed that Salomi Tudu has also put her signature on the written report. P.W. 2, Salomi Tudu during examination in the court has proved her signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/2 but she has never proved Exhibit- 1, nor supported the contents of the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit- 1. P.W. 2, Salomi Tudu during examination in the court has proved her signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/2 but she has never proved Exhibit- 1, nor supported the contents of the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit- 1. From perusal of the evidence of Salomi Tudu (P.W.2), nowhere, she has stated that, this appellant has entered into sexual relationship with the lady on false promise of marriage by inducing her, rather from the evidence of P.W. 1, Munni Hansda in paragraph-6 of her cross-examination, she has categorically stated that Salomi Tudu has filed maintenance case against Alexander Baig, which has been decided in her favour, two months ago. This Court has taken judicial notice of this fact that if a lady is claiming maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., that can only be granted to a legally wedded wife. If a competent court of law has given a finding with regard to the legality of the marriage of the victim with Allexander Baig by granting maintenance, then this case, which has been lodged at the instance of P.W. 1, Munni Hansda, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Furthermore, P.W. 2, Salomi Tudu has given her description in the deposition as P.W. 2, in the court that she is wife of Allexander Baig. She has further stated, that she has filed a case as Allexander Baig is not allowing her to meet her children, who are residing with Allexander Baig. She has further stated that she is residing in the house constructed by Allexander Baig. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of any ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is of the opinion that appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned Trial Court under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code, as the basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code “coalition caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage. Once the maintenance has been allowed to a lady, the legality of marriage has been established in the Court of law”, as such, the appellant Allexander Baig is acquitted of the charge and conviction under section 493 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. 16. Once the maintenance has been allowed to a lady, the legality of marriage has been established in the Court of law”, as such, the appellant Allexander Baig is acquitted of the charge and conviction under section 493 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. 16. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both, dated 17.08.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 330 of 2003 in connection with Dumka Muffasil P.S. Case No. 32 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 259 of 2001 is hereby set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 493 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. 17. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from liability of his bail bond. 18. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands allowed. 19. Before, parting with the judgment, this Court records appreciation of Mr. Sreenu Garapati, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant, for his valuable assistance provided to this Court. 20. The Secretary, JHALSA, is directed to pay remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sreenu Garapati as per the law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 21. Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned and JHALSA, at once for necessary action.