JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 420 and 493 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act of 1989’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under each count, vide judgment in SC/ST.SC.No.28 of 2015, dated 22.03.2021 by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed. 2. A complaint was lodged by P.W.1, who is the wife of the appellant. According to her, she was married in the year 1996 with one Shiva Naik. A daughter was born. Her husband died in the year 2006 due to ill-health. Complainant/P.W.1 was having acquaintance with the appellant and they got married in the year 2008. After marriage, they lived amicably till 2013 in the house of the appellant. Appellant requested P.W.2/ mother-in-law for hand loan of Rs.2,40,000/-for construction of the house. The said amount was given. However, when asked to repay the said amount, the appellant started harassing P.W.1 and used vulgar language stating that she was handicapped, attracting offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Further the appellant was harassing P.W.1 asking her daughter to sleep with him, so that he would return the money. However, the appellant refused to pay the said amount, as such, a complaint was filed on 28.12.2013, which is Ex.P1. 3. On the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC and also cohabiting with P.W.1 deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage, punishable under Section 493 of IPC. 4. Even according to P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant was married to P.W.1 in the year 2008 and lived as husband and wife till lodging of the complaint. It is not the case of P.W.1 that there was any kind of inducement and cohabiting with P.W.1 though appellant and P.W.1 were not legally married. When it is the case of P.W.1 that they were legally married, the question of attracting offence under Section 493 of IPC does not arise. 5. The amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was taken for the purpose of constructing the house. The said amount was taken from P.W.2. When it is the case of P.W.1 that they were legally married, the question of attracting offence under Section 493 of IPC does not arise. 5. The amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was taken for the purpose of constructing the house. The said amount was taken from P.W.2. Though no date was given as to when the amount was given by P.W.2, it was stated that during their marital life in between 2008 to 2013, the said amount was advanced by P.W.2. 6. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there has to be an element of misrepresentation pursuant to which, a person must have been induced. The induced person should have parted with the property believing the misrepresentation. In the present case, it is disputed by the appellant that the amount was taken from P.W.2. However, it is not disputed that the said amount was utilized for the construction of the house. Mere non repayment of the loan amount taken, at a subsequent date will not attract any of the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. It is not the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that a false representation was made that the money was required for house construction and he used the said amount for his own purpose and not for the purpose of house construction. There is no intention of cheating from the inception. The money was taken for construction and utilized for construction. In the said circumstances, none of the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are made out. 7. The allegation about abusing P.W.1 as “Kunti daana, Lambadi lanja daana” was not in public view or in public place. Except stating that the husband in a drunken condition abused her in such language, it is not mentioned that anyone else was present during such abuses hurled by the appellant. The said allegation of abusing is vague and when such incident happened over a period of five years when they were living together, is also not stated. Vaguely stating that the appellant has abused her in the name of caste will not suffice to convict the appellant unless it is specific to ascertain that in was in public place or within public view. None of the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 are made out. 8. Vaguely stating that the appellant has abused her in the name of caste will not suffice to convict the appellant unless it is specific to ascertain that in was in public place or within public view. None of the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 are made out. 8. In view of above discussion, no case is made against the appellant for the offences under Sections 420 and 493 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The judgment of trial Court in SC/ST.SC.No.28 of 2015, dated 22.03.2021 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.