ORDER : 1. Assailing the Judgment, dated 28.08.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/Accused No. 1 by Judgment, dated 02.05.2008 in C.C. No. 80 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinthalapudi, for the offence under section 417 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) the petitioner/accused No. 1filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 02.09.2009 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl. R.C.M.P. No. 2021 of 2009. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: (i) Accused No. 1 is son of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and they are residents of Suprianpet, Chintalapudi Mandal. PW1 who is victim girl is aged about 18 years and she is physically handicapped. PW1 has completed her 10th class. While she was going to Girls High School located near Sai Ram Theatre, Chintalapudi, Accused No. 1 used to follow her under the guise of love, for which PW1 refused. Despite the same, the Accused No. 1 repeatedly pretended her to love, and he took her to C.S.I. Church in Suprainpet, Chintalapudi and made an oath by keeping his hand on her head stating that she is his wife from then onwards and made her to believe that their marriage was solemnized. (ii) The Accused No. 1, by keeping in that belief, enjoyed sexually several times with PW1 at several places by promising that he would marry her soon in the presence of elders on either side. Believing his deceitful words, she surrendered to him. The situation went on like that for about one year and when the matter came to the notice of parents of PW1 and when they asked the parents of Accused No. 1 to perform marriage of Accused No. 1 with PW1, they demanded Rs.50,000/- towards dowry. (iii) Even when PW1 and her parents asked Accused No. 1 about marriage as promised by him, he bluntly refused, even though her parents approached the elders also. (iii) Even when PW1 and her parents asked Accused No. 1 about marriage as promised by him, he bluntly refused, even though her parents approached the elders also. Thereafter, PW1 lodged report on 03.06.2006 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 68 of 2006 of Chinthalapudi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 493 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (iv) During the investigation, on 09.06.2006, PW9 arrested Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and sent them for judicial custody. He recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the victim girl i.e. PW1 for medical examination and obtained medical certificate. PW6-Dr. D. Jayasri Ammaji examined the victim girl and opined that she had sexual intercourse. 4. After completion of investigation, PW-9-Sub-Inspector of Police, Chintalapudi Police Station, filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 80 of 2006 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinthalapudi and trial was conducted and found the Accused No. 1 guilty of the offence under Section 417 of IPC and he is sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ONE year and he is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for ONE month with benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. against substantive sentence only. Whereas it is found that A1 to A3 are not guilty for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Accused No. 1 is also not found guilty for the offence under Section 420 & 493 IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/Accused No. 1 preferred an appeal, vide Crl. A. No. 125 of 2008 before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and the same was dismissed, vide judgment, dated 28.08.2008, by confirming the conviction and sentence dated 02.05.2008 passed against the Appellant/Accused No. 1 by the trail Court for the offence under Section 417 IPC. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/Accused No. 1. 7. Heard Sri K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/Accused No. 1. 7. Heard Sri K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no trustworthy material against the Appellant that he enjoyed with PW1 sexually by promising that he would marry her. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is inconsistent and the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. The appellant cannot be convicted for offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove all ingredients of said offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Courts below erred in holding that the petitioner is found guilty only based on assumptions and presumptions. The trial Court as well as the Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective and erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2016) 4 SCC 140 wherein it was held that: “A careful reading of the evidence on record clearly shows that there is no evidence against the appellant from which it can be conclusively inferred by this Court that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement of the prosecutrix by the appellant to constitute an offence under Section 415 IPC. For conviction of the appellant for the above said offence, it is important that all the necessary ingredients constituting an offence under the said section must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of Raju Krishna Shedbaikar vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 2024 SCC Online SC 200 wherein, it was held that: “There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. It may in a given case involve cheating; it is possible theoretically yet in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case. There is no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 IPC is also made out.” 10. Per contra, Sri S. Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the evidence of PW1 is clear that the appellant has sexual intercourse with her by promising to marry her. When the matter was placed before the parents of PW1, the parents of Accused No. 1 along with Accused No. 1 demanded huge dowry and when the parents of victim expressed their unwilling and incapability of giving such huge amount, the Accused No. 1 refused to marry. It is further submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the Accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 417 IPC and the Appellate Court has also rightly concluded that the accused is found guilty of the offence and accordingly confirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court. 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the material available on record. The defense of appellant is that of total denial. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that he was falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution failed to establish the offences alleged against him. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 in support of its case, among which, PWs 7 and 8 did not support of the case of the prosecution, and they were declared as hostile witnesses. 12. During the course of trial, the victim girl was examined as PW1 and she testified on oath that she is resident of Suprainpet, Chintalapudi. She knows the accused and they are residing by the side of her house. Accused No. 1 used to follow her while she was going and coming from school. Accused No. 1 told her that he loves her, and he would die if she did not accept his love. That after one month, accused no. She knows the accused and they are residing by the side of her house. Accused No. 1 used to follow her while she was going and coming from school. Accused No. 1 told her that he loves her, and he would die if she did not accept his love. That after one month, accused no. 1 took her to CSI Church situated in their Peta and kept his hand on the head of PW1 and made a promise that he loved her and if she did not accept his love he would die. When he asked for physical contact, she did not oblige him. It is further deposed that that A1 threatened her that he would die if she did not go for physical contact with him and as such, she agreed for such contact with him, and they had such contact for one year like that. Subsequently, when the parents of victim asked Accused Nos. 2 and 3 for marriage proposal, they demanded Rs.50,000/- towards dowry. When their parents were unable to give such amount, they refused for marriage. Even though the matter was placed before the village elders, the accused did not agree to their marriage. Hence, she lodged a report. During cross-examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that there was no physical contact between her and the appellant and that the appellant never stated to her that he was in love with her and would marry her. 13. The appellant in the entire cross-examination nowhere denied the statement that Accused No. 1 never threatened the PW1 that he would die if she did not go for physical contact with him and that they never demanded any amount towards dowry. In the cross-examination, except putting suggestions to the victim but no attempt has been made to elicit any suspicion over the testimony of PW1.The evidence of PW2 who father of PW1 is that PW1 is his daughter. The accused are his neighbours. They came to know about the affair of PW1 and Accused No. 1. When they asked Accused Nos.2 and 3 for marriage, they refused, and they kept the matter before elders. 14. PWs 3 to 5 who are village elders testify about the affair of Accused No. 1 with PW1 and that they tried for a marriage between them, but the Accused No. 1 denied. 15. When they asked Accused Nos.2 and 3 for marriage, they refused, and they kept the matter before elders. 14. PWs 3 to 5 who are village elders testify about the affair of Accused No. 1 with PW1 and that they tried for a marriage between them, but the Accused No. 1 denied. 15. On close perusal of testimonies, admittedly, in the entire evidence, there is no material to demonstrate that there were previous ill feelings or disputes between the family of PW1 and Accused No. 1. From the evidence of PWs 3 to 5, it is clear that a panchayat was held regarding the marriage with A1 and Accused No. 1 said that he is no way concerned with PW1 and refused to marry PW1. 16. The evidence of PW6-Dr.Smt. Jaya Sree Ammaji, the then Deputy Civil Surgeon, Chintalapudi after examining PW1 opined that PW1 was habituated for sexual intercourse and to that effect she issued certificate. In that aspect also, nowhere, it is suggested by the accused suspecting the chastity or fidelity of PW1. Though all the witnesses were cross-examined, nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit their testimony. 17. Coming to answers given by the Accused No. 1 during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination or the suggestion given to witnesses during examination, do not bring on record, any specific defense. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is clear that she was induced to sexual intercourse by the appellant on a word being given by the appellant that he will marry her and such evidence of a woman of society given at the cost of her reputation cannot be disbelieved by the court except for extraordinary reasons. 18. Turning to Section 417 IPC, it needs to be noted that Section 417 IPC makes punishable offence of cheating. Cheating has been defined in Section 415, IPC. The ingredients of the offence of cheating require (i) deception of a person, (ii) whereby, fraudulently or dishonestly, inducing the person, so deceived, to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) intentionally inducing that person 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. Deception of a person is common to the second and third requirements of the provisions of Section 415. The ingredients, as pointed out under (i) and (ii) hereinbefore, are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction “or.” The definition of the offence of cheating embraces cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and also cases in which such a transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence, where the accused dishonestly induces the woman to have sexual intercourse with him on the basis of false promise to marry her and a case of simple cheating under Section 417 IPC can be held to have been made out. In the present case on hand, from the evidence of PW1 along with PWs 2 to 5, it is clear that the accused No. 1 had promised to marry PW1 and had sexual intercourse and subsequently refused to marry after fulfilling his lust, which will amount to 417 IPC. 19. From the above discussion, it can be held that the prosecution has established a case under Section 417 IPC against the Accused No. 1 and he deserves to be convicted for the said offence. 20. In that view of the matter, the trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the petitioner/accused No. 1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the said offences. 21. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 22. All these facts go to show that the first Appellate Court rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner/accused No. 1 committed the said offence and there is no material on record to disbelieve the prosecution case. Thereby, there is no apparent failure on the part of the Sessions Court in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence. Thereby, there is no apparent failure on the part of the Sessions Court in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offence. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by the Sessions Court in convicting the accused for the said offence. 23. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment of the Sessions Court and thereby, this revision has no merits. Consequently, the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 24. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 28.08.2009 in Crl. A. No. 125 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari. The petitioner/accused No. 1 is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chinthalapudi, to serve the sentence imposed, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner. 25. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 26. Copy of this order shall be marked to the trial Court concerned. 27. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.