Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has acquitted a man previously convicted of cheating, ruling that a mere deceitful act does not amount to the offence of cheating unless accompanied by dishonest inducement that leads to the delivery of property.
The bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas delivered the judgment, setting aside the 2015 conviction of the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Barasat. The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to three years of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1,00,000, with an additional one year of imprisonment in default of payment.
The complainant had alleged that she was in a relationship with the accused (petitioner) since 1997. According to her, he promised marriage, engaged in sexual relations and coerced her into undergoing an abortion. She further alleged that he took money from her and her family on several occasions. It was later revealed that the petitioner was already married, having his wife in Bangladesh.
Following her complaint, police registered a case in March 2010 under multiple sections of the IPC. After investigation, charges were framed for cheating and related offences. The trial ultimately resulted in a conviction solely under Section 420 of the IPC.
Justice Biswas noted that the conviction was based only on the complainant’s statement regarding the alleged monetary transactions. The court found no documentary evidence or corroboration from other witnesses to support the claim that the petitioner had dishonestly induced the complainant to part with money or property.
The court also observed that several witnesses, including neighbours and investigating officers, made no reference to any financial transaction. One witness, the landlord of the premises where the complainant resided, was declared hostile. In his defence, the petitioner stated that he had arranged a bank loan in the complainant’s name and married her in 2010. He claimed the complaint was filed after he refused to reside in her family home.
The court ruled that the offence of cheating was not established. The conviction was overturned, and the petitioner was discharged from his bail bond.