Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:24492 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 64 of 2008 Madar Khan, S/o Najeem Khan, aged about 32 years, R/o Village- Dudhkaiya, Police Station-Rajim, Distt. Raipur (CG) versus ... Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
appellant under Section 420 of IPC because there is no prima facie evidence to show that the appellant fraudulently and dishonestly induced PW-2 to PW-5 to deliver him the aforesaid amount. The allegations made against the appellant are false and concocted. No 4 independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Further, there are material contradiction and omission in the statements of the PW-1 to PW-5 which makes the conviction of the appellant unsustainable in law. This apart, it is clear from the order sheet of learned trial Court and this Court that the appellant has returned all the money to the complainant and other persons but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and even rejected the application under Section 320(2) of CrPC filed by the parties. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant is proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2003-04, the appeal is pending since 2008, he remained in jail for four months and six days; at present he is about 50 years of age and he has returned the entire money to the complainant and other persons, the jail sentence imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly 5 convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Section 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence he was convicted and sentenced under Section 420 of IPC as mentioned above. 09. It is clear from the order sheet dated 15.6.2007 of the trial Court that both the parties had filed an application under Section 320(2) of CrPC for compounding the offence as the victims received the entire money back from the accused, and the learned trial Court rejected the said application. Against this rejection, the accused/appellant filed a criminal revision before this Court which was also dismissed. 10. From the statements of witnesses namely PW-1 SR Bhagat, PW- 2 Rakesh Koshariya, PW-3 Omprakash Didi, PW-4 Pardeshi, PW-5 Naveen Kumar, PW-6 Maya Sharma and PW-7 US Dubey it is clear that it is the accused/appellant who dishonestly obtained money from the complainant and other persons in the name of providing them 6 government job. Thus, the learned trial Court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and held him guilty under Section 420 of IPC. 11. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the accused/appellant has returned the entire money to the complainant and other victims, at present he is 50 years of age, he remained in jail for more than four months, the incident took place in the year 2003-04 and the appeal is pending since 2008, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping him behind the bar any longer at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellant under Section 420 of IPC, his substantive jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed on him with default sentence by trial Court shall remain intact. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.06.18 16:39:48 +0530 Khan
Arguments
: Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 16/06/2025 The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2007 passed by Special Judge, {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act}, Mahasamund (CG) in Special ST No.51/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years on four counts 2 and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- on four counts or else to suffer additional three years’ RI on each count. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the course of enquiry into the matter of cheating in the name of getting employment which was published on 9.8.2004 in Navbharat newspaper, the Dy. Superintendent of Police Shri SR Bhagat enquired from victims namely Rakesh Kumar Kosariya, Naveen Kumar and Omprakash. Victim Rakesh Kumar Kosariya informed that around a year ago the accused Madar Khan came to him with his mother-in-law and told that he has good contact with Education Minister and other Ministers and he can get him employment in education department, for which Rs.1.50 lacs would be needed. Rakesh Kumar gave him Rs.50,000/- in presence of Rajesh Kumar, Naveen Kumar and Oasram and the accused assured him of getting posting order within a month. However, after few days accused/appellant again came with one Sahu and the same witness and told that issuance of posting order is getting delayed and demanded Rs.30,000/-. Thereupon victim Rakesh gave him Rs.30,000/- in presence of Oasram, Pardeshi and Prakash Didi. After some days when the victim Rakesh enquired about posting order from the accused, he told that there being assembly election, code of conduct is imposed and thus kept on giving evasive reply. Rakesh Kumar disclosed that the accused fraudulently obtained Rs.80,000/- from him, Rs.65,000/- from Omprakash Didi, Rs.40,000/- from Naveen Kumar, Rs.60,000/- from Ramkumar Kosariya and Rs.30,000/- from 3 Kunjlal Satnami i.e. total Rs.2.75 lacs. These victims also made similar statements. After completing necessary investigation, charge sheet under Section 420/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was filed against the accused followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial Court. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 07 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial Court did not apply its mind to the evidence led by the prosecution properly and even committed an error in framing charges against the