Shambhu Sao Sonar, son of Basudeo Sao Sonar, resident of North Jailgora, No. 4 v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ashok Sao Sonar, son of Sita Sao 3.Puspa Devi, wife
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Acquittal Appeal No. 6 of 2010 Shambhu Sao Sonar, son of Basudeo Sao Sonar, resident of North Jailgora, No. 4, Uppar Dhaura, PO-Jailgora, PS Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad ...… Appellant Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Ashok Sao Sonar, son of Sita Sao 3.Puspa Devi, wife of Ashok Sao Sonar 4.Santos Kumar 5.Shrawan Kumar Respondent nos. 4&5 are sons of Ashok Sao Sonar Respondent nos. 2 to 5 are resident of Dhaura Kurtha, PO Dhura Kurtha, PS Tenhta (Makdumpur), District Jahanabad (Bihar) presently resident of House of Shri Binod Singh, Bahuar Chaura, Behind Sindhi Dharamshala, Gaya, PO Chandpaura, PS Civil Line, District Gaya (Bihar) 6.Ram Balak Sao Sonar, son of late Raghunandan Sao Sonar, resident of Makdumpur Bazar, in front of Pasi Tola beside Puja Studio, PO and PS …. ... Respondents Makdumpur, District Jahanabad (Bihar) CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE For the Appellant For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Akhouri Avinash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. D. K. Prasad, Advocate --------- Order No.12/Dated: 12th March 2024 The appellant was granted leave to appeal by an order dated 21st December 2009 passed in Cr.M.P. no. 1120 of 2009 which was directed against the judgment dated 1st July 2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhanbad in CP Case No 128 of 2007. 2. The respondent nos. 2 to 6 were acquitted from the charges under sections 403 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts of the present case in brief are that the marriage of the complainant’s daughter Putul Kumari was fixed with Santosh Kumar, son of Ashok Sao Sonar. On 1st January 2006, except Santosh Kumar, the other respondents went to the house of the complainant and both the parties agreed that Rs. 50,000/- in cash and jewellery worth Rs. 20,000/- would be given by the side of the bride. The complainant along with his relatives during the Chheka ceremony at the temple gave Rs. 20,000/- cash and the jewellery worth Rs.19,500/-. The complainant asked respondent no. 1 to prepare a document regarding the receipt of the said cash and jewellery but 2 Acquittal Appeal No. 6 of 2010 the respondents declined. On 2nd December 2006, when the respondents reached the residence of the complainant at Dhanbad, the respondent no. 1 demanded Rs.80,000/- for fixing the date of marriage. The complainant expressed his inability to pay more than Rs.30,000/- due to which the respondents refused to finalize the marriage. On the complainant’s demand, the respondents promised that the money and jewellery would be returned within 10 days. However, despite several visits to them, the respondents did not return the same. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint case CP Case No 128 of 2007 stating that the accused persons misappropriated the money and jewellery of the complainant. 4. The trial Court observed that the witnesses examined by the prosecution to support the case of the complainant made contradictory statements, regarding the place of money transaction. The trial Court further observed that it was not clear from the evidence of the witnesses that they were present during the money transaction and, in such a situation, documentary evidence becomes necessary to verify the authenticity of the evidence. After perusing the evidence, the learned Court came to the conclusion that the entire case appears to be a fabricated story as contradictory statements were given by the witnesses, and in such a situation, it is just and proper to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. 5. There has been a delay in filing the complaint petition without proper explanation. The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court cannot be faulted. This is necessary to establish in every case of cheating that the intention to defraud was present at the beginning of the transaction. The marriage negotiation between the parties started in good faith and merely because it failed it cannot be concluded that the respondents had intended to cheat the complainant. 6. Sections 24 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code are extracted as under: 24. Dishonestly.—Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. 415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 3 Acquittal Appeal No. 6 of 2010 intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or 2 omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.— A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 7. Section 415 defines ‘cheating’ to hold a person guilty who deceives any person fraudulently or intentionally to deliver a movable property to which that person shall have no rights. The expression ‘dishonestly’ has been defined under section 24 to explain that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. Similarly, the expression ‘fraudulently’ has been defined under section 25 to mean that if something has been done fraudulently with intention to defraud the same shall amount to fraudulent. 8. In “Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.” (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Supreme Court has observed as under: “32. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are : (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission, (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce 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.” 9. The powers of the High Court under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are very wide and acting as an appellate Court the High Court may reappreciate the evidence, record its independent findings and may come to a different conclusion. The provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure do not put any limitation over the powers of the appellate Court in dealing with the appeal against acquittal - however, as a rule of prudence certain restraints have been prescribed. 10. In “Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v. High Court of A.P.” (2013) 14 SCC 145 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “25. This Court has time and again laid down parameters for interference by a superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the innocence. trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his 4 Acquittal Appeal No. 6 of 2010 Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.” 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, Acquittal Appeal No. 6 of 2010 is dismissed. Tanuj (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.)