1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 695 of 2024 1 - Damyanti Devta W/o Rupanand Devta @ Vakil Kumar Devta Aged About 38 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar Khurshipar Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Vakil Kumar Devta S/o Sheshdev Devta Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 02 Virendra Nagar, Police Station Saraipali District Mahasamund C.G. 2 - Banita @ Damyanti Devta W/o Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 02 Virendra Nagar, Police Station Saraipali District Mahasamund C.G. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Police Station Saraipali District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 (Order on Board) (29.01.2025) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J, 1. Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay in filing this revision. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on due consideration of the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 44 days in filing the revision is condoned. Consequently, I.A.No.1 is allowed. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 25.01.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.13 of 2021 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.08.2021 passed by the JMFC Saraipali in Criminal Case No. 163/2015. 3. As per the prosecution case on 27.4.2013, petitioner Damyanti Devta lodged a report to the effect that she was married to respondent no.1 Vakil Kumar Devta on 03.05.1999 and she gave birth to a daughter on 28.5.2001. Thereafter, he tortured her and left her at her maternal home. Later, he married respondent no.2 Banita Das as his second wife. When the applicant demanded the application form for obtaining the Ration Card of her husband and all the documents attached with it under RTI Act, she received a photocopy of the Ration Card application of respondent no.1 and the format of the register 3 used in the camp for receiving and distributing ration card applications of the Nagar Panchayat wherein Respondent no.1 has fraudulently attached the photo of his second wife Banita Das but has signed in the name of petitioner Damyanti Devta. Thus a forged document has been prepared and presented before the government. It is further alleged that respondent no.1 while making the ration card, got the ration card made by presenting his second wife Banita Das as Damayanti before the Government official team. It is also alleged that while making the ration card, the name of the mother of son Aman Devta is written as Damayanti Devta, whereas the name of Aman’s mother is Banita Das. Even while getting Aman admitted to School, the father’s name was written as Vakil Devta and mother’s name as Damayanti Devta. In this way, petitioner’s name is being misused repeatedly by respondent no.1 Vakil Devta and respondent no.2 Banita Das. On a written application being filed by the petitioner, the investigation commenced. The charge sheet was presented before the trial Court. When the charge sheet was read out and explained to the accused/ respondents, they denied having committed the offence and sought defence. In the statement u/s 313 CrPC the accused pleaded innocence. 4. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence came to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC against accused Respondent no.1 and u/s section 419, 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC against accused respondent no.2. The trial Court further held that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, in absence of discharge of burden, the 4 benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and thus the trial Court has acquitted the respondents 1 & 2 of the aforesaid offences. 5. The petitioner had challenged the acquittal order passed by the learned trial Court before the learned Sessions Court, and the latter, after examining the records of the case found no infirmity in the impugned judgment and concurred with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. 6. The learned appellate Court after considering the entire evidence, held that the prosecution has not produced even a single witness who can prove that the accused had committed the offence of cheating by dishonestly delivering any property or by creating, altering or destroying any valuable security, either wholly or partially, therefore, the provisions of section 420/34 IPC are not attracted. 7. The appellate Court further held that even if the provisions of sections 467 and 468 are considered in the light of allegations of forgery of valuable security, will, or other documents and forgery for the purpose of cheating, then as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution, no witness has stated that the accused have committed forgery in any document either for the purpose of cheating or in any valuable security or bill or other. Therefore, on the basis of evidence on record, the offence u/s 467 & 468 IPC is not made out against the accused. 8. The learned appellate Court after reappreciating evidence further held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Sections 5 419, 420/34 , 467/34 & 468/34 IPC against the accused, therefore, the allegations of cheating by impersonation, forgery and cheating by knowing the documents to be forged and using them as original are not established against the accused, therefore, on the basis of which, the trial Court had acquitted the accused under sections 419, 420/34 , 467/34 & 468/34 IPC giving benefit of doubt, in which, no error of fact and law is found and rejected the appeal. 9. Thus the learned appellate Court as also the trial Court have concurrently held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under the above sections against the accused, due to which, cheating by impersonating and cheating by knowingly using forged documents as original is not proved against the accused and hence sections 419, 420/34, 467/34 468/34 IPC is not found proved against the accused on the basis of which, the accused have been acquitted of the offences giving the benefit of doubt, in which, no error of fact and law is found. 10. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita V. State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330, while dealing with the scope of reappreciation of evidence by higher court in criminal revision observed in para 9 as under: "9. ...It is a settled legal proposition that if the courts below have recorded the finding of fact, the question of reappreciation of evidence by the third court does not arise unless it is found to be totally perverse..." 11. The grounds taken in the instant petition as well as during the course of the arguments are the same which were taken by the 6 petitioner before the learned Appellate Court. The grounds raised before the learned Appellate Court were dealt by a detailed analysis of the prosecution evidence on record and finding of the learned trial Court. It was for the petitioner to demonstrate the infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court in order to cause interference by this Court with two concurrent findings of acquittal qua the present respondents. 12. Having perused the judgments of the trial Court as also the appellate Court, this Court finds that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has minutely scrutinized the evidence on record and has dealt with the issues made by the petitioner/ complainant. The views taken by both the courts below are possible. 13. In view of the above, there is no ground made out to interfere with the judgment passed by learned trial Court and the judgment of the learned Appellate Court dated 25.01.2024 upholding the acquittal of the respondents by the learned trial Court. 14. The present petition is dismissed and disposed of accordingly along with the pending application, in motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Rao