1 2025:CGHC:44859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 514 of 2019 1 - Smt. Annapurna Dhiwar W/o Anant Kumar Dhiwar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Tikeja, Police Station- Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (complainant). ... Appellant. versus 1 - Kul Singh Kanwar S/o Late Sahoran Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Tilkeja, Police Station- Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (accused). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri H.V. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None, though served. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari ) Judgment on Board 03/09/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste/Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Korba C.G in Criminal Appeal No.68/2018, which in turn, arise out of the judgment dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba District Korba C.G. 2. By the impugned judgment, learned appellate Court allowed the appeal AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.09.04 14:16:01 +0530 2 filed by the respondent/accused and acquitted him of the charge under Section 500 IPC and set aside the judgment 09.08.2018 whereby, JMFC, Korba convicted the respondent/accused for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month. 3. As per the complaint, the same was filed by the appellant on 17.09.2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba C.G., making averments inter alia that she is a resident of village Tilkeja and was duly selected by Janpad Panchayat, Korba on 01.07.1998 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and since then, she has been performing her duties on the said post. Respondent/accused, who was the then village Sarpanch of village Tilkeja, on account of political rivalry with husband of complainant, with an intention to defame her filed a complaint before the Block Education Officer, Korba, Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Korba and Collector, Korba on 23.05.12 by alleging that the complainant does not possess the requisite educational qualification. The complainant has not filed proper marksheet as instead of Matriculation marksheet, she has filed marksheet of 12th standard. The respondent has also spread rumours about the complaint, which harmed the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of general public. After necessary enquiry, the complaint case was registered on 20.08.2015 and during trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, complainant/appellant examined herself as CW-1 and Harishankar as CW-2 and exhibited five documents vide 3 Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5. In the letter dated 25.08.2012 (Ex.P/1) of Janpad Panchayat Korba, it has been mentioned that the complaint was found baseless. In the enquiry, it has been revealed that the complainant has passed 12th standard in the year 1992 and she was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 1998. Taking into consideration, the said fact, the enquiry Officer Assistant Block Development Education Officer, Korba reached to the conclusion that the complaint is baseless. Copies of the complaint and the enquiry report have been annexed in support of the complaint. Further, Primary certificate vide Ex.P/2, Middle school certificate of the complainant vide Ex.P/3, High school certificate vide Ex.P/4, Higher Secondary School certificate vide Ex.P/5 has also been annexed. 5. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondent/accused pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and did not adduce any defence evidence. 6. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted the respondent/accused as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. Against which, he has preferred an Appeal, which was allowed vide impugned judgment. Hence this Appeal. 7. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective though the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons and reached to a categorical finding that the respondent/accused has committed an offence of defamation. He submits that as there is ample evidence against the respondent/accused, the finding recorded by the appellate Court is perverse and prays to allow 4 the Appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal carefully. 9. In order to attract offence under Section 500 IPC, the prosecution has to prove three necessary ingredients, which are as follows:- (i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person; (ii) Such imputation must have been made by (a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) signs; or (c) visible representations. (iii) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made. 10.It is well settled that despite proof of the aforesaid elements, if the delinquent succeeds in proving at least by preponderance of probability that he is entitled to the protective umbrella of any of the exceptions, the delinquent would be out of the offence. 11.There are ten exceptions to the offence of defamation under Section 499 of IPC. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person falls under the Eighth Exception, which is as under: Eighth Exception.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. ILLUSTRATION If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's 5 master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z's father-A is within this exception. 12.In the present case also, it is not in dispute that the complaint filed was an accusation that the complainant has secured the job without possessing the requisite qualification at the time of appointment. The complainant’s appointment was made in the year 1998 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by Janpad Panchayat, Korba and she was posted in the Primary school Vimtala. At the relevant time, the complainant had filed the marksheet of 11th standard and thereafter in the year 1996, she filed her 12th standard marksheet, therefore, an enquiry was sought. 13. On perusal of the nature of complaint, which has been annexed along with Ex.P/1, it would show that the same was preferred by the respondent/accused, who was holding the post of the then Sarpanch of village Tilkeja and an enquiry has also been conducted by the concerned Authorities on the basis of the said complaint. Later on, it was revealed that the complainant had passed the examination of 12th standard in the year 1992 and was appointed on the subject post in the year 1998. 14.If any public person such as Sarpanch, on any score, has a suspicion that a person within his jurisdiction has been wrongly appointed and makes a complaint to the Authorities, seeking necessary enquiry, this Court is of the view that the Eighth Exception to Section 499 of the IPC is squarely applicable in such case. Even if the respondent/accused is claiming in the public that he has made such nature of the complaint only on this basis, it cannot be said that any harm has been caused to a person’s reputation, when, ultimately upon enquiry, the said allegation in the form of 6 complaint was found baseless. In the instant case, the respondent/accused had merely sought an enquiry with regard to the service of the complainant. 15.Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 16.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of appellate Court while reversing the finding of trial Court is well merited as the appellate Court has assigned cogent reasons and this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the said finding. 17.Accordingly, this Appeal bereft of merit is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash