1 2025:CGHC:51865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 167 of 2016 1 - Bhagatram Sarthi (Died) Through Lrs- As Per Honble Court Order Dated 01-02-2024. 1.1 - Naina Bai Sarthi W/o Late Bhagat Ram Sarthi Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 23, House No. 66, Naye Ganj Intvari Bazar, Near Shitla Mandir, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raigarh Civil and Revenue Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 17.10.2025 1. The present applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 06.02.2016 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.), in Criminal Appeal No. 20200000017/2015, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 404/2011, convicting the deceased-applicant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.10.17 14:53:19 +0530 2 imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present revision, the original applicant/accused passed away on 26.06.2023. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.02.2024, this Court allowed I.A. No. 02/2023, an application filed by the proposed legal representative, the wife of the deceased applicant, for her substitution in his place. Accordingly, this revision is now being pursued by the applicant, who is the wife and legal representative of the deceased. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased-applicant- Bhagat Ram Sarthi demanded a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant- Ghanshyam Prasad Yadav, on the assurance that he would secure employment for the complainant's daughter- Yashoda, on the post of Peon in the District Court, Raigarh. Believing the representation made by the deceased-applicant, the complainant paid the said amount to him in three installments. However, despite receiving the entire amount, the deceased-applicant neither provided the promised job nor returned the money. Thereafter, the complainant submitted a written report (Ex. P-2) to the District and Sessions Judge, Raigarh, and also lodged a complaint with the police. Acting upon the said complaint, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, registered an FIR (Ex. P-2) against the deceased-applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the deceased-applicant. The accused / deceased-applicant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 3 4. The Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the deceased applicant as mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this order. The said judgment was challenged by the deceased applicant by way of a criminal appeal, however, the Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 06.02.2016, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, are not justified in convicting and sentencing the deceased-applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and their statements do not corroborate with each other and the contents of written report (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2). He also submits that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to establish that the deceased-applicant had demanded or accepted any money from the complainant for securing employment for his daughter and that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that deceased-applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgments, submits that trial Court as well as Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the deceased-applicant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. PW-1 Rameshwar has stated that he along with his daughter (PW-2) and one Ghanshyam Yadav of Sarangarh had gone to the District Court, Raigarh to inquire about the recruitment process for the post of Peon. Upon inquiry, they came to know that the application form and other requisite documents of PW-2 Yasoda has not been submitted and, therefore, she would not be permitted to appear in the examination. He has further stated that while they were returning, near the Office gate, they met the deceased-applicant, who inquired from Ghanshyam (the complainant) about his visit. Ghanshyam told the deceased-applicant that he was a friend of PW-1 Rameshwar and has come to help in securing a Peon post for his daughter (PW-2), but due to the non-submission of her application form, she could not appear in the examination. At that point, the deceased-applicant asked them to provide the completed application form and supporting documents and assured them that he would speak to his "boss" and get her the job. Thereafter, complainant-Ghanshyam submitted the application form to the deceased-applicant, however, the said fact is not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-2) submitted by Ghanshyam to the District Court, Raigarh. PW-1 Rameshwar has further stated that about a week later, the deceased-applicant called him telephonically and demanded a sum of Rs.70,000/- for completing the entire work and called him to near the officer’s house at Sattigudi Chowk, asking him to bring Rs.20,000/-. However, on the contrary, in the written report (Ex. P-2), it is stated that the deceased-applicant had demanded Rs.30,000/- as an advance. PW-1 Rameshwar has also stated that he gave Rs.20,000/- to 5 Ghanshyam, who then handed it over to the deceased-applicant, however, this fact is also not mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P-1). He has further stated that after 2–4 days, the deceased-applicant again called him and said that he is going to Bilaspur to collect the appointment order and instructed him to bring Rs.2,000/- at Sattigudi Chowk, near the officer’s house. Pursuant thereto, he and Ghanshyam went there and gave the said amount to the deceased-applicant, but this fact too is not mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P-1). PW-1 Rameshwar has also stated that the deceased-applicant had called him to Sattigudi Chowk, whereas in the written report (Ex. P-2), it is mentioned that he was called in front of the bungalow. During cross-examination, PW-1 Rameshwar admitted that Ghanshyam had informed him that the deceased-applicant was asking for his daughter’s documents and application form and had assured that he would provide a job. He further admitted that at the time of submitting the application form, no discussion regarding money had taken place between them. He also admitted that all the conversations made over the phone by the deceased-applicant were with Ghanshyam and Ghanshyam had informed him about all those conversations. He also admitted that the money he claimed to have paid was handed over to Ghanshyam, and that he himself had neither lodged any complaint with the police nor made any report regarding the alleged payment of money to the deceased-applicant for securing a job. 9. PW-2 Yashoda has stated that the deceased-applicant had assured her father (PW-1 Rameshwar) and her uncle- Ghanshyam that he would provide a job for her, and in this connection, deceased-applicant had taken a sum of Rs.42,000/- from them. However, despite this, she has 6 not got any job till date. During cross-examination, she admitted that no complaint or report was ever lodged against the deceased- applicant regarding the alleged payment of money for securing a job. She further admitted that the deceased-applicant had never personally spoken to her about any monetary transaction and that her knowledge regarding the alleged payment was solely based on what her father (PW-1) and Ghanshyam had informed her. 10. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Rameshwar and PW-2 Yashoda and their statements do not corroborate with each other and the contents of FIR (Ex.P-1) and written report (Ex.P-2) to unfold the factum of incident. Further, there are discrepancies regarding the time, place and the exact amount allegedly paid by the complainant to the deceased-applicant. In addition, Ghanshyam, who appears to be a key witness, has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it, thereby weakening the case of the prosecution. Besides above, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show the complicity of the deceased applicant in the crime in question. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808, has held in paras 23 which reads as under: “23........One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as may show him to be 7 guilty of the offence with which he is charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that burden, the Courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the accused. There are certain cases in which statutory presumptions arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the Court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true, even though it is not positively proved to be true, the accused would be entitled to acquittal. 12. Further, in Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated in para 63 that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that the benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused. 13. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1408 has held in para 2 which reads as under:- “2...... It is well-settled that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, testimony of such witnesses become unreliable and unworthy of credence and in absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses........” 14. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Davinder Singh 8 v. State of Punjab, reported in (2023) 19 SCC 229, while relying upon its earlier judgment in the matter of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145, on the issue of non-examination of material witnesses, has held in paragraph 9 as under: ““9….On the issue of non- examination of material witness, we wish to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Takhaji Hiraji (supra):- “19.So is the case with the criticism levelled by the High Court on the prosecution case finding fault therewith for non-examination of independent witnesses. It is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case…..”” 15. When the present case is examined in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court coupled with the evidence available on record, it becomes apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements, the non-examination of a material witness, and the absence of clear and corroborative evidence collectively create serious doubt about the prosecution version. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the deceased-applicant is entitled for acquittal. The learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court 9 were unjustified in convicting and sentencing the deceased- applicant for the aforesaid offence. 16. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court dated 05.02.2015 as well as Appellate Court dated 06.02.2016 are liable to be and are hereby set- aside and the deceased-applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 420 of IPC. 17. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh