1 2025:CGHC:51221 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for Order on : 11.09.2025 Order Passed on : 14/10/2025 CRR No. 822 of 2021 1 - Nitesh Sharma @ Rahul S/o Jag Kumar Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Civil Lines, Mangla Chauk, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jhansiram @ Amit S/o Shayam Lal Panika Aged About 34 Years R/o Civil Lines, Bharti Nagar Chauk, Aagyey Nagar, Ward No. 5, Infront Of Q.No. B - 12 Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Indra Kumar S/o Nakul Ram Kurre Aged About 44 Years R/o Mana, Sadani Darbar, Moriyakala Housing Board, Q. No. Lig 29/450, Raipur, P.S. Mana, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Applicants versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. -----Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu C A V ORDER 1. Applicants have filed this revision petition challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No.107/2019, by which learned Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) has allowed the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal dated 09.04.2019, in Criminal Case No.83 of 2019, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kashdol, District – Balodabazar. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.15 14:20:53 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a written complaint was made by complainant Rajesh Kumar Dewangan in Police Station – Kashdol alleging that applicants in order to provide him government job in Railway Department obtained Rs.1,50,000/-. Subsequently, the job was not provided and after realizing that he was defrauded by applicants, written complaint was made, on the basis of which, FIR was registered for the offence U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code against applicants. During investigation, applicant Rahul @ Nitesh Kumar Sharma was interrogated and his memorandum statement was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, Rs.1,50,000/- and one mobile phone was seized from the applicant Rahul @ Nitesh Kumar Sharma and he was taken into custody. Further based on his memorandum statement, applicants - Jhansiram @ Amit and Indra Kumar were interrogated and they were taken into custody. Information from Northern Railway was obtained. Call detail of complainant was collected and statement of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against applicants for commission of offence U/s. 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to prove the charges against applicants, prosecution cited as many as 9 witness including Rajesh Dewangan, complainant, Parmeshwar Dewangan, who accompanied the complainant, Dileram Dewangan witness of seizure, Banshram Dewangan independent witness, Ghanshyam Dhiwar witness to memorandum and seizure, Iraniyas Tirkey, Divisional Personal Officer, from Southern Railway, State Nodal Office of Reliance Jio Infocom, and investigation Officer Shravan Kumar Netam and R.D. Sahu, A.S.I.. 3 3. The applicants were charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicants denied the charges and prayed for a trial. Learned trial Court issued summons to the prosecution witnesses for examination. The complainant, Rajesh Kumar Dewangan, and witness Parmeshwar Dewangan appeared before the Court and were examined; however, they did not support the case of prosecution. Since the star witnesses failed to support the case of prosecution, learned trial Court held that no purpose would be served in examining remaining witnesses and accordingly closed the right of prosecution to examine further witnesses. Statement of applicants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by applicant in defence. 4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, passed the judgment dated 09.04.2019, acquitting the applicants of the charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the order closing the right of prosecution to examine further witnesses and the order of acquittal, State preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar – Bhatapara, learned appellate Court after hearing both the sides and appreciating the material available in record, remanded the case for retrial by the impugned judgment, against which, this criminal revision is filed. 5. Learned counsel for applicants submits that learned Appellate Court erred in allowing the appeal filed by State against order of acquittal. It 4 is contended that Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (PW-1) is complainant who lodged report against applicants, and according to the prosecution, Parmeshwar Dewangan (PW-2) is a witness who accompanied Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (PW-1) at the time of the alleged incident. Both witnesses were examined before the trial court at length but they did not support the case of prosecution. It is further contended that learned trial Court had issued summons to all witnesses for recording of their evidence, however, on the date of examination, except Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (PW-1) and Parmeshwar Dewangan (PW-2), other witnesses did not appear. The trial Court, considering nature of the allegations and the evidence of complainant Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (PW-1) and Parmeshwar Dewangan (PW-2) star witness, who failed to support the prosecution's case, closed the right of prosecution to examine remaining witnesses and passed the order of acquittal. It is submitted that other witnesses are related to the procedural aspects followed by the investigating agency, such as seizure, memorandum, and investigation. Therefore, when the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, applicants cannot be held guilty solely on the basis of the evidence of these procedural witnesses. This crucial aspect has been overlooked by the learned appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in case of Govind & Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Others, reported in 2003 (68) DRJ 446 (DB). 5 6. Learned State counsel vehementally opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicants and supports the impugned judgment. It is submitted that it is the State to prosecute the accused persons based on the report lodged and material collected during investigation. It is for the State either to examine enlisted witnesses or to give up any of those witnesses. Since the State counsel did not submit any request or application for giving up examination of other witnesses, the learned trial Court erred in closing the right of the prosecution to examine the remaining witnesses. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record of trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 8. Perusal of the record reveals that the applicants were accused of alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly cheating complainant, Rajesh Kumar Dewangan, by obtaining money from him on the false pretext of securing employment for him in the Railway Department. Pursuant to a written complaint lodged by the complainant, FIR was registered, and the matter was taken up for investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the applicants. Prosecution enlisted nine witnesses to establish its case. 9. After framing of charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Magistrate issued summons to the prosecution witnesses, including Rajesh Kumar Dewangan, complainant and key witness Parmeshwar Dewangan, who accompanied the complainant at the time of incident, and other witnesses connected with the investigation. 6 10. Complainant, Rajesh Kumar Dewangan was examined before the learned Magistrate as (P.W.-1). In his testimony he stated that Sanjay Kurrey informed him about the job of Group-D in railway, upon his request, he went to Raipur along with Parmeshwar Dewangan of his village. Applicant Sanjay Kurrey introduced him with co-accused – Amit and after meeting, they returned home. Subsequently, he came to know that there was no such job available in the Railway Department, therefore, he lodged a complaint with the police and also submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police. Although the witness admitted his signature on the document Ex.P-1 and the spot map (Ex.P-2), however, he denied that applicants had taken money from him for securing a government job in the Railways. He further denied that when applicants failed to provide appointments and failed to returned money, report was lodged in the concerned police station. This witness further denied that memorandum statement of applicant Rahul @ Nitesh (Exhibit P-3) was recorded in his presence. He further denied any seizure made from the applicants and also stated that his statement was not recorded by the police during the investigation. Upon being questioned by the Court, this witness categorically denied each and every suggestion adverse to applicants put to him during the course of his examination and he refuted the case of the prosecution in its entirety. 11. Parmeshwar Dewangan was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 2 (P.W.-2). He in his testimony stated that he accompanied the complainant, Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (P.W.-1), at the time of the alleged incident. He further stated that applicant, Sanjay Kurrey, had 7 informed Rajesh Kumar Dewangan about a job of Group-D post in the Railway Department. Pursuant to a request made by Rajesh Kumar Dewangan, he accompanied him to the residence of Bhaiyaram Rajwade in Raipur, where applicant Sanjay Kurrey introduced them to applicant -Amit. Thereafter, they returned to their village. He further deposed that he had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the alleged incident. Upon being questioned by the Court and confronted with various suggestions pertaining to the prosecution case, the witness categorically denied each and every adverse suggestion put to him. He expressly denied the occurrence of the alleged incident in its entirety and did not support the prosecution version of events in any manner. 12. In order to establish the commission of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused acted dishonestly, with an intention to deceive the complainant, and that such deceitful conduct, induced the complainant to deliver any property or valuable security. The statement of the complainant, if it supports the prosecution's version of events, is of paramount importance, because it is the main evidence that would show how the accused induced the complainant to part with money or property. In the absence of such corroborative statements and material evidence establishing the dishonest intention and element of deception on the part of the accused at the inception of the transaction, the prosecution case under Section 420 IPC is not sustainable. 8 13. Perusal of the list of witnesses sought to be examined reveals that Dileram Dewangan, Banshram Dewangan, and Ghanshyam Dhiwar have been cited as witnesses to the seizure and memorandum proceedings. Iraniyas Tirkey, Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi, has been listed as a witness to prove the letter issued by the Northern Railway (Delhi Division) to Police Station Kashdol, confirming the non-issuance of the letter dated 08.03.2018 in favour of Rajesh Kumar. The prosecution has also listed the State Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocom Limited, Raipur, to prove the call detail records. Additionally, Shravan Kumar Netam, ASI, and R.D. Sahu, ASI, are the police officials who registered the report and conducted the investigation. 14. It is pertinent to note that the complainant as well as the key witness have not supported the prosecution’s version of events. In such circumstances, non-examination of the said procedural witnesses and the police officials would not serve any substantial purpose or provide any material assistance to the prosecution. Furthermore, even if these witnesses were to be examined before this Court, there exists no reasonable likelihood that their testimony would modify, or have any significant impact upon the ultimate decision in the case. 15. The learned Trial Court/Magistrate, after considering the nature of allegations and substance of the case, as well as the statements made by the key witnesses, rightly found it unnecessary to summon the remaining prosecution witnesses. Consequently, the Court closed the opportunity to examine the remaining witnesses of the prosecution. 9 16. The learned Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the State, observed that it is the duty of the Magistrate to summon and examine all the witnesses cited by the prosecution. It held that the order of acquittal, passed solely on the basis of the statements of two witnesses, was legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for retrial, without a proper appreciation of the nature of allegations and substance of the statements given by the key witnesses in the case including complainant. 17. Case is registered based on the written report (Ex.P-1) lodged by Rajesh Kumar Dewangan (P.W.-1), making allegations there in of procuring money on the ground of providing government job. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered. 18. Complainant – Rajesh Kumar Dewangan is examined as P.W.-1. He in chief denied that police persons have not recorded his statement. In answer to the question put by Court, he denied the allegations of payment of money of Rs.50,000/- and further that Parmeshwar Dewangan gave Rs.50,000/- to Sanjay Kurrey @ Indra Kumar. In fact he denied all the questions put to him by Court. He has not supported the prosecution case. 19. Parmeshwar Dewangan (P.W.-2) also not supported the case of prosecution. The above named two witnesses are also witness of seizure memo and memorandum statement. In above facts of the case it is to be considered whether the order of learned trial Court closing right of prosecution to examine other witnesses is erroneous, and even accepting for the purpose of case that other witnesses supports 10 the case of the prosecution whether the applicants could be convicted when the complainant-cum-victim and other key witness not supported the case. The answer would only be ‘No’. 20. In the above backdrop of the case it has to be looked into whether any fruitful purpose will be served in remanding back the case to the trial Court only to fulfill the procedure of trial by examining all enlisted witnesses. The nature of proof required in criminal case is, to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and not of probability. 21. For the foregoing discussion, this criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.09.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2019 by the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar is set-aside. The order of acquittal dated 09.04.2019 in Criminal Case No.83/2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kashdol is hereby affirmed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram