1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 463 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushma Kothari W/o Om Kothari Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Patel Ward Near Jain Mandir Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh District- Rajnandgaon. --- Appellant versus 1 - Sikandar Ali S/o Naamdaar Khan Aged About 72 Years R/o Solhapara Ward No. 17, Dongargarh Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Akbar Ali S/o Sikandar Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Solhapara Ward No.17, Dongargarh Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gopal Khemuka S/o Late Amarchand Khemukha Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No.17, Dongargarh Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District- Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) ACQA No. 466 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushma Kothari W/o Om Kothari Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Patel Ward, Near Jain Mandir, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Appellant Versus 1 - Gopal Khemuka S/o Late Amarchand Khemukha Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2 - Sikandar Ali S/o Naamdaar Khan Aged About 72 Years R/o Solhapara, Ward No. 17, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Akbar Ali S/o Sikandar Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Solhapara, Ward No. 17, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.02.02 13:28:35 +0530 2 ACQA No. 467 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sushma Kothari W/o Om Kothari Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 17, Patel Ward, Near Jain Mandir, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. ---Appellant Versus 1 - Akbar Ali S/o Sikandar Ali Aged About 42 Years R/o Solhapara, Ward No. 17, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sikandar Ali S/o Naamdaar Khan Aged About 72 Years R/o Solhapara, Ward No. 17, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Gopal Khemuka S/o Late Amarchand Khemukha Aged About 58 Years R/o Solhapara, Ward No. 17, Dongargarh, Tehsil And P.S. Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri B.P. Singh and Shri Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocates. For State : Shri Vikhyat Arora and Shri Jai Prakash Tiwari, Panel Lawyers. For Respondent- : Shri V. Jayant Kumar on behalf of Shri Gopal Khemuka Prakash Tiwari (in Acq. Appeal No.466 of 2025). For Respondents- : Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. Akabar Ali & Sikandar Ali Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 29.01. 202 6 1. Since all these Acquittal Appeals arise out of common judgment and same Criminal Case, they are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. 2. All these appeals have been filed the appellant/complainant against the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 04/2024, 02/2024 and 03/2024 respectively which were 3 arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judgment Judicial Magistrate, Dongarhgarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Complaint Case No.64/2015. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant-Smt. Sushma Kothari was complainant before the trial court who prosecuted a complaint case for the offence under Sections 500,501,502 and 34 IPC against six proposed accused persons with the allegation that the complainant was an elected member of Ward No.15, Municipal Council Dongargarh and having good reputation in locality and community. The proposed accused No.1 to 3 started unauthorized construction near government Well at Ward No.15 without obtaining due permission from the Municipal Council Dongargarh. Being the elected ward member and responsible person of the vicinity, she made a complaint on 11.05.2012 to the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Dongargarha and SDO(Revenue) Dongargarh for which the proposed accused No.1 to 3 were having grudge against her. In furtherance to settle their grievance, the proposed accused persons got a news published on 16.05.2012 in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar alleging that the complainant, who is ward member of Ward No.15, is demanding bribe. The said new item was circulated in public in general due to which she felt defamed. The allegation against the proposed accused No.4 is that, he being the local correspondent of newspaper, without verifying the true facts, got it published in the newspaper. The proposed accused No.5 helped him in doing so and proposed accused No.6 was local publisher of Dainik Bhaskar 4 newspaper, and therefore, she filed a complaint case for punishing the proposed accused persons for her defamation. 4. The said complaint case was registered by the trial court, process was issued and proposed accused No.1 to 4 appeared and defended their case. The proposed accused No.5&6 did not make their appearance before the trial court and vide order dated 25.08.2023, trial against proposed accused No.5&6 namely Rajeev Singh and Kamalkant Sharma were separated and warrant of arrest was issued against them and trial against 4 accused persons were proceeded. On 02.09.2023 the details of offence under Section 500 IPC were framed against four accused persons. All the four accused persons challenged the order dated 02.09.2023 by which the details of offence were explained before the Additional Sessions Judge Dongargarh in Criminal Revision No.16/2023 which was decided on 04.11.2023 and revision with respect to accused No.3-Apsari Begum was allowed and she was discharged from the alleged offence, however, with respect to accused No.1,2 & 4, the revision was dismissed and trial was proceeded against three accused persons namely Sikandar Ali, Akbar Ali and Gopal Khemuka. During trial, the parties led their evidence and after conclusion of trial, all the three accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 500 IPC and sentenced S.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for six months. Out of the total amount of fine, an amount of Rs.3000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2023, all 5 the three accused persons preferred three separate Criminal Appeals before the Additional Sessions Judge Dongargarh vide Criminal Appeal Nos. 04/2024, 02/2024 and 03/2024 respectively. Those Criminal Appeals came up for hearing before the court on 07.03.2024 and after hearing the parties the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, allowed their appeals and acquitted the accused persons from the offence of Section 500 IPC by giving benefits of exception 1&2 of explanation-4 of Section 499 IPC. Against the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has filed these acquittal appeals separately, however, the complainant has made all the three accused persons as party respondent in these three appeals only to avoid any procedural controversy. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant would submit that the first appellate court has failed to consider the evidence available on record in its proper perspective. Once the news item published in daily newspaper defames the complainant, it affects her reputation in the society as well as community. Without verifying the true facts the news items were published. The well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court has been reversed by the first appellate court without adverting the entire evidence produced by the complainant. Though there are certain exceptions provided under Section 499 IPC, however, the act of accused persons duly satisfies the requirement of Section 499 IPC and the act of accused persons do not come under any exception, yet benefit of the same has been extended to them by the revisional court. He would further submit that the complainant has 6 also filed a Civil Suit for compensation in which a decree has been passed in her favour and appeal there-against filed by the accused is pending consideration before coordinate Bench of this court. Once a decree has been passed for compensation on the same subject matter which prima facie satisfies the ingredients of defamation of the complainant, these acquittal appeals may be allowed and the respondents-accused persons may be held guilty for the alleged offence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents supported the impugned judgment passed by the revisional court and submitted that after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions of Section 499 and 500 IPC they have passed appropriate judgment acquitting them from the alleged offence. There is no evidence available on record that the said news items were published by the accused persons or published on their instance. It is only apprehension of the complainant that such news items were published on the instance of the accused persons. Though, by the said news item, it may have differ the reputation of a person, but before holding conviction, the complainant has to prove that the said news item was published by the accused persons. In absence of any cogent and clinching material and evidence they cannot convicted for the alleged offence. The complainant has failed to prove her case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the revisional court does not require any interference and all these appeals are liable to be dismissed. 7 7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court. 8. It is not in dispute that news items were published in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar on 16.05.2012 with the heading “okMZ&15 dh ik"kZn ij vuqefr ds fy, :i, ekaxus dk vkjksi”. It is also not in dispute that on the same date i.e. on 16.05.2012 another article was published with respect to same subject matter in Sabera Sanket daily newspaper, Rajnandgaon Edition with the heading “ik"kZn ds f[kykQ fey jgh f’kdk;rsa”. Both these news articles have been reiterated in para 10 and 11 of the judgment dated 07.03.2024 passed by revisional court. From perusal of these news article it transpires that it was alleged against the present appellant/complainant, who is Ward Member of Ward No.15, that she demanded illegal consideration for giving No Objection Certificate to raise illegal construction and for other purposes. Although, said news articles directly concern with the present complainant/appellant, but it cannot be said that the said news articles were published by the accused persons, or it was published on their instance. 9. The complainant has been examined before the trial court as PW-1. She has admitted in her cross examination that when she received complaint with respect to illegal construction in the vicinity, she made no enquiry. She admits that one Ajay Thakur made a complaint against her with respect to alleged publication of article in newspaper, but neither she made any complaint nor took any action against Ajay 8 Thakur. She also admits that she did not know in how much area the illegal construction was being raised by the person concerned. She admits that she is prosecuting a Civil Suit against Dainik Bhaskar and Sabera Sanket newspaper for compensation. In the said Civil Suit, after passing of judgment, Sikandar Ali and Akbar Ali had deposited the amount, which she has received. She also admits that Publisher and Editor of Sabera Sanket newspaper apologized from her on the issue of said article, which she accepted. She admits of her making complaint to the Chief Municipal Council, Dongargarh with respect to illegal construction raised by the accused Sikandar, but she did not know what action has been taken thereof. Presently the construction work of the house of Sikandar Ali is over. She admits that despite publication of said news article in Ex.P/1, she has neither been expelled from the political party from which she is the member, nor any action has been taken by the community members. In Sabera Sanket newspaper it is alleged that she demanded Rs.10,000/-from Ajay Thakur as illegal consideration, but she admits that she has not made any complaint against Ajay Thakur. In paragraph 45 of her cross examination she further admits that rebuttal of the allegation of news article was also published by Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper, but it was not published as per her wish, but was published as per their own choice. 10. Despite lengthy and detailed cross examination from this witness, it does not transpire any material that accused persons were involved in publishing such news article in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar, or in 9 their instance the said news articles were published. Likewise, from the evidence of PW-2, Omprakash Kothari and PW-3, Jarnail Singh Kakkad, there is no clinching material which could be taken out to hold conviction of the respondent-accused persons for the offence of defamation of the complainant. 11. The appellate court, considering exception 1&2 of explanation-4 of Section 499 IPC and also considering the evidence produced by the complainant, allowed the criminal revision and acquitted the accused persons from the alleged offence. It is necessary here to notice exception 1&2 of explanation-4 of Section 499 IPC, which reads as under: “499. Defamation. Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. XXXX Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. First Exception.—Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception.—Public conduct of public servants.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. XXX 12. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of 10 Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as under:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 13. In Jafarudheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 (8) SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal in judgement at para 25, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that ensures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 14. Further, in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shyam Bihari & Others, 2023 (8) SCC 197, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 27 of its judgment that :- “27. It is trite law that in an appeal against acquittal, the power of appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record.” 11 15. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment passed by the learned revisional court and being very much conscious of the existing legal position as held in case of Kistoora Ram, Jafarudheen and Shyam Bihari (Supra) that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial court taking one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondents is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 16. Accordingly, all the acquittal appeals filed by the complainant against the accused persons are hereby dismissed. 17. Records of trial court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder