1 2025:CGHC:21723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 249 of 2025 1 - Md. Mahfuj S/o Md. Taiyab Aged About 33 Years R/o- Samanpura Rajabazar, Firoz Palace Makan No. - 102, Near Bilal Mahjid, P.S.- Sastrinagar, District- Patna, Bihar ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station- Tapkara, District- Jaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saket Anand and Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09/05/2025 1. The present appeal is being listed for consideration of I.A. No. 01/2025, which is the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However, with the consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Jashpur, in Special (SC/ST) Case No. 19/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Offence under Section 376 of IPC The appellant has been sentenced to 10 years of RI along with Rs. 5,000/- fine and on default of fine 5 months of RI separately. Offence under Section 420 of IPC 03 years of RI along with Rs. 1,000/- of fine and on default of fine 1 months of RI separately. Offence under Section 468 of IPC 03 years of RI along with Rs. 1,000/- of fine and on default of fine 01 month of RI separately. Offences under Section 471 of IPC 02 years of RI along with Rs. 1,000/- fine and on default of fine 1 month of RI separately. Offences under Section 66 of I.T. Act. 01 year of RI along with 1,000/- of fine and on default of fine 01 month RI separately. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.08.2022, the victim PW-1, lodged a written complaint, Ex.P/1 to the Police Station Tapkara, against the appellant with the allegation that in the March 2022, she received a friend request in her face-book ID from the user ID which was in the name of Swaraj Paikra. She accepted the friend request, and then the conversation between them started. He introduced himself as the present resident of Raipur and a permanent resident of village Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, and employed at the Railway department in Bilaspur. He also disclosed his monthly salary of Rs. 89,000/-, and his mother is also employed at the State Bank in Raipur. They exchanged frequent text messages/WhatsApp messages on their mobile numbers. During their conversation, he proposed to her for marriage and sent his Aadhar card and ID card of the Railway Department through WhatsApp and assured her that he would marry her. Subsequently, on his demand, she transferred an amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 12.04.2022/13.04.2022 through Google Pay/phone pay. Subsequently, she 3 also transferred Rs. 1,75,000/- into his account on his demand for the treatment of his grandmother. When he again demanded a further sum, she showed her inability to pay the same, and then he met her at village Kunkuri and convinced her that he would repay the entire amount very soon. He again made a demand for money from her for various reasons and called her at Bilaspur on 10.06.2022. When she met him on 10.06.2022, he took her to a hotel near the Railway Station, Bilaspur and had made physical relation with her. The appellant had taken a total Rs. 5,74,797/- from her and evaded its repayment, and avoiding her telephonic calls. After about a week, she came to know from WhatsApp news that came from Dhamtari District, then she came to know that the actual name of the appellant is Mohammad Mahfooj, and he is a resident of Bihar. The appellant used the mobile numbers 6207820423 and 8789886855 to receive money from her and talk to her. He deceived her fraudulently from the very beginning with the intention to cheat her and showed himself belonging to the Paikra tribal community, proposed her for marriage and fraudulently obtained Rs. 5,74,797/- from her. She also gave details of the amount transferred to the appellant on various dates between 12.04.2022 to 16.07.2022. Based on the written complaint, the FIR Ex.P/2 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 420 and 376 of the IPC on 19.08.2022. 4. The victim was sent for her medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Kunkuri, where PW-12 Dr. S. Devri medically examined her and gave report, Ex.P/17 and Ex.P/18. While medically examining the victim, the doctor had not noticed any external injuries on the body of the victim and opined that her hymen was ruptured, old healed tear was present, and she had undergone sexual intercourse. On 19.08.2022 the print out of screen shot from the mobile phone of the victim with respect to transfer of money to the appellant in his mobile phone in 20 pages, the screen shot of face-book profile in the name of Swaraj Paikra, the screen shot of Aadhar card and 4 railway ID card in the name of Swaraj Paikra, the screen shot of face-book profile of the victim, the xerox copy of pass-book of the bank account of the victim and photograph of the appellant produced by the victim have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/3. Spot map Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5 were prepared by the police, and Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Patwari. The social status certificate (Article 1) of the victim has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/7. The police have also seized the entry register of Om Kanha Lodge, Bilaspur, a copy of Aadhar card in the name of Swaraj Paikra and copy of the Aadhar card of the victim which were produced at the time of lodging by the appellant and the victim vide seizure memo Ex.P/10 and after retaining attested true copy of the hotel register Ex.P/9-C, the original register was return back. The bank account statement from Bandhan Bank, Raipur branch, of account No. 50200013662269, which was in the name of the brother of the appellant, has been obtained by the police, which is Ex.P/12, in which the amount has been transferred by the victim. The bank account statement of Bank Account No. 77067207010 from Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Kersai branch has also been obtained by the police, which is Ex.P/14. The account opening form of the victim has also been obtained, which is Ex.P/15, and a copy of the Aadhar card of the victim is Ex.P/16. The account statement of another bank account No. 35294851274 running in the State Bank of India, Tapkara branch, Ex.P/21 of the victim has also been obtained by the police. The appellant who was arrested in the offence of Crime No.37/2022 by the Civil Line, Dhamtari Police and was arrested on 17.07.2022, formally arrested in the present case also on 23.09.2022 after due permission of the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Dhamtari and his memorandum statement Ex.P/26 was recorded. He too was sent for his medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Kunkuri, where he was medically examined by PW-13 Dr. S. Toppo. While medically examining the appellant, no external injuries were found on his 5 body, and the doctor has opined that the appellant is capable to do sexual intercourse. 5. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. Statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 366, 376, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, Section 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (in short “SC/ST Act”), and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short “IT Act”). 6. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offences under Section 376, 420, 468, 471 of IPC, Section 66 of IT Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appear against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 8. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant of the offence of Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. However, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There is no sufficient evidence against the appellant with the respect to the commission of rape upon the victim. The victim is a working woman aged about 28 years. They came into contact through Facebook and WhatsApp, 6 and she had physical relations with the appellant on her own free will without raising any objection or protest. The incident of rape is alleged to be of 10.06.2022 whereas the report has been lodged on 19.08.2022 and in between also they were regularly met with each other and there was frequent transaction of money between them. Had the appellant committed rape upon her, she would have lodged report immediately and would not have made transaction with the appellant. He would also submits that the offence of cheating and preparing of forged documents are not admitted by the appellant but to made the offence more serious, she made allegation of rape against the appellant. He would further submit that no amount has been transferred into the Bank account of the appellant, but the amount has been transferred into the bank account of the brother of the appellant. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence only on suspicion. There is lack of cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant in the case to convict him for the alleged offences, and therefore, he is entitled to his acquittal. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is fully reliable, from which the guilt of the appellant has been duly established. The appellant kept the victim under the assurance that he was in service in the Railway and intentionally deceived her to pay money to him with the intention to cheat her and obtained a huge amount of more than rupees five lakh through the UPI mode of transaction from the victim on various installments in between 12.04.2022 to 16.07.2022. The appellant has also cheated another person at Dhamtari and another report FIR of Crime No. 37/2022 for the offence under Section 354, 420, 419, 468, 471 of IPC, Section 66-D of the IT Act, and Section 3(2)(v-a) and 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, is registered in 7 which he was arrested on 17.07.2022 which shows his criminal tendency and intention to cheat the victim from the very beginning. He allured her by showing himself to be in a good position having service in Railway and on the pretext of marriage he committed rape upon her. After considering the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, which is justified and needs no interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. Based on the evidence produced by the parties before the learned trial Court, the following question for its determination has been framed by the learned trial Court, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- विचारणीय प्रश्न :- 1. क्या, अभियुक्त ने विनांक 16.06.2022 को फर्जी आधार कार्ड, सर्विस कार्ड, फे सबुक में स्यं स्रार्जी पैकरा कं र र्जीाति( का होना ब(ाकर विबलासपुर में ओम कान्हा लॉर्जी सेकण्र्ड फ्लोर में पीवि0(ा को शाी का झांसा ेकर विबलासपुर बुलाकर उसकी इच्छा के विरूद्ध धोखे से सहमति( प्राप्त कर र्जीबरन शारीरिरक संबंध बनाकर उसके साथ बलात्कार विकया? 2. क्या अभियुक्त ने माच 2022 से विनांक 16.07.2022 (क पीवि0(ा को स्यं की र्जीाति( कं र ब(ाकर एं रेल्े विाग में नौकरी करना कहकर फर्जी आधार कार्ड एं सर्विस कार्ड से पीतिर्ड(ा को स्यं के परिरार में ऑपरेशन ईलार्जी एं अपने प्रमोशन में रकम की आश्यक(ा ब(ाकर विभिन्न समय में स्यं सोष अभिला लेने एं पीवि0(ा को सोष हाविन पहुँचाने की आशय से कपटपूक 5,74,797/- रूपये स्यं को ेने उत्प्रेरिर( कर उक्त समस्( रकम स्यं अभिप्राप्त कर बेईमानीपूक पीवि0(ा के साथ छल कारिर( विकया? 3. क्या अभियुक्त ने उक्त विनांक, समय स्थान पर बेईमानीपूक आशय से स्यं मो. महफु र्जी मुसलमान र्जीाति( के होकर छल के प्रयोर्जीन से स्यं स्रार्जी पैंकरा कं र के नाम से आधार कार्ड एं रेल्े विाग में नौकरी करना ब(ाकर फर्जी पहचान पत्र स्रार्जी पैकरा के नाम एं सर्विस स्(ाेर्जी विखाकर प्रार्थिथया के मोबाईल नंबर 7999059502 में अपने ाई और बहन (था स्यं के मोबाईल नंबर 6207820423, 8789886855, 6123572709 के माफ ( पीवि0(ा के व्हाट्सएप में र्डालकर प्रार्थिथया के साथ बेईमानीपूक ठगी करने या छल करने के प्रयोर्जीन में उपयोग में लायी र्जीायेगी र्जीानकर उक्त आधार कार्ड एं पहचान कार्ड की कू टरचना की? 4. क्या अभियुक्त ने उक्त विनांक, समय स्थान पर स्रार्जी पैकरा के नाम का फर्जी आधार कार्ड एं पहचान पत्र जिर्जीसे विमथ्या होना र्जीान(े हुए उसे छल के प्रयोर्जीन से असल के रूप में बेईमानीपूक पीवि0(ा के व्हाट्सएप में र्डालकर उपयोग में लाकर छल कारिर( विकया? 5. क्या अभियुक्त ने उक्त विनांक, समय स्थान पर स्रार्जी पैकरा का आधार कार्ड पहचान पत्र पीवि0(ा से रकम ह0पने के लिलये कपटपूक या बेईमानी से अपनी र्जीाति( मुस्लिस्लम होना र्जीान(े हुए कं र अनुसूतिच( र्जीनर्जीाति( होना शाकर उक्त व्यविक्त स्रार्जी पैकरा के नाम पहचान का प्रयोग छल कारिर( करने हे(ु उपयोग में लाया? 8 6. क्या अभियुक्त ने उक्त विनांक, समय स्थान पर पीवि0(ा को अनुसूतिच( र्जीनर्जीाति( की होना र्जीान(े हुए उसके साथ स ष या उससे अतिधक अतिध के काराास से ंर्डनीय लैविगक हमला बलात्संग का अपराध विकया? 7. ोषजिसतिद्ध एं ंर्डाेश, यवि कोई हो (ो । 12. While considering the offence of rape upon the victim by the appellant on the pretext of marriage, the learned trial Court has considered the evidence of the victim PW-1, who stated in her evidence that the appellant allured her that he is in service in the Railway Department, developed relation through WhatsApp and face-book and assured her that he would marry her and made physical relation with her on 10.06.2022 and subsequently it was found that the appellant has cheated her and obtained Rs. 5,74,797/- on various installments and he is not Swaraj Paikra but he is Mohammad Mahfooj and accused in anther similar offence at Dhamtari. 13. PW-1, the victim, has stated in her evidence that she is working as an Aganbadi Karyakarta since 2017 and is posted at village Ghasi Munda/Ghuikona. In the March 2022, the appellant sent a friend request on Facebook in the name of Swaraj Paikra; she accepted her friend request on the assumption that he would be a person of the same community as she is. He introduced himself as employed at the Railway Department and his mother employed at the State Bank, Raipur and disclosed his monthly salary as Rs. 89,000/-. She exchanged her mobile number 7999059502, and they used to talk with that mobile number. The appellant proposed to her for marriage, and she disclosed his proposal to her family members and accepted his proposal. The appellant sent a copy of his Aadhar card and railway ID through WhatsApp. On demand made by the appellant, she transferred Rs. 20,000/- through phone pay into the account of the appellant. After some days, he again demanded Rs. 1,80,000/- from her on the ground of treatment of her grandmother, which she also transferred in his bank account through phone pay in various instalments on 17.04.2022 and 18.04.2022. After about a week, he again demanded Rs. 45,000/- and she 9 again transferred the same in his account through phone pay. After about a week, when she demanded her money back from the appellant, he started evading her request and assured her that he would repay her money very soon. Between 12.04.2022 to 16.06.2022, she transferred a total of Rs. 5,74,797/- into the account of the appellant in various instalments. On 10.06.2022, the appellant called her at Bilaspur, and when she met him, the appellant took her to a hotel near the railway station and made physical relation with her after assuring her that they would marry very soon. After sometime, she received a message on her WhatsApp that Swaraj Paikra has cheated another girl at Dhamtari, and after seeing the photographs of Swaraj Paikra in the newspaper, she came to know that the appellant is not Swaraj Paikra but his name is Mohammad Mahfooj and resident of Bihar. After considering that she is being cheated by the appellant, she made a written complaint on 19.08.2022 to Tapkara Police Station and submitted the documents of bank transactions and the printout of the Aadhar card, railway ID, photographs and Facebook ID of the appellant. 14. In cross-examination, she admitted that she, on her own will, accepted the friend request and used to talk to him 2 -3 times a day, and they exchanged their mobile numbers. She further stated in para-23 of her cross-examination that she was in love affair with the appellant and she, on her own will, made sweet conversation with him. She further admitted that she is a working girl and used to stay outside for about 1 – 2 days, but she has not stayed at hotel. She very well knows her own well-being and could identify the good and bad people. On 10.06.2022, she, on her own will, had gone to Bilaspur at Radha Krishna Lodge. The appellant has already booked a room there. The room booked by the appellant was not of her choice, and she wanted a better room at another lodge. On the demand made by the employees of the lodge, she gave her Aadhar card to them, and on the basis of her Aadhar card, she got a room there and left the lodge on the next day at about 02:00 10 – 03:00 p.m. During her stay in the lodge, no complaint has been made by her, and there was no nuisance by anyone. When she came to know about the criminal offence against the appellant through WhatsApp, she disclosed it to her parents, and then they took her to the police station. 15. From evidence of the victim PW-1, it appears that she made allegation of rape which was committed on 10.06.2022 when she came to Bilaspur and stayed in the hotel. Only one instance of the rape has been alleged in her complaint as well as her evidence which was made on 10.06.2022, it also reflects from her complaint as well as evidence that even after 10.06.2022, she was in contact with the appellant and transferred the amount on various installments without objection. In her complaint Ex.P/1, she stated that on being asked to repay her amount, the appellant called her at Bilaspur on 10.06.2022 and when she met him, he assured her that up to 15th June, 2022 he would re-pay her entire amount and thereafter he took her to a hotel and in the night he made physical relation with her. It is not stated in her complaint that the appellant made physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage or after giving assurance that he would marry her. Had it been a physical relation against the will or consent of the victim, she would have raised objection at that time itself and would not have engaged in physical relation with the appellant and should have made complaint to the employees present in the hotel or immediately lodged report to the police but she did not nothing and return back to her house. Despite having a physical relation with the appellant, she again indulged in transferring money into the account of the appellant. She, being a major girl aged about 28 years, very well knows her well-being, could not have permitted the appellant to have sexual intercourse before her marriage, if she did not want to have physical relation with him. The entire conduct of the victim dragged this Court to hold that she was a consenting party in making physical relations with the appellant and, on her own will and consent, made physical relations with the appellant. 11 16. While considering the allegation of rape, the victim PW-1, cannot be put into the sterling witness. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Santosh Prasad alias Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar 2020 (3) SCC 443 has held in para 5.4.2 that: 5.4.2. In Rai Sandeep, this Court had an occasion to consider who can be f said to be a "sterling witness". In para 22, it is observed and held as under: (SCC p. 29) "22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged." 17. In the light of the above principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the accused can be convicted only on the basis of the sole testimony 12 of the victim if it is found credible and inspires confidence upon the Court without any further corroboration. The evidence of the victim requires examination with great caution; the evidence of the victim should pass the test of a sterling witness as held in the case of Santosh Prasad (supra). On careful scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence of the victim, the same does not inspire confidence upon this Court with respect to the offence of rape upon her. The manner in which the alleged offence of rape is alleged, does not fulfill the requisite condition for the offence of rape. It is difficult to believe that the appellant has made physical relation with the appellant against her will or consent on the pretext of marriage. It is only when she came to know that she is being cheated by the appellant, she raised allegation of rape against him. The medical report does support the case of the prosecution. The FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. The manner in which the offence of rape is alleged is not believeable in practical situation. In view of the above discussion and relying upon the judgment of Santosh Prasad (supra), benefit of doubt must go in favour of the appellant with respect to the offence of rape. 18. So far as the other offences are concerned in the present case, I again examine the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 19. PW-1, the victim, has stated in her evidence that between 12.04.2022 to 16.06.2022 she transferred a total of Rs. 5,74,797/- in the account of the appellant in various instalments on the demand made by the appellant for various reasons. In cross-examination she admitted that she accepted the friend request of the appellant on her own and there was no pressure upon her, she is aged about 28 years and she opened her Facebook account in the year 2020 and she connected with about 90 persons through Facebook including 45 to 50 male members, she used to talk with the appellant 2 - 3 times daily. She further stated that on 12.04.2022, she first time transferred the money into the account of the appellant, and the account in which she 13 transferred the money was shown in the name of Mohammad Khalid Tanveer. She voluntarily stated that the appellant had fed the names of other persons into his account. She further admitted that all the amounts have been transferred into the account, which was in the name of Mohammad Khalid Tanveer. She further admitted that on 29.04.2022, 01.05.2022 and 04.05.2022, the amount was transferred into the account of the appellant, which was in the name of Tarannum Naaz. She voluntarily stated that the appellant disclosed her as his sister. She further admitted that she transferred the money to the appellant in the months of June, July and August 2022. The name of the account holder was Mohammad Mahfooj. The total amount of Rs. 5,74,797/- transferred by her was in the account belonging to the Muslim community, and it was transferred on the demand made by the appellant. The appellant demanded the money on the pretext of the treatment of his grandmother and his mother. Whenever she showed her wish to meet his family members, the appellant evaded for one or another reason. She came to know from WhatsApp news that the appellant is engaged in another offence, and then she disclosed it to her parents, and then she lodged a written complaint, Ex.P/1. From her evidence, it is quite vivid that the alleged amount of Rs. 5,74,797/- was transferred from the bank account of the victim on various dates. The account number given by the appellant to her through the phone pay/UPI mode of transfer. From the bank account statement Ex.P/12 it also reflects that the amount was transferred in the bank account of Mohammad Khalid Tanveer from the account of the victim who is the brother of the appellant and the appellant could not denied the said fact and could not extracted any material in the corss-examination of the victim that the amount has not been transferred in the account of his brother on his instance. The victim has also produced the copy of Aadhar card and railway ID which was sent by the appellant through whatsApp which strengthen the case of the prosecution that the appellant was having 14 intention to cheat the victim from very beginning and deceived her to deliver the amount by showing himself to be in employment in the railway department and having in good financial condition. The appellant could not have denied that another offence of a similar nature has been registered at Dhamtari Police Station, in which he was also arrested. 20. PW-2, the father of the victim, has stated in his evidence that his daughter was in touch with the appellant and her daughter informed him that she transferred an amount of Rs. 5,74,797/- in the account of the appellant on various instalments for the treatment of his mother and grandmother. The appellant introduced himself as Swaraj Paikra, and his daughter subsequently informed him that the actual name of Swaraj Paikra is Mohammad Mahfooj, and he had cheated his daughter. In cross- examination, he remained firm in saying that his daughter has transferred the amount of Rs. 5,74,797/- to the appellant. He himself gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to his daughter to send it through the appellant on the assurance given by the appellant that he would repay the amount. He also stated that there was a love affair between the appellant and his daughter, and they used to talk to each other through the mobile phone. 21. PW-3, the mother of the victim, has stated in her evidence that her daughter has informed her that she transferred about Rs. 6,00,000/- in the account of the appellant for the treatment of his mother and grandmother. The appellant introduced himself as Swaraj Paikra, but his actual name of Mohammad Mahfooj, and he cheated her daughter. In cross-examination, she admitted that she gave Rs. 2,00,000/- to her daughter to give it to the appellant. She admitted that they lodged the report against the appellant with the intention of recovering their amount from the appellant. She voluntarily stated that the appellant assured them that they would repay their amount. 22. PW-4 is the Manager of the Om Kanha Lodge. He stated in his evidence that on 10.06.2022 the room No. 102 of the Hotel was booked in the name of 15 Swaraj Paikra and the victim, and they checked out the room on 12.06.2022. In cross-examination, he stated that the appellant and the victim had disclosed that they are friends and no complaint had been made by the victim at that time. Both of them have signed the register while checking in and checking out. He provided them with the room after verifying their documents. 23. PW-5 is the witness of the seizure memo Ex.P/10 by which the copy of the ID card of the guest of the hotel was seized. 24. PW-6 is the Bank Manager of the Bandhan Bank, Raigarh branch. He proved the bank statement of account No. 50200013662269, which was in the name of Khalid Tanveer, who is the brother of the appellant, which is Ex.P/12. He stated in his evidence that there are various transactions in the said account through UPI. In cross-examination, the defence could not demolish the transaction made in the said bank account. 25. PW-7, the relative of the victim, has stated in her evidence that the victim demanded Rs. 50,000/- in the year 2022 for giving it to the appellant for the treatment of his mother. She gave the said amount to the victim, and subsequently the victim disclosed that the appellant had cheated her and taken Rs. 5,74,797/- from her. In cross-examination, this witness also remained firm in saying that she gave Rs. 50,000/- to the victim for giving it to the appellant on his demand. She also knows about the relationship between the appellant and the victim. 26. PW-8 is the Anganbadi worker and is known to the victim. She also gave Rs. 50,000/- to the victim on being demanded by her to give it to the appellant for the treatment of his mother. In cross-examination, she stated that Rs. 30,000/- she withdrew from her bank account, and Rs. 20,000/- cash, which was kept in her house, was given to the victim to help the appellant, as he had made a request to the victim. She also knows about the relationship and conversation between the appellant and the victim. 16 27. PW-9 is the Branch Manager of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank in Kersai Branch and has proved the bank statement of the bank account No. 77067207010 of the victim Ex.P/14, in which various transactions have been made through UPI. She disclosed the details of the transaction in the said bank account of the victim. 28. PW-10 is the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Tapkara Branch, who has proved the bank statement of the victim of account No. 35294851274, which is Ex.P/16. In cross-examination, nothing could be extracted with respect to the alleged transaction from the bank account of the victim through the UPI mode. 29. PW-11 is the Patwari who prepared the Spot Map (Ex-P/8). PW/12 Dr. S. Deveri, who medically examined the victim and gave a report (Ex-P/17) and (Ex-P/18). While medically examining the victim, she found no external injuries on her body and found that she had undergone sexual intercourse. 30. PW-13, Dr. S. Toppo, has medically examined the appellant and given a report (Ex-P/19). No external injuries have been found on his body, and the doctor has found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. 31. PW-14, the lady constable, took the victim for her medical examination to the Community Health Centre, Kunkuri. PW/15 is the witness of seizure memo (Ex-P/3) by which the screenshot of the bank transaction through UPI mode from the mobile phone of the victim has been seized. 32. PW/16 is the investigating officer, who carried out the entire process of investigation which he conducted after receiving the written complaint (Ex- P/2) from the victim, he registered the offence and after due process of investigation, added the offences under the SC/ST Act and made application to the Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, for further investigation through the gazetted Police Officer. In cross-examination, he remained firm in the entire process of investigation which he conducted, though, he stated in his cross- examination that he has not enquired from Khalid Tanveer and Tarannum 17 Naz, but that itself does not dilute his evidence that the amount has been transferred through UPI mode from the account of the victim to the account of the above said persons on the instance of the appellant. 33. With respect to the offence of forgery and cheating, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Ram Narayan Popli Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 3 SCC 641, that: "366. Section 420 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The offence of cheating is made of two ingredients: deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. To put it differently, the ingredients of the offence are that the person deceived delivers to someone a valuable security or property, that the person so deceived was induced to do so, that such person acted on such inducement in consequence of his having been deceived by the accused and that the accused acted fraudulently or dishonestly when so inducing the person. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the d deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of the transaction itself. 367. Section 467 relates to forgery of such documents as valuable securities and of other documents mentioned. 368. Section 468 deals with forgery for the purpose of cheating. The offence is complete as soon as there was forgery with a particular intent. 369. Section 471 deals with using as genuine a forged document. For the purpose of convicting an accused under Section 467 read with Section 471 IPC, it has to be shown that an accused either knew or has reason to believe that the document was forged. 370. Section 463 defines forgery and Section 464 deals with making a false statement. Section 463 reads as follows: "463. Forgery. Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." 371. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community. 18 372. The expression "intent to defraud" implies conduct coupled with an hintention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions, namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property. The term "forgery" as used in the statute a is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation. 373. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention. The questions are (i) is the document false, (ii) is it made by the accused, and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If at all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty. 374. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however small. 375. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed. 376. A false description makes a document of forgery when it is found that the accused by giving such false description intended to make out or wanted it to believe that it was not he that was executing the document but another person. 377. The accused persons have tried to take shelter behind what they have described as "market practices". Such practices even if existing, cannot take the place of statutory and regulatory functions. There is no public e interest involved in such practices and they cannot be a substitute for compliance with the regulatory or statutory prescriptions. An attempt was made to show that there was subsequent disapproval of the market practices; at the point of time when the transactions took place there was no embargo. It is their stand that the practices were a part of accepted norms. We do not find anything plausible in these explanations. A practice even if was prevailing, if f wrong, is not to be approved. The subsequent clarifications do not in any way put seal of approval on the practices adopted in the past, on the other hand it condemns it." 34. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the appellant introduced himself as Swaraj Paikara and developed a relationship with the victim, showing himself as the employee of the Railway department and having a good financial position and proposed the victim for marriage. He obtained a 19 total of Rs. 5,74,797/- on various instalments from the victim on the pretext of the treatment of his mother and grandmother. When the victim came to know that the name of the appellant is not Swaraj Paikara, but he is Mohammad Mahfooj, she felt cheated by him, and then she lodged a report to the Police. The transaction of the money has been proved by the prosecution by producing the bank account statements of the victim as well as Mohd. Khalid Tanvir, who is the brother of the appellant. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire evidence available on record and appreciating in its letter and spirit, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 66 of IT Act. After having considered the evidence available on record, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, however, there is no sufficient evidence against the appellant to convict him for the offence under Section 376 of IPC. 35. In the result, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC is hereby set aside and he has been acquitted from that offence, however, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 66 of IT Act are hereby affirmed. 36. The appellant is reported to have been in jail since 23.09.2022, he shall undergo the entire sentence awarded by the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. The sentences awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently. 37. The appellant is entitled to set off his undergone period during the trial as well as during the pendency of the present appeal. 38. With the aforesaid consideration, the appeal is partly allowed. 39. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail 20 the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 40. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.06.09 10:32:03 +0530