1 CGHC010317392017 2026:CGHC:31329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 255 of 2017 Reserved on 15/07/2026 Pronounced on 22/07/2026 Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit S/o Late Balram Singh Dixit, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bilaspur Hospital, Mangla, Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Hori Singh Daud, S/o Tulsiram Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bemetara, Tahsil, Police Station And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. (Accused) --- Respondents Appellant : Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit- in person For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Govt. Advocate appears along with Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shaswat Mishra, Advocate AND ACQA No. 258 of 2017 Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit S/o Late Balram Singh Dixit, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Bilaspur Hospital Mangla, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2026.07.22 16:24:21 +0530 2 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rameshwar Singh S/o Baldau Singh Thakur, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Pipartarai, Police Station And Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Accused) --- Respondents Appellant : Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit- in person For State/ Respondent No.1 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Govt. Advocate appears along with Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Advocate (S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal) C A V Judgment 1. Since these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 30/12/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.61/2015, whereby, the respondents No.2-Hori Singh Daud and Rameshwar Singh, respectively, in both these appeals, have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC, while reversing the judgment dated 23/03/2015 of their conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Case No.275/2012, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the said respondents have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 500/34 of IPC, based upon the complaint made by the complainant/appellant- Dr. Gopendra Singh Dixit, wherein, it was alleged that his father- Balram Singh, who was the live member of “Rajput Kshatriya Mahasabha”, a registered Society, having its Registration No.1282 was 3 expelled by the said Society vide its judgment dated 22/08/2004, while using defamatory and unhealthy words, as he got the marriage of his son, the complainant herein, solemnized with a girl, namely, Akanksha Parihar belonging to the other Society and, also on the ground for the deprivation of his father to perform the last rituals of his grand-father, namely,Toran Singh, who died on 27/10/2006 by his uncle, namely, Maheshwar Singh (and the appeal preferred against him has been held to be abated on account of his death, vide order dated 29/11/2024 in Acquittal Appeal No.253/2017). 3. It, however, appears from perusal of the record, that although it is alleged by the complainant that his father- Balram Singh was expelled from the Society vide judgment dated 22/08/2004 while using defamatory words against him, but in order to substantiate the same, neither the copy of alleged judgment passed by the said Society was placed on record before the trial Court, nor the members of the concerned Committee, who passed the said judgment, were impleaded, nor even the complainant and his witnesses were aware that what was happened in the meeting held on 22/08/2004 leading to the expulsion of his father in a defamatory manner. 4. Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-21 are the documents/letters, issued by the Society, indicating the meetings are to be convened on 13/07/2004 and 22/08/2004 regarding the issue pertaining to the solemnization of the complainant’s marriage with a girl, who is not affiliated with his Society. Therefore, in absence of the alleged judgment passed by the Society on 22/08/2004 coupled with the fact that neither the complainant, nor his witnesses were aware as to what had happened in the said 4 meeting, it cannot be said that the complainant’s father- Balram Singh was expelled while using defamatory words as alleged by the complainant. Even father of him has never raised such an issue as was raised by his son, the appellant herein, after the sad demise of his father. 5. It is to be noted here further at this juncture that the copy of the said order/judgment dated 22/08/2004 has been placed before this Court for the first time, while preferring these appeals, but a bare perusal of it would, however, nowhere suggests that any kind of defamatory words have been used, as alleged by the complainant/ appellant. 6. Pertinently, to be noted here further as revealed from para-7 of the complainant’s testimony, that the relationship of his father was cordial in nature with his uncle- Maheshwar Singh during his life time and he (Balram Singh) never lodged the complaint as such, either against him, or any member of his Society, who passed the alleged expulsion of him. Therefore, in such an eventuality, merely on the bald allegation, made in the alleged complaint, it cannot even be inferred from the stretch of any imagination that he was defamed by said respondents, owing to which, he felt insulted and because of that, he died in the month of April, 2010. Besides, a bare perusal of his (complainant) statement, as well as of his brother- Ghanshyam Dixit (PW-3), as evident from para-10 and 2, respectively, would show that his father has even failed to appear at the time of performance of his last rituals, though, he (deceased- Maheshwar Singh) was found to be waiting for him, as revealed from para-2 of the testimony of one Ramavatar Mishra (DW-1). 5 7. It is to be seen further, as revealed from the recitals made in the registered deed of sale dated 23/08/1994, purported to have been executed by said Toran Singh, the grand-father of the complainant, in favour of his younger son- Maheshwar Singh, where he was authorized to perform his last rituals. Therefore, in view of such circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant’s father- Balram Singh was deprived to perform the last rituals of his father- Toran Singh, as alleged by the complainant, or he got insulted in this regard and has died because of the alleged humiliation. 8. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate Court acquitting the said respondents from the commission of the alleged crime while reversing the judgment of their conviction and order of sentence dated 23/03/2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Class, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Case No.275/2012, so as to call for any interference in these appeals. 9. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita 6