Allowed

Gaurav Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2023CRA/41/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 509 IPC. The court held that the conviction relied solely on a letter whose authorship was not conclusively established as genuine by the trial court, leading to acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment is set aside; the appellant is acquitted of the charge and sent back the record for compliance.

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2022

¶5

Gaurav Singh S/o Late Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Subhash Nagar (Type-I) Ayudh Nirman Katni, Police Station Mahab Nagar, District Katani (M.P.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJAK Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Shri A.S. Ansari, Advocate For State/Respondent : Shri Ankur Kashyap, P.L.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

02/08/2023

¶14

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 08.12.2021 passed in Special Criminal Case No.10/2019 by the Special Judge, The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable as mentioned below:

¶15

	Conviction		Sentence
U/s 509	of Indian Penal Code,	R.I. for 1 i	year and i	fine of
1860		Rs.1,000/-	with	default

¶16

¶17

stipulations

¶18

In the prsent case prosecutrix (PW-6) is a major lady aged about 40 years and she is a member of scheduled tribe community but the appellant herein is not a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community. A written complaint has been lodged by the prosecutrix vide Ex.P-8 mentioning that she and the appellant became friend through facebook and thereafter, the appellant proposed her for marriage and thereafter, they were in love relation. The appellant on pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her on various ocassions for a month. Later on, the prosecutrix came to know that the appellant was already a married person, then she broke up with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant threatened the prosecutrix saying that he will viral her obscene photo through whatsapp. It is further alleged that the appellant used to demand Rs.10 Lacs for deletion of the said obscene photos of the prosecutrix. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR has been lodged vide Ex.P-9. Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr.Anju Tirki (PW1). Statements of the prosecutrix were recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. Statement of other witnesses were also recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 384, 376, 509-B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ‘ the Act of 1989’). To prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses, whereas no defence witness has been examined by the appellant. The appellant

¶19

¶20

in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶21

After completion of the trial, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under Section 384, 376 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, however, convicted him as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that without there being any clinching evidence on record the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. He further submits that conviction of the appellant under Section 509 of the IPC is based upon the letter, allegedly, written by the appellant. The said letter is not exhibited before the Trial Court inspite of that the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the said letter was written by the appellant. Morever, in this regard no explanation has been sought by the Trial Court from the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. while his examination. Thus, grave prejudice has been caused to the appellant. It is further submitted that if the entire contents of the alleged act is taken as it is then also it does not constitute the offence under Section 509 of the IPC. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.

¶23

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and requires no interference.

¶24

I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record minutely.

¶25

¶26

On a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals that the Trial court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of contents of the letter written by the appellant. The said letter though has been seized by the prosecution but it has not been proved during trial by the prosecution. The Trial Court on comparing the signature of the said letter with the signature of the appellant in the ordersheet and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., arrived at the conclusion that the said letter has been written by the appellant himself. On perusal of paragraph 45 of the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court, it reveals that the Trial Court has arrived on the conclusion that the signature found in the alleged letter and the signature found in the ordersheet and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. are same. If the above finding recorded by the Trial Court is taken as it is, then also, it is not established that the letter was written by the appellant. Mere presence of signature in the letter do not reflect that the letter was written by the appellant himself. Further, the Trial Court has also not given any opportunity to the appellant to explain this fact nor put any question before him while his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant.

¶27

Apart from the above, careful perusal of the contents of the alleged letter shows that there is nothing on the letter which shows that the appellant was intended to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such

¶28

¶29

gesture or object shall be seen, by the prosecutrix/complainant. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 509 of the IPC is not sustainable.

¶30

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.

¶31

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

¶32

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶33

Prakash

Gaurav Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yatindra Kumar Soni Vs Mr. Abhay Jaiswal

Jagdish Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sewaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chaituram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua (I. a. S.)

Rishi Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh