Dismissed

Teekaram Sahu v. Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2024ACQA/59/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an acquittal appeal under Section 500 IPC relating to a defamation allegation concerning pregnancy. The court held that the society's inquiry was conducted in good faith under the Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of the respondents was affirmed on the ground of good faith under Ninth Exception of Section 499 IPC.

Teekaram Sahu Vs Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu and Ors. — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 59 of 2012

¶5

Teekaram Sahu, S/o Late Pyariram Sahu, R/o Village Donar, Post. Jhiria, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu And Ors. S/o Shivdayal Sahu, R/o Village And Post Bhothai, Tahsil And Distt.-Dhamtari, C.G.

¶9

Bishat Ram Sahu S/o Shri Hinchchram Sahu, R/o Village Dheemertukur Navagaon, Post Jhiria, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G)

¶10

Manmohan Sahu S/o Shivdayal Sahu, R/o Village & Post Bhothali, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G)

¶11

Igu @ Yogeshwar Sahu S/o Lekram Sahu R/o Village Doner, Post Jhiria, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G)

¶12

Lekhram Sahu S/o Halaluram Sahu R/o Village Donar, Post Jhiria, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G)

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

CAUSE TITLE DOWNLOADED FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶15

………………………………………………………………………… For Appellant : Mr. D.N Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vidyabhushan Soni, appears on behalf of Mr. B.P Singh

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

04.01.2024

¶19

The acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2011 in Criminal Complaint Case No.128/2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari (C.G), whereby the respondents/accused has been acquitted of the charges under Section 500 of

¶20

¶21

the Indian Penal Code for defamation.

¶22

Prosecution case in brief is that appellant has filed a complaint under Section 500/34 of the IPC against the accused persons alleging that on 07.08.2004 the appellant was served with a notice by respondent No.2 & 3 whereby the appellant was called regarding pregnancy of one Shakun Bai and the accused persons pressurized the appellant to accept the pregnancy carried by Shakun Bai, despite the fact Shakun Bai admitted such pregnancy with another person namely, Igu @ Yogeshwar Sahu and the appellant was also ousted from the society for such act. To prove such fact complainant has examined himself and two other witnesses namely, Nohar (PW-2) and Devlal Sahu (PW-3). The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.PC stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and examined one defence witness namely, Kuleshwar Sahu (DW-1). After the evidence the trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charges, hence this Appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective as there was sufficient ingredients available in the evidence to attract the offence under Section 500 of the IPC. So, learned counsel prays to allow the appeal and

¶24

¶25

convict the respondents/accused.

¶26

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused would submit that the trial Court has rightly invoked the Ninth Exception of Section 499 of the IPC as in the social meeting an enquiry was made when one of the society members Shakun Bai made an allegation about the pregnancy, so to find out the truth, in good faith, such imputation was made. Hence, no offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC attracts and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused of the aforesaid charge and prays to dismiss the Appeal.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶28

In the statement recorded by the complainant Teekaram (PW-1) himself categorically admits that in the caste society when the victim applies for redressal of any grievance then a notice was issued to the concerned parties. He further admits that on 07.08.2004 the meeting was convened about the pregnancy of Shakun Bai and in the said meeting he has denied the said allegation and he is not aware of the decision taken in such meeting. He further admits that no final decision was taken about the pregnancy of Shakun Bai. Complainant’s another witness

¶29

¶30

Nohar (PW-2) also admits in cross-examination that in the said meeting Shakun Bai was also called and an enquiry was made about the pregnancy of Shakun Bai for which an allegation was made against the appellant/complainant and in the said meeting complainant has denied the allegation. So no decision was arrived at in such meeting. He further admits at para 11 that after such meeting there was no such community boycott of Teekaram (PW-1) and he was participating in the marriage and other funeral social functions. Devlal Sahu (PW-3) has also stated on the similar lines and further stated in the cross-examination that in the societal meeting a register was maintained and signature was obtained but he is not aware whether his signature was obtained or not and no such register was produced.

¶31

Considering the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court has rightly invoked the Ninth Exception of Section 499 of the IPC which reads thus:

¶32

Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests. -It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

¶33

In view of the aforesaid evidence and as per the allegation of the pregnancy of Shakun Bai, societal members made

¶34

¶35

an enquiry so the Exception 9 squarely attracts and the enquiry was made in bonafide manner, so there is no legal or factual error in appreciating of the evidence the finding arrived by the trial Court is affirmed.

¶36

Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶39

Priyanka/Shoaib

Teekaram Sahu v. Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teekaram Sahu v. Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu and Ors.

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

Ramesh Agrawal Vs Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors.

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Munnilal

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Uttam Vyapari

Cypirion Jacob Vs Vijay John

Anil Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh