Dismissed¶52

Smt. Annapurna Dhiwar v. Kul Singh Kanwar

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2025ACQA/514/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; ACQA No. 514 of 2019; decided 03/09/2025 by Deepak Kumar Tiwari J. Defamation under Section 500 IPC; Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC; complaint by village Sarpanch to Block Education Officer/Janpad Panchayat/Collector about Shiksha Karmi's educational qualification held protected; enquiry found complaint baseless; no reputational harm; acquittal upheld; standard for interfering with acquittal per 2025 INSC 114; appeal dismissed at motion stage; respondent unrepresented though served.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 500 IPC stands upheld, the appeal being dismissed at the motion stage itself. ¶52

Smt. Annapurna Dhiwar Vs Kul Singh Kanwar — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the acquittal of the respondent/accused under Section 500 IPC stands upheld, the appeal being dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere with the appellate Court's judgment acquitting the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 500 IPC, the appellant contending that the trial Court's conviction rested on cogent evidence and the appellate finding is perverse. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The appellate Court's reversal of the trial Court's conviction is well merited, the appellate Court having assigned cogent reasons, and the High Court finds no good ground to interfere with that finding.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Where a public person such as a Sarpanch, on any score, has a suspicion that a person within his jurisdiction has been wrongly appointed and makes a complaint to the authorities seeking necessary enquiry, the Eighth Exception to Section 499 IPC is squarely applicable.

¶47

Key takeaways

No harm to the complainant's reputation can be said to have been caused when, ultimately upon enquiry, the allegation in the complaint was found baseless; the respondent/accused had merely sought an enquiry with regard to the complainant's service.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal Appeal (ACQA) by the complainant against the Special Judge's judgment allowing the accused's appeal and setting aside his conviction under S. 500 IPC. HELD: (i) Where a public person such as a Sarpanch, on any score, suspects that a person within his jurisdiction has been wrongly appointed and makes a complaint to the authorities seeking necessary enquiry, the Eighth Exception to S. 499 IPC is squarely applicable; (ii) when the enquiry ultimately finds the allegation baseless, no harm to reputation can be said to have been caused, the accused having merely sought an enquiry regarding the complainant's service; (iii) the appellate Court's reversal of the trial Court's conviction was well merited with cogent reasons and called for no interference. Appeal dismissed at the motion stage itself, relying on Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another v. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114 (interference with acquittal only on patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or absence of two reasonable views).

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:44859

¶3

Digitally signed by AVINASH AVINASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.04 14:16:01 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

ACQA No. 514 of 2019

¶7

1 - Smt. Annapurna Dhiwar W/o Anant Kumar Dhiwar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village- Tikeja, Police Station- Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (complainant).

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Kul Singh Kanwar S/o Late Sahoran Singh Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Tilkeja, Police Station- Urga, Tahsil And District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (accused).

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Shri H.V. Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None, though served.

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judgment on Board

¶13

03/09/2025

¶14

This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Caste/Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Korba C.G in Criminal Appeal No.68/2018, which in turn, arise out of the judgment dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba District Korba C.G.

¶15

By the impugned judgment, learned appellate Court allowed the appeal

¶16

¶17

filed by the respondent/accused and acquitted him of the charge under Section 500 IPC and set aside the judgment 09.08.2018 whereby, JMFC, Korba convicted the respondent/accused for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional simple imprisonment for one month.

¶18

As per the complaint, the same was filed by the appellant on 17.09.2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba C.G., making averments inter alia that she is a resident of village Tilkeja and was duly selected by Janpad Panchayat, Korba on 01.07.1998 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and since then, she has been performing her duties on the said post. Respondent/accused, who was the then village Sarpanch of village Tilkeja, on account of political rivalry with husband of complainant, with an intention to defame her filed a complaint before the Block Education Officer, Korba, Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Korba and Collector, Korba on 23.05.12 by alleging that the complainant does not possess the requisite educational qualification. The complainant has not filed proper marksheet as instead of Matriculation marksheet, she has filed marksheet of 12^th standard. The respondent has also spread rumours about the complaint, which harmed the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of general public. After necessary enquiry, the complaint case was registered on 20.08.2015 and during trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶19

In order to prove its case, complainant/appellant examined herself as CW-1 and Harishankar as CW-2 and exhibited five documents vide

¶20

¶21

Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5. In the letter dated 25.08.2012 (Ex.P/1) of Janpad Panchayat Korba, it has been mentioned that the complaint was found baseless. In the enquiry, it has been revealed that the complainant has passed 12^th standard in the year 1992 and she was appointed on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the year 1998. Taking into consideration, the said fact, the enquiry Officer Assistant Block Development Education Officer, Korba reached to the conclusion that the complaint is baseless. Copies of the complaint and the enquiry report have been annexed in support of the complaint. Further, Primary certificate vide Ex.P/2, Middle school certificate of the complainant vide Ex.P/3, High school certificate vide Ex.P/4, Higher Secondary School certificate vide Ex.P/5 has also been annexed.

¶22

In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., respondent/accused pleaded that he has been falsely implicated and did not adduce any defence evidence.

¶23

Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted the respondent/accused as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment. Against which, he has preferred an Appeal, which was allowed vide impugned judgment. Hence this Appeal.

¶24

Counsel for the appellant submits that appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective though the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons and reached to a categorical finding that the respondent/accused has committed an offence of defamation. He submits that as there is ample evidence against the respondent/accused, the finding recorded by the appellate Court is perverse and prays to allow

¶25

¶26

the Appeal.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal carefully.

¶28

In order to attract offence under Section 500 IPC, the prosecution has to

¶29

prove three necessary ingredients, which are as follows:-

¶30

(i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person;

¶31

(ii) Such imputation must have been made by

¶32

(a) words, either spoken or intended to be read; or

¶33

(b) signs; or

¶34

¶35

(iii) Such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.

¶36

10.It is well settled that despite proof of the aforesaid elements, if the delinquent succeeds in proving at least by preponderance of probability that he is entitled to the protective umbrella of any of the exceptions, the delinquent would be out of the offence.

¶37

11.There are ten exceptions to the offence of defamation under Section 499 of IPC. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person falls under the Eighth Exception, which is as under:

¶38

Eighth Exception .— It is not defamation to prefer in good

¶39

faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

¶40

ILLUSTRATION

¶41

If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's

¶42

¶43

master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z's father-A is within this exception.

¶44

12.In the present case also, it is not in dispute that the complaint filed was

¶45

an accusation that the complainant has secured the job without possessing the requisite qualification at the time of appointment. The complainant’s appointment was made in the year 1998 on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by Janpad Panchayat, Korba and she was posted in the Primary school Vimtala. At the relevant time, the complainant had filed the marksheet of 11^th standard and thereafter in the year 1996, she filed her 12^th standard marksheet, therefore, an enquiry was sought.

¶46

On perusal of the nature of complaint, which has been annexed along with Ex.P/1, it would show that the same was preferred by the respondent/accused, who was holding the post of the then Sarpanch of village Tilkeja and an enquiry has also been conducted by the concerned Authorities on the basis of the said complaint. Later on, it was revealed that the complainant had passed the examination of 12^th standard in the year 1992 and was appointed on the subject post in the year 1998.

¶47

14.If any public person such as Sarpanch, on any score, has a suspicion that a person within his jurisdiction has been wrongly appointed and makes a complaint to the Authorities, seeking necessary enquiry, this Court is of the view that the Eighth Exception to Section 499 of the IPC is squarely applicable in such case. Even if the respondent/accused is claiming in the public that he has made such nature of the complaint only on this basis, it cannot be said that any harm has been caused to a person’s reputation, when, ultimately upon enquiry, the said allegation in the form of

¶48

¶49

complaint was found baseless. In the instant case, the respondent/accused had merely sought an enquiry with regard to the service of the complainant.

¶50

15.Recently, in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & another vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2025 INSC 114, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

¶51

16.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of appellate Court while reversing the finding of trial Court is well merited as the appellate Court has assigned cogent reasons and this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the said finding.

¶52

17.Accordingly, this Appeal bereft of merit is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶55

Avinash

Smt. Annapurna Dhiwar v. Kul Singh Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annapurna Dhiwar v. Kul Singh Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakuntala Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pragati Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Maryadit, Vs a. Channeya

Pragati Mahila Sahakari Bank Maryadit Vs a. Channeya

Navin Mishra Vs Sanjay Patel

Smt. Kirti Kurian Vs Ajay Singh

Smt. Jeeteshwari Daga (Died Through Lrs) Vs Alekh Kumar Sahu