Rupram Patel Vs Gendlal

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:50411

¶3

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CRR No. 45 of 2018

¶5

1 - Rupram Patel Son Of Shri Kapleshwar Patel, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Behramar, Police Station And Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

2 - Khemchand Patel, Son Of Shri Leelaram Patel, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Hati, Thana Chhal, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

3 - Hridayram Patel, Son Of Shri Sannath Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Puranga, Thana Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

4 - Thururam Patel, Son Of Shri Balakram Patel, Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Dharamjaygarh, Thana Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

5 - Himachal Patel, Son Of Shri Baloodram Patel, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Shahpur, Thana Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

6 - Parmanand Patel, Son Of Shri Puranlal Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Shahpur, Thana Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

7 - Madhoram Patel, Son Of Shri Maniram Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Shahpur, Thana Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - Gendlal Son Of Shri Hemraj Patel, Aged About 42 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Tendumar, P. S. And Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

--- Respondent(s)

¶17

&

¶18

CRR No. 193 of 2018

¶19

1 - Gendlal S/o Shri Hemram Aged About 42 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Tendumar, Police Station And Tahsil Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

--- Applicant

2

Versus

1 - Rupram Patel S/o Shri Kapleshwar Aged About 60 Years R/o Beharamar, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶24

2 - Khemchandra Patel S/o Shri Leelaram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Hati, Police Station Chhal, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶25

3 - Hridayram Patel S/o Shri Sannath Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Purunga, Police Station Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶26

4 - Thururam Patel S/o Shri Balak Ram Patel Aged About 68 Years R/o Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶27

5 - Himanchal Patel S/o Shri Baludram Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Shahpur, Police Station Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶28

6 - Parmanand Patel S/o Shri Puranlal Patel Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Shahpur, Police Station Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 7 - Madhoram S/o Shri Maniram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Shahpur, Police Station Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶29

--- Respondent(s)

¶30

For Applicants :	Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For Complainant-Gendlal:	Shri Ankit Singh, Advocate.
For State :	Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Advocate.

¶31

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on board

¶32

09.10.2025

¶33

1. Since common facts and issues are involved in these two revisions and are arise out of same proceeding, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

¶34

2. Criminal Revision No.45 of 2018 has been filed by the applicants who are the accused persons in complainant case No.30 of 2010 filed by the respondent No.1 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamjaigarh, in which they have been convicted for the offence under Section 500 IPC vide judgment dated 18.09.2017 and their appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence filed before

¶35

3

¶36

First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2017 has been dismissed vide its judgment dated 22.12.2017.

¶37

3. Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2018 has been filed by the complainant for examining of legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and prayed for enhancement of sentenced against the accused persons for the offence under Section 500 IPC. The trial court while convicting the appellants, sentenced them till rising of the court with fine of Rs.500/- to each of the accused persons. In default of payment of fine, further RI for 15 days. The appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence has also been dismissed by the appellate court vide its judgment dated 22.12.2017. Hence this Revision.

¶38

4. The subject matter of both these appeals are that, the complainant Gend Lal filed a complaint case before the JMFC, Dharamjaigarh, for the offence under Section 500 IPC with an allegation that on 05.04.2009 at about 4 PM the complainant was ostracized from the community by the accused persons and kept them away from their family functions as well as community functions and thereby they defamed and intentionally insults the complainant in the village by which the complainant felt annoyed. The complainant was not permitted to participate in any family function or even final rites of community members. On the complaint made by the complainant, the trial court called police report from Police Station Dharamjaigarh, registered the offence and notices were issued to the accused persons. The details of offence were explained to the accused persons. They denied their offence and prayed for trial of the case.

¶39

4

¶40

5. During trial, the complainant examined four witnesses in his support. The statement under Section 313 CrPC of the accused persons have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, pleaded innocence and submitted that on 07.09.2008 a village meeting was called on the instance of complainant with respect to land dispute between brothers. During the village meeting the complainant refused the decision taken by the community and as such settlement could not be arrived at that time. There was an altercation between the complainant and his brothers with respect to land in dispute for which a report was also lodged at Police Station Dharamjaigarh and the present accused persons are witness in that Criminal Case who have been falsely implicated in the present complaint case only to create pressure upon them not to depose against the complainant. In their defence, one defence witness Khageshwar Patel have been examined.

¶41

6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the complainant, the trial court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them till rising of court with fine of Rs. 500/-to each of the accused persons. The said conviction and sentences were challenged separately by the accused persons as well as complainant before the appellate court and vide its judgment dated 22.12.2017 both the appeals have been dismissed against which the present two Criminal Revisions have been filed.

¶42

7. Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the accuses persons in Criminal Revision No.45 of 2018 would submit that there is no ingredients of Section 500 IPC in the evidence led by the complainant. There is no

¶43

5

¶44

act done by them which defamed the complainant in village. The witnesses as well as complainant have admitted in their evidence that even after the said meeting, the complainant used to go to the house of community members as well as various functions of community and final rites of the community member. There is no restriction against the complainant by any of the accused persons. There is no specific allegation in the complaint filed by the complainant with respect to act done by them against each of the accused persons and general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against them. It is only a dispute between the complainant and his brothers with respect to a piece of land for which a report was lodged to the police and present accused persons were the witness. In absence of any cogent and clinching evidence, their conviction cannot be sustained and the applicants are entitled for their acquittal. In alternative, he would also submit that if this court comes in to conclusion that there is no perversity in the findings of guilt recorded by the courts below and affirms the conviction and sentence against the accused persons, then considering the fact that the applicants are the first offender, the manner in which the incident occurred and the nature of offence, it does not constitute an offence amounting to moral turpitude and therefore it may be directed that conviction and sentence of the applicants will not affect their service career.

¶45

8. Shri Ankit Singh, learned counsel for the complainant Gend Lal in Criminal Revision No.193 of 2018 would submit that looking to the gravity of the offence as well as conduct of the accused persons the trial court has awarded inappropriate sentence which is required to be

¶46

6

¶47

enhanced . The complainant was defamed by ostracizing him from the community which was done in presence of general people of village in a meeting and by the act of the accused persons the complainant felt annoyed which thus constitute defamation. The accused persons have failed to demonstrate that their act comes under any of the exception provided under Section 499 IPC. Therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons, however, their sentence is on lower side which is liable to be enhanced.

¶48

9. Learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that on the private complaint filed by the complainant Gend Lal, the trial court has lodged the offence, tried the case and passed the order of conviction and sentence in which both the parties have filed their respective appeals as well as revisions.

¶49

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of courts below carefully.

¶50

11. Present is a case against conviction of applicants-accused persons for the offence under Section 500 IPC. It is alleged that in a village meeting held on 05.04.2009 the accused persons have ostracized the complainant from the community and society and restrained him to appear any family function or final rites of the family members of the community which annoyed him and the same amounts to defame him.

¶51

12. PW-1 is the complainant who stated in his evidence that on 01.03.2009 he was being called in a community meeting, but he made an application that he could not appear for the reason that he has to go Sakti for examination work of his son. On 05.04.2009 again the meeting was called and he appeared in the meeting in which the

¶52

7

¶53

accused persons harassed him by saying that penalty of Rs.2100/has been imposed upon him and he has to pay the penalty immediately otherwise he would be ostracized from the society. Thereafter, he was ostracized from the society by restraining them to participate in any family function or community function of the society. On 14.04.2009 one Lalit Nayak of the community called the other persons of the community on occasion of death of his elder father, but the complainant was not informed and hurling messages were passed that complainant Gend Lal is ostracized from the community. Three years back also he was also thrown out from the house of one Mulchand at village Kurumba when 10^th day function after death of son of brother of Mulchand was going on due to which he felt defamed and came back to his house. After that, he was not being called in any function of the community and no one is visiting to his house. In cross examination, he admitted that on 05.04.2009 there were 42-43 persons in the meeting. He could not produce any document of meeting as the same was not provided to him by the community members.

¶54

13. From the evidence of this witness, though it transpires that there is no document of meeting dated 05.04.2009 but thereafter he was appearing in various functions of the community and visiting the house of community members, yet he remain stuck in saying that in the village meeting he was ostracized by the community members and thereby he felt annoyed and defamed. But for minor omissions or contradictions nothing could be abstracted from his evidence so that it

¶55

8

¶56

can be considered that he was not ostracized from the community or nothing happened in the said community meeting.

¶57

14. PW-2, Mukund Lal Patel, has also stated in his evidence that in the village meeting the complainant Gend Lal was pressurized to deposit the amount of penalty and when he asked for sometime, he was ostracized from the community and restrained to participate in the functions of community members and directed the members of the society not to go to the house of complainant. In cross examination he states that he did not know about the property dispute between the complainant and his brothers. In the meeting the accused Himanchal Patel called the complainant as cheater and dishonest.

¶58

15. PW-3, Fagulal Patel is also the witnesses of same fashion as PW-2 have stated and also proved that the complainant was being pressurized to deposit the penalty amount of Rs.2100/- in the community meeting and he was defamed by the accused persons in the said meeting by ostracizing him from the community.

¶59

16. PW-4, Daulat Ram Patel is also a witness of community meeting and his evidence is also in corroboration with the other witnesses that the complainant was subjected to defamation by the accused persons in the community meeting and they ostracized him from the community.

¶60

17. From perusal of judgment passed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, this court does not find any perversity or illegality in appreciating the evidence led by the complainant. After meticulous examination of the evidence of the witnesses, both the courts below have rightly considered and appreciated the evidence and have

¶61

9

¶62

convicted the accused persons for the offence under Section 500 IPC in which there is no illegality and the same is hereby affirmed.

¶63

18. So far as the sentence awarded to accused persons are concerned, the trial court has awarded sentence till rising of the court with fine of Rs.500/- to each of the accused persons. Section 500 IPC provides following punishment:

¶64

“500. Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶65

19. Awarding sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and when the discretion was given to the trial court, they are required to exercise their discretion judicially keeping in view the facts and evidence available on record.

¶66

20. In the present case, after holding conviction of the accused persons the trial court has considered the gravity of offence and overall circumstances of the case and sentenced the accused persons till rising of the court with fine of Rs.500/- which has been affirmed by the appellate court and this court does not find any reason to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused persons by both the courts concurrently. The parties are resident of same village and belong to same community. Looking to the evidence available on record and the sentence provided under Section 500 IPC, the sentence awarded to the accused persons cannot be said to be disproportionate.

¶67

21. Accordingly, this court does not find any scope of interference in the criminal revision filed by the accused persons against their conviction and sentence and also in criminal revision filed by the complainant for

¶68

10

¶69

enhancement of sentence. Both these criminal revisions are liable to be and hereby dismissed.

¶70

22. However, looking to the fact that some of the accused persons are government servant, the impugned conviction may affect their service career, therefore, it is directed that conviction of the accused persons under Section 500 IPC by the trial court shall not be treated as moral turpitude in future looking to the nature of offence and shall not adversely affect their service career.

¶71

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶72

inder

Rupram Patel v. Gendlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupram Patel v. Gendlal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kundan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

G. Babu Rao Vs Shanti Vijay Traders & Another

Suman Khakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Ajmani Vs Ajit Singh Gurudatta

Prakash Ajmani Vs Ajit Singh Gurudatta

Phool Jha Vs State of Chhattisgarh