Dismissed

Chotu Ram S/O Shri Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Oct 2024CRLLA/201/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant sought leave to appeal against acquittal of accused charged with cheating and criminal breach of trust over money paid for promised Army employment. The High Court found the sole testimony of PW1 untrustworthy and unsupported by any witness or document, and dismissed the leave to appeal, upholding the acquittal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chotu Ram S/O Shri Bhura Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:45374]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 201/2020

¶4

Chotu Ram S/o Shri Bhura Ram, R/o Dhani Burkada, Tan Pachlangi, Ps Udaipurwati Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Gyan Chand S/o Shri Purnanand, R/o Pachlangi, Ps Udaipurwati Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶8

Satya Narain S/o Shri S/o Shri Gariba Ram, R/o Dhani Patelo Ki Tan Pachlangi, Ps Udaipurwati Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶9

Shanker Lal S/o Shri Jagannath, R/o Surpura Ps Khandela Distt. Sikar Raj.

¶10

Kishore Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh, R/o Pachlangi Ps Udairpuwati Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	AjayGupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Onkar Singh Rajpurohit,PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

08/10/2024

¶16

Instant leave to appeal is preferred by complainant-appellant aggrieved from judgment dated 29.02.2020 in Regular Criminal Case No.1064/2012 (725/2004) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu wherein respondent nos.2 to 5 were acquitted from charge under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC.

¶17

During pendency of this petition, respondent no.2-Gyan Chand and respondent no.5-Kishore Singh have expired and

[2024:RJ-JP:45374]

[CRLLA-201/2020]

(2 of 5)

proceedings were closed against them. Now, we are considering this leave to appeal against respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶22

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the complainant has filed a complaint against Satya Narain, Kishore Singh and Gyan Chand for alleged cheating by them and dishonestly receiving money on false promises of employment to his nephew and son. He submits that the complainant was examined as PW1 and he corroborated the entire incident, which was corroborated by other witnesses as these persons have accepted receiving money from complainant. He also submits that the money entrusted to respondent was neither returned nor promise to employ, his son or nephew was fulfilled. Atlast, he submitted that the Trial Court has committed serious error while discarding evidence available on record while passing an order of acquittal. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. Respondent nos.2 and 5 have expired and respondent nos.3 and 4 were served but they remained absent. 6. A criminal complaint was filed by PW1-Choturam before learned Judicial Magistrate, Udaipurwati, alleging that the accused have collected ₹1,20,000/- for employment of son and nephew of complainant in Army but neither were they recruited nor was the amount returned. On the basis of this complainant FIR No.254/2002 was registered at P.S. Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against four persons. The Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They

[2024:RJ-JP:45374]

[CRLLA-201/2020]

(3 of 5)

have not filed any defence evidence. Learned Trial Court after considering the material on record has acquitted the respondent nos.2 to 5.

¶27

A perusal of statement of PW1 indicates that when ₹30,000/was handed over to accused then at that time Gyan Chand, Satya Narain and Shanker (all accused) were present but no other person, was there. Thereafter, when ₹90,000/- was paid to Satya Narain along with other persons Gyan Chand and Kishore (all accused) were present but no other person. The crossexamination suggest that the money was not paid to Shanker. The admission further suggest that no amount was handed over to Gyan Chand and Kishore. The admission only suggests that the money was handed over to Satya Narain. A perusal of the entire evidence suggests that the money was not handed over in presence of any other person except some of the respondent nos.2 to 5. There is no witness for verification of payment to Satya Narain. Neither in complaint nor in evidence, PW1 has mentioned details about the date of payment. There is no support to the evidence of PW1. There is no recovery in the instant case. There is no document to support the payment by complainant to Satya Narain.

¶28

Having considered the entire material on record, particularly, the evidence which is available on record, I am of the considered view that in order to supersede the opinion drawn by the Trial Court it is necessary that there must be some reliable and concrete evidence but looking to the entirety of evidence, we do not find that the evidence of PW1 is trustworthy and his sole testimony can be relied on to draw a conclusion of conviction,

[2024:RJ-JP:45374]

[CRLLA-201/2020]

(4 of 5)

therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while drawing a conclusion of acquittal.

¶33

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthend by the Trial Court.

¶34

Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351 , have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to

[2024:RJ-JP:45374]

[CRLLA-201/2020]

(5 of 5)

keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused.

¶39

In view of the above, there is no perversity or illegality in the order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court, therefore, the leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

In view of aforesaid, the leave to appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any.

¶41

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶42

Arun/51

Chotu Ram S/O Shri Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chotu Ram S/O Shri Bhura Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar Shakya S/O Late Shri Khem Chand Shakya Vs Smt. Yashoda W/O Lalit Shakya D/O Parmeshwari Dayal

Ramdev S/O Late Shri Dharma Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ramlal Meena Vs Lakhan Singh Meena S/O Shri Siyaram Meena

Bablu @ Rakesh Sharma S/O Shri Badri Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Sharma S/O Shri Bachchu Singh Sharma Vs Krishan Kumar S/O Shri Anandi Lal Sharma

Ramesh Chand S/O Shri Prabhu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan