Dhansai Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 968 Chatt

                                                                                               NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2017

                           Judgment Reserved on :              28.6.2021
                           Judgment Delivered on :              8.7.2021

Dhansai Satnami, S/o Bhuru, aged 50 years, R/o Village Nawapara, P.S.
Maalkharouda, Civil and Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Appellant
                                   versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Baradwar, District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
                                                             --- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant                          :                   Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent                         :                   Shri Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against judgment dated

14.2.2017 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District

Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2015, whereby the

Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 370(3) of the Rigorous Imprisonment for Indian Penal Code 10 years and fine of Rs.500 with default stipulation The Appellant is reported to be in jail since 20.8.2015

2. Prosecution case is that on 13.1.2015 Complainant Vijay Kumar

Ratre (PW1) made a written complaint (Ex.P1) in Police Station

Baradwar alleging therein that the present Appellant along with co-

accused Maniram took him and other persons (labours) to Uttar

Pradesh for manufacturing of bricks by promising them that they

will get good remuneration and other facilities there. It was told to

them that they will get Rs.475 for manufacturing of per thousand

bricks as wages and they will also get residence, medical facilities,

kerosene and wood for cooking needs, all free. By giving them

such inducement, they were taken to Uttar Pradesh. But there,

they did not get any such facilities or wages as was assured to

them by the Appellant and the co-accused. Then, he

(Complainant) and other labours did not agree to continue to work

there and requested the Appellant and the other co-accused to

send them back. But, the Appellant and the other co-accused did

not help them in any away. On this, he (Complainant), leaving his

family and other labours there, returned home and made the written

complaint (Ex.P1). On the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P1),

First Information Report (Ex.P2) was registered. Statements of the

Complainant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the

investigation, initially a charge-sheet was filed against co-accused

Maniram declaring the present Appellant absconded. Charges

were framed against Maniram. During pendency of the trial, on

20.8.2015, the present Appellant surrendered himself before the

Trial Court. Thereafter, charges were also framed against the

present Appellant.

3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 6

witnesses. Statements of the Appellant and co-accused Maniram

were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and

false implication. No witness has been examined in their defence.

4. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court, vide the judgment under

challenge, acquitted co-accused Maniram of all the charges framed

against him, but convicted and sentenced the present Appellant as

mentioned in 1st paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that without

there being any clinching and sufficient evidence on record, the

Trial Court has convicted the Appellant. It was submitted that on

the same set of evidence, co-accused Maniram has been acquitted

by the Trial Court. Ingredients of Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal

Code have not duly been proved by the prosecution. There is no

direct or indirect evidence on record against the Appellant and he

has been convicted solely on presumptions. There is no evidence

on record to show that there was any control of the Appellant over

the Complainant or other labours. Therefore, conviction of the

Appellant is not sustainable. The work which was told to be done

was only got done and the Complainant and other labours returned

only because of not getting certain facilities.

6. On the contrary, Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed

the submissions put-forth on behalf of the Appellant and supported

the impugned judgment. It was submitted that the Complainant and

other witnesses have duly supported the entire case of the

prosecution and their statements are not duly rebutted in cross-

examination. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the

Appellant.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

minutely perused the entire material available on record including

the statements made by the witnesses before the Trial Court.

8. In his Court statement, Complainant Vijay Kumar Ratre (PW1)

deposed that the Appellant had come to their village and telling him

and Firtu, Uttam, Omprakash, Rai, Phulbai, Awadh and other

persons that they were to go to Saibaba Bricks Factory, Uttar

Pradesh. At that time, he told them that they will get Rs.475 for

construction of per one thousand bricks and he also assured them

that they will also get there kerosene, wood and other goods for

cooking food and, therefore, they went there. This witness further

deposed that the Appellant telling them lie and inducing that they

will get money there took them, but there the contractor was not

paying them their wages and was also beating them. On being

called, the Appellant was not coming to them. Then, this witness

alone ran away from there and returned home and made a report.

The above entire statement of this witness is not rebutted in cross-

examination in any manner. Corroborating the statement of this

witness, Rustom Kumar (PW2), Sant Kumar (PW4), Phulbai (PW5)

also deposed in similar fashion. Their statements are also not duly

rebutted during cross-examination. Though Firturam (PW3) did not

support the entire case of the prosecution and turned hostile, he

also admitted the fact that the owner of the bricks factory was not

paying them the assured wages and he was also not giving them

the assured facilities. The above statement of this witness is also

not duly rebutted during cross-examination.

9. On a minute examination of the statements of the above witnesses,

it is clear that all the witnesses remained firm in stating that the

present Appellant had come to their village and induced them that

they will get wages of Rs.475 for construction of per thousand

bricks and will also get different free facilities and because of such

inducement only they consented to go to the bricks factory. It is

also established that thereafter the Appellant had taken the

Complainant and other labours to Saibaba Bricks Factory, Uttar

Pradesh. It is also established that the Complainant and other

labours were not getting the assured wages and facilities there and,

therefore, when the Complainant and other labours requested the

Appellant to send them back, he did not help them. Thus, it is

clearly established that the Appellant fraudulently exploited the

Complainant and other labours by giving them certain inducement

for the above mentioned purpose. Hence, the offence under

Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code is duly proved against the

Appellant. The Trial Court has rightly convicted him.

10. Consequently, I do not find any substance in the instant appeal. It

is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) JUDGE Gopal