Ghanshyam Prasad Tamboli vs Dileshwar Prasad Tamboli And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2085 Chatt

                                                         Page 1 of 3


                                                              NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        CRR No. 447 of 2009

    Ghanshyam Prasad Tamboli, S/o Nanduram Tamboli, Aged
     about-50 years, Occupation-Teacher, R/o Village- Gatoura,
     Police Station- Masturi, Bilaspur (C.G.).
                                               ---- Applicant

                             Versus

  1. Dileshwar Prasad Tamboli, S/o- Shri Lambodar Prasad
     Tamboli, Aged about- 40 years, R/o- Village Gatoura,
     Occupation-Transport and Agriculturist, Police Station-
     Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.).

  2. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police
     Station- Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). ---- Respondents

For Applicant : Shri Akshat R. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondent No.1 : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate

For Respondent No.2/State:Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya Order on Board 01.04.2022

1) The applicant has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC against the judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.44/2009, whereby the learned appellant Court has confirmed the judgment, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in complaint case No. 817/2009 dated 08.04.2009, convicting him under Section 500 of IPC and sentencing till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default, one month S.I.

2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the marriage of the complainant namely Dileshwar Prasad Tamboli/respondent No.1 was fixed with Sudha, daughter of Ganesh Prasad Tamboli. Marriage cards were also printed and the same were distributed in the village of the complainant. The present applicant after distribution of the marriage card, sent one hand written letter to father of the bride Ganesh Prasad Tamboli, stating in the said letter that the complainant is not fit for marriage and made defamatory remarks against him, as a result of which, the marriage of the complainant was broken with Sudha.

3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in this case, appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the applicant and wrongly confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. It is further submitted that ingredients of Section 500 of IPC have not been proved by the prosecution. Both the applicant and complainant are relatives and relationship between them was not cordial for the last 10 years. Therefore, he was falsely implicated in this case. Both the Courts have exceeded their limitations and jurisdictions, as per Statement of PW/3 Ramnath Shrivas, he admitted that, the disputed letters i.e. Ex.P/2 &3 were written by him and such letters were not signed or sent by the applicant but by PW/3 Ramnath Shrivas. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2009 is liable to be set aside.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State & respondent No.1 support the impugned judgment.

5) It is not disputed that the marriage of the Complainant/respondent No.1 was fixed with Sudha D/o- Ganesh Prasad Tamboli, their marriage cards i.e. Ex.P/4 & Ex.P/5 were also distributed among the family members &

the friends. From the evidence on record it is seen that the applicant got a letter containing defamatory remarks against the complainant written by Ramnath Shrivas and sent it to father of the bride Ganesh Prasad Tamboli, thereafter, marriage of the complainant was broken. PW/2 Mohit Ram Tamboli, stated that the disputed letter was written by Ramnath Shrivas at the instruction of the applicant. As per Ex.P/1 Ramnath executed one affidavit where he admitted that on the instruction of the complainant he had written letters to the father of the bride. Thus, considering the statements of PW/1 Bihari Rathore, PW/2 Mohit Ram Tamboli, PW/3 Ramnath Shrivas, PW/4 Dileshwar Prasad Tamboli (complainant), there is no any reason to disbelieve the statements of the witnesses including independent witness, therefore, learned trial Court and the appellant Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant for the offence u/s 500 of IPC.

6) Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Nadim