Chattisgarh High Court
Madar Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 June, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:24492
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 64 of 2008
Madar Khan, S/o Najeem Khan, aged about 32 years, R/o Village-
Dudhkaiya, Police Station-Rajim, Distt. Raipur (CG)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Mahasamund, Distt.
Mahasamund (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
16/06/2025
The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.12.2007 passed by Special Judge, {Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act}, Mahasamund (CG) in Special ST
No.51/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 420
of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years on four counts
and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- on four counts or else to suffer additional
three years' RI on each count.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the course of
enquiry into the matter of cheating in the name of getting employment
which was published on 9.8.2004 in Navbharat newspaper, the Dy.
Superintendent of Police Shri SR Bhagat enquired from victims namely
Rakesh Kumar Kosariya, Naveen Kumar and Omprakash. Victim
Rakesh Kumar Kosariya informed that around a year ago the accused
Madar Khan came to him with his mother-in-law and told that he has
good contact with Education Minister and other Ministers and he can
get him employment in education department, for which Rs.1.50 lacs
would be needed. Rakesh Kumar gave him Rs.50,000/- in presence of
Rajesh Kumar, Naveen Kumar and Oasram and the accused assured
him of getting posting order within a month. However, after few days
accused/appellant again came with one Sahu and the same witness
and told that issuance of posting order is getting delayed and
demanded Rs.30,000/-. Thereupon victim Rakesh gave him
Rs.30,000/- in presence of Oasram, Pardeshi and Prakash Didi. After
some days when the victim Rakesh enquired about posting order from
the accused, he told that there being assembly election, code of
conduct is imposed and thus kept on giving evasive reply. Rakesh
Kumar disclosed that the accused fraudulently obtained Rs.80,000/-
from him, Rs.65,000/- from Omprakash Didi, Rs.40,000/- from Naveen
Kumar, Rs.60,000/- from Ramkumar Kosariya and Rs.30,000/- from
Kunjlal Satnami i.e. total Rs.2.75 lacs. These victims also made similar
statements. After completing necessary investigation, charge sheet
under Section 420/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes
& Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was filed against the
accused followed by framing of charges accordingly by learned trial
Court.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 07
witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of CrPC
wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false
implication.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this
judgment. Hence this appeal.
05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned
trial Court did not apply its mind to the evidence led by the prosecution
properly and even committed an error in framing charges against the
appellant under Section 420 of IPC because there is no prima facie
evidence to show that the appellant fraudulently and dishonestly
induced PW-2 to PW-5 to deliver him the aforesaid amount. The
allegations made against the appellant are false and concocted. No
independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove
complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Further,
there are material contradiction and omission in the statements of the
PW-1 to PW-5 which makes the conviction of the appellant
unsustainable in law. This apart, it is clear from the order sheet of
learned trial Court and this Court that the appellant has returned all the
money to the complainant and other persons but the learned trial Court
did not appreciate all these facts and even rejected the application
under Section 320(2) of CrPC filed by the parties. Therefore, the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves
to be acquitted of the charge leveled against him.
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that if this
ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellant is
proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving
rise to the incident which took place in the year 2003-04, the appeal is
pending since 2008, he remained in jail for four months and six days;
at present he is about 50 years of age and he has returned the entire
money to the complainant and other persons, the jail sentence
imposed upon the appellant may be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon
minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly
convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present
appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant
was charged under Section 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence he was
convicted and sentenced under Section 420 of IPC as mentioned
above.
09. It is clear from the order sheet dated 15.6.2007 of the trial Court
that both the parties had filed an application under Section 320(2) of
CrPC for compounding the offence as the victims received the entire
money back from the accused, and the learned trial Court rejected the
said application. Against this rejection, the accused/appellant filed a
criminal revision before this Court which was also dismissed.
10. From the statements of witnesses namely PW-1 SR Bhagat, PW-
2 Rakesh Koshariya, PW-3 Omprakash Didi, PW-4 Pardeshi, PW-5
Naveen Kumar, PW-6 Maya Sharma and PW-7 US Dubey it is clear
that it is the accused/appellant who dishonestly obtained money from
the complainant and other persons in the name of providing them
government job. Thus, the learned trial Court properly appreciated the
oral and documentary evidence available on record and held him guilty
under Section 420 of IPC.
11. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the fact that the accused/appellant has returned the entire
money to the complainant and other victims, at present he is 50 years
of age, he remained in jail for more than four months, the incident took
place in the year 2003-04 and the appeal is pending since 2008, this
Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in
keeping him behind the bar any longer at this stage and the ends of
justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the appellant under Section 420 of IPC, his substantive
jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him.
However, the fine imposed on him with default sentence by trial Court
shall remain intact.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
MOHD by
Judge
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
KHAN 2025.06.18
16:39:48 +0530
Khan
