Chattisgarh High Court
Balsai Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.03.12
15:02:48
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 56 of 2011
Order Reserved on 05.03.2025
Order Delivered on 12.03.2025
• Balsai Ram, S/o Baishakhu Ram, aged about 35 years, Caste
Rawut, R/o village Jumaikela Tehsil Bagicha, District Jashpur, C.G.
... Applicant
versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Jashpur, District
Jashpur, C.G.
...Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
CAV Order
1.
This present revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
20.01.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sessions
Division, Jashpur, C.G. in Criminal Appeal No.13/2008, whereby the
learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, while affirming the
judgment dated 12.11.2008 passed in Criminal Case No.235/2008
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, District Jashpur,
C.G., convicting the applicant under Section 420 of Indian Penal
Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment
of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 15
days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur
lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Kansabel, Jashpur
to the effect that in the year 2001-2002, present applicant allured her
and other persons of village Jumaikela to invest money under Free
India Concepts Scheme with an assurance that the said company
would provide them goods and they would also get other benefits
and thus, fraudulently obtained Rs.2,500/- from each person, but in
turn, they did not get any benefit from the said scheme. On the basis
of said written report (Ex.P-1), FIR (Ex.P-3) has been registered
against the present applicant. During investigation, applicant was
taken into custody and from his possession, receipts of FIC company
were seized vide Ex.P-2.
3. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant
before the Court of JMFC under Section 420 of IPC. The applicant
abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.
4. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the Court of learned JMFC and the Appellate Court,
convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned in the Para No.
1 of this judgment. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court of JMFC as
well as Appellate Court, without properly appreciating the evidence
available on record, were not justified in convicting and sentencing
the applicant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that there
is no evidence on record which would suggest that applicant
committed cheat and fraudulently obtained money from the
complainant and other persons. He also submits that after knowing
everything about the scheme of the said company, complainant and
other persons voluntarily invested the money in the said company.
He also submits that there are material contradictions and omissions
in the statements of complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
On these premises, it is prayed by counsel for the applicant that
applicant be acquitted of the charge leveled against him. Reliance
has been placed on the decision of State of Kerala vs A. Pareed
Pillai and another reported in 1972 SCC (CRI) 705.
6. On the contrary, counsel for the State, while supporting the
impugned judgments, submits that the Court of JMFC as well as
Appellate Court have rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant
and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting
interference by this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the record.
8. Complainant/PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur has stated in her
deposition that she knows the applicant and 4-5 years ago, he came
to her house and forced her to invest money in Free India Company
Scheme and on his assurance, she deposited an amount of
Rs.2,500/- in the said company. However, on the contrary in para 5,
she admitted that she herself attended the meeting of Free India
Concept Company twice. She also admitted that she attended the
first meeting which was held in Ambikapur and the same was
continued for four hours and she also attended the second meeting
which was convened in the village which continued for two hours. In
para 6, she also admitted that it was told by the said company that
you would get commission if you add a member and after joining the
said company, she would get items worth Rs.2,000/-. She also
admitted that she could add only one member and failed to make the
down line, therefore, she could not get any commission from the said
company. In para 7, she also admitted that after attending the
meeting at Ambikapur, she deposited the amount. She also admitted
that in written report (Ex.P-1), she herself mentioned the names of
person, but they did not make their signatures in Ex.P-1.
9. This apart, PW-2 Silvanus, father of PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur,
also admitted in his cross-examination that her daughter/PW-1 had
participated in the meetings of the said company which were held in
Ambikapur and other places. He also admitted that at the behest of
her daughter/PW-1, he joined the said company. He also admitted
that apart from him, Yogendra Chauhan, Shyam Lal Verma and
Topnarayan also joined the said company. Besides, PW-3 Anil Toppo
admitted that before giving money, he read the book of Free India
Concept Company and himself attended the meeting which was held
in Kansabel where he came to know how FIC Company works. He
also admitted that after reading the book and attending the meeting,
he voluntarily gave Rs.2,500/- to applicant and applicant has not
committed any fraud/cheat with him. Furthermore, PW-4 Balkrishna
Paikara has stated that he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1)
and also admitted that applicant did not receive any money from him
directly and he has nothing to do with the applicant. Moreover, PW-5
Asharam Yadav also admitted in his cross-examination that after
reading the book of the said company, he himself invested the
money and he attended the meeting of said company which was
held in Kansabel where 50-100 persons were present and there he
came to know how Free India Concept Company works, how to
make a down line and how to work in the said company to get profit
in future. He also admitted that after attending meeting in Kansabel,
he deposited money in the said company. He also admitted that he
did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1).
10. Similarly, PW-6 Sono Ram has also admitted that he does not know
that PW-1 Ku. Phuljensiya Kujur lodged any written report against the
applicant and he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1) and he has
no knowledge who made his signature in written report (Ex.P-1). He
also admitted that he along with Topnarayan had gone to attend
meeting of said company which was held in Ambikapur for 3-4 hours
where he came to know about the procedure and work of the
company. He also admitted that applicant told him that if he adds 3
members, then only he would get bonus amount. Likewise, PW-8
Yogendra Chauhan has also stated that he did not sign over the
document (Ex.P-1) and in cross-examination, he admitted that the
applicant told all the 11 persons that it is not compulsory to join the
said company and those who want to join, they can join on their own
will. He also admitted that applicant told all 11 persons that if they
work according to the Company's scheme, then only they would get
benefits, otherwise, they would not. Furthermore, PW-9 Topnarayan
has also stated that he did not sign over the document (Ex.P-1) and
denied that applicant fraudulently obtained Rs.2,500/- from him. In
cross-examination, he admitted that he got the deposited amount
receipt from the company and no one has committed fraud with him
and he joined the company on his own free will.
11. In the matter of A. Pareed Pillai (supra), the Supreme Court has held
that "to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be
shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the
promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere
fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise."
12. From perusal of the above evidence in the light of aforesaid decision
of Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that complainant/PW-1 and other
persons, after attending the meeting and also knowing everything
about the scheme, work and procedure of the said company, joined
the company voluntarily and deposited the amount in the said
company on their own free will. This apart, PW-7 Shyam Lal Sharma,
Assistant Sub-Inspector, has stated that in his presence, the names of
person mentioned in the written report (Ex.P-1), have made their
signatures over the document (Ex.P-1), but complainant/PW-1 Ku.
Phuljensiya Kujur herself, PW-3 Anil Toppo, PW-4 Balkrishna Paikra,
PW-5 Asharam Yadav, PW-6 Sono Ram, PW-8 Yogendra and PW-9
Topnarayan have admitted that they did not make any signature in
written report (Ex.P-1), which shows that complainant/PW-1 herself
mentioned the names of those persons in order to implicate the
applicant in the crime in question. Further, there is no cogent and
clinching evidence on record which would suggest that the applicant
himself cheated the complainant and other persons by alluring them to
join the said company and get benefits and then fraudulently obtained
money from them. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, the applicant is entitled for acquittal. The
learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court were totally unjustified in
convicting and sentencing the applicant for the aforesaid offence.
13. Accordingly, the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the
Court of JMFC dated 12.11.2008 and that of Appellate Court dated
20.01.2011 are liable to be and are hereby set-aside and the applicant
is acquitted of the charge under Section 420 of IPC.
14. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE
Akhilesh
