The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that where prosecution witnesses provide inconsistent accounts, material witnesses are not examined, and cogent evidence on essential facts is absent, conviction under Section 420 IPC cannot be sustained. This judgment, relying on Supreme Court rulings, clarifies the high threshold of proof in criminal trials, strengthens the presumption of innocence, and sets a binding precedent for all subordinate courts in the State.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/167/2016 of Bhagatram Sarthi (Died) through Lrs- Vs State Of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010215652016 |
| Date of Registration | 22-02-2016 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Section 420 IPC, Cheating) |
| Questions of Law | Whether material contradictions in prosecution evidence, non-examination of key witnesses, and lack of corroborative proof justify acquittal in a cheating case under Section 420 IPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that in the presence of material inconsistencies among prosecution witnesses, unexplained non-examination of a key witness, and lack of cogent evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reaffirmed the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the prosecution; when serious doubts remain, the benefit must go to the accused. Consequently, the conviction cannot be sustained, and acquittal is warranted. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The deceased was accused of obtaining Rs. 70,000 from the complainant with the promise of securing a job for the complainant’s daughter as a peon, but did not fulfil the promise or return the money. Prosecution’s case relied mainly on testimony of witnesses with considerable inconsistencies and did not examine the key witness. Lower courts convicted; in revision, the High Court found deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that material contradictions among prosecution witnesses and discrepancies with documentary evidence undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
- Non-examination of a key witness (here, the complainant/“Ghanshyam”) permits an adverse inference against the prosecution, especially when the witness is essential to establish the transaction.
- The standard for conviction under Section 420 IPC remains “proof beyond reasonable doubt”—mere suspicion or possibility is insufficient.
- Lawyers should highlight non-corroboration, inconsistencies, and non-examination of material witnesses when seeking acquittal in cheating cases.
- This judgment provides a roadmap for challenging convictions where the prosecution’s evidence is not cogent, independent, or complete.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The High Court scrutinised the oral testimony of the prosecution’s two main witnesses and found numerous material inconsistencies concerning the alleged payment and events. The testimony did not align with the FIR or the written report, both regarding key details and the sequence of events. The non-examination of Ghanshyam, the complainant, was deemed a serious deficiency, with the Court relying on Supreme Court precedents (notably Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Takhaji Hiraji) that adverse inference should be drawn when such vital witnesses are withheld. The judgment reiterated principles from Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the prosecution’s heavy burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence. Further, reliance was placed on Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) concerning the unreliability of witnesses giving inconsistent evidence. With these jurisprudential anchors, the Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was not established beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The lower courts erred in appreciating the evidence; conviction was improper.
- Material contradictions and omissions exist in the prosecution witnesses’ statements and are not corroborated by the FIR or written report.
- There is no cogent or clinching evidence that the deceased demanded or received any money.
- Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Prayer for acquittal of the deceased applicant.
State (Respondent)
- Supported findings of the trial and appellate court.
- Asserted that conviction and sentence were correct and free of illegality or infirmity.
- Opposed the prayer for acquittal.
Factual Background
The prosecution alleged that the deceased obtained Rs. 70,000 from the complainant, assuring employment for the complainant’s daughter in the District Court. Money was allegedly paid in installments, but neither was the job secured nor the money returned. The complainant reported the matter to the District Judge and police, leading to registration of FIR under Section 420 IPC. After investigation and trial, the deceased was convicted both by the trial and appellate courts. The conviction was challenged in revision. During the pendency of the revision, the accused died, and his wife was substituted as legal representative to pursue the revision.
Statutory Analysis
The Court interpreted Section 420 IPC in conjunction with the standard requirements of Indian criminal trials. Emphasised was the burden of proof placed upon the prosecution for establishing “cheating” beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cited Supreme Court precedent interpreting the evidentiary standards and effects of non-examination of material witnesses in criminal cases. No statutory presumption under Section 420 IPC applied; the prosecution was required to prove all facts constituting the offence without shifting of burden.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the judgment is by a single Judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The wife of the deceased accused was substituted as legal representative upon his demise during pendency of revision, as per court’s order dated 01.02.2024.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies established Supreme Court principles on the standard of proof, contradictory testimony, and non-examination of material witnesses in criminal cases.