Criminal Revision No. 2361 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2361 of 2005. Date of Decision: 3.3.2011. Ram Dhan alias Sant Sufi Rahmat Ali ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, D.A.G. Haryana. for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This revision is directed against the judgment dated December 6th, 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurukshetra affirming the judgment of conviction dated January 24th, 2003 and order of sentence dated January 25th, 2003 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurukshetra, whereby, petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default 419 IPC RI for 6 months Rs.500/- SI for 15 days 420 IPC RI for 1 year Rs.1000/- SI for 1 month Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Story of the prosecution is that on March 8th, 1997 Manohar Lal-complainant (PW-1) made statement (Exhibit PA) to Satpal, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-6) to the effect that his wife Santosh was indisposed in the month of December, 1996. He got her treated from various hospitals but she did not get any relief. Saroj Devi, who was his neighbour in Prem Nagar, Karnal, met Santosh and told her that petitioner treats patients who are possessed by evil spirits in his Dera near Makbara of Sheikh Chilli at Kurukshetra. On the asking of Saroj, the complainant accompanied by his wife visited Criminal Revision No. 2361 of 2005 2 Dera of the petitioner. The petitioner diagnosed Santosh and opined that she was possessed by an evil spirit and he would drive the evil spirit out. He used super natural power over Santosh by sorcery. He asked them to visit him every Thursday continuously for 5 times. He used to charge Rs.2000/- per visit which the complainant paid him. The total amount paid to the petitioner was Rs.9000/-. Santosh did not get any relief. In the month of January, 1997, Sukhwant Kaur (PW-3) also met them at the Dera of the petitioner. Her son was also afflicted by an evil spirit. The petitioner treated him also in the same manner as he treated Santosh. She also paid him Rs.5000/-. The complainant asked the petitioner to repay the amount of Rs.9000/- but he refused. On the statement of Manohar Lal First Information Report (Exhibit PA/1) was registered against the petitioner. 3. Charge, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code was framed to which the petitioner did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined six witnesses. These were: Manohar Lal (PW-1), Santosh Rani (PW-2), Sukhwant Kaur (PW-3), Ram Dutt (PW-4), Rameshwar Dass, Police Photographer (PW-5) and Satpal-Investigator (PW-6). 5. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded false implication. 6. In this case, the short question arising for consideration is: whether the petitioner cheated complainant by personation or otherwise? 7. According to the case of the prosecution, petitioner was Exorcist. He had his Dera in Kurukshetra. On the asking of Saroj--a neighbour, the complainant along with his wife went to the Dera of the petitioner of their own. The complainant has deposed that his wife was possessed by evil spirit for which he got her treated but of no avail. The petitioner, of course, tried to drive the evil spirit away from his wife by witchcraft but she did not get any relief. For establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to Criminal Revision No. 2361 of 2005 3 show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. From his failure to keep up promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed. It was not guaranteed by the petitioner that she will certainly be cured. In this part of the country, there is a large number of persons who profess and practise occult magic. The success rate may be lesser or higher but it cannot be said that failure would fasten the Exorcist with offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. There is no evidence against the petitioner that at any stage, he had induced the complainant to get his wife treated from him. It was the complainant who on his own went to the petitioner for getting his wife treated. As there is absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention, the question of committing offence under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code does not arise. There is no allegation in the First Information Report or the charge-sheet indicating expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner right from the time of making the promise or representation. The petitioner could not be attributed any mens rea of cheating the complainant. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner levelled by the prosecution are unsustainable. The question formulated above is answered accordingly. Thus, both the Courts below fell in error in convicting and sentencing the petitioner. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision is accepted. The judgments under challenge are set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges. 3.3.2011. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE