HIGH COUI OB>fl©HEtB&TTISGA3EmATBIIA^UR ^ OElmiaaI Reslstett^Io. 113 of 2006 APPLICAKT RESFOKDEKT VS. Rayinoad Augustin Ueen The Stale bf Chliattisgarfi Order post for "^--8-2007 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR (s:^r'"y' sac't8'"" APPLICANT RESFONDENT C^-imlaal Revision No. 113 of 2006 Raymond Augustin Deen, son ot B.N. D£CU. s^ed s.bout 40 vesrs. I'Gsidsu.t of Sector-8 State Baak Colony, Qr. No. C- 4/3,Bhilai, Tehsiland District Durg (C.G.) l&e ytate ot Utitiattisgara, ttu'ougli Uistnct lc*<yi<afT'Ei+?a D-j<atnr'f T^7^r'<y rr^./-i-.1l ;A"t>-'-"i"*-'-^1"1-'; A/-LU i^. A\/iL. */l^A^ ^•^..S^.^ Vs. 3B: Hon'ble Shri Justice Dfairendra Mishra. J, Shri Anurag Jha, Counsel for the appUcant. Shri Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. O R D E This cruninal revision is directed against the iudgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17-1-2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 233/2005 arising out of the judgnient dated 30th Jmie, 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg in Criminal Case No.116/2004. '2.. Applicant and other accusecl persons Mamta Deen and Pradeep Kumar Semual were prosecuted for offences iinder Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and leamed Additional cmet judicial Magistrate, uui'g convicted me appJicant and his wife Mainta Deen under Section 420,467, 478 aiid 471 ofl.P.C. ana sentenced tne applicant to unflergo K.l. lor 5 years and tme oi Rs. 25,000/- for each ofience, the accused Mamta Deen to unctergo K.l. tor Uu-ee years and tine ot Ks. 10,000/- tor each offence. Co-accused Pradeep was acauitted of all the charges. The appeal prefen'ed by the applicant and Mamta Deen was clecicled by tne impugned judgment whereby leamed Appellate Uourt auowea uie appeal preleiTecl by Mamta Deen and acquitted her of all the charges, however me appeal preferred by the applicant was partly allowed. His conviction under Section 4b7, 4b»and 471 ot l.P.C. was set aside, however his conviction and sentence under Section 420 has been upheld. 3. Leamed comisel tbr fhe applicant submits that written complaint was lodged by P.W. 3 Kalpana Jonathan, however r^,^ ^ ttus wimess na.s not macle any auegation against tne present appucant and nas statecl ttiat money was paid bv tier to me absconairig accused sanaeep Uunarai. yuiiuarlv otner witnesses Aml Topno (P.W. 1), Abha Minj (P.W. 4), Vinita Samuel (P.W. 5), Elizabefli Samuel (F.W. 6), Rosemaiy Samuel (P.W. 7), Raieev Abhisek (P.W. 9) aiid Smt. Clihaya Naidu (P.W. 10) have not made anv allegation against the applicant and his wife however he has been convicted onlv on the basis of statement of witnesses Smt. Manlulon ('P.W. 8), Smt. Chhaya Naidu ('P.W. 10), Sunita Sudha Kanta (P.W. 12), Shailja (P.W. 14), Smt. Yasmin jP.W. 15) and Smt Malti Jadhav (P.W. 21) thougli Uiese vvitnesses never made' anv complaint before the police that thev werc cheated bv the applicant and the accused persons. This was aiso argued Uiat leamed Appellate Comt nas acquitted accused Mamta ueen ot cnarges nowever convicuon ot me applicant has been conlu-uied ttiough ttie allegation made by fhe prosecution witnesses agatnst both fhe accused persons are sunUar ancl ui tiiese circumstances ttie appucant ougnt to nave Deen extenaed benetit ot doutit. 4. un tne ot&er nand, leamed counsel tor the State reteiTmg to paragrapn il to 1.3 ot Uie unpugnecl judgment nas contenaed that nuinerous victims of cheating have deposed before the Court that thev paid money to the applicant ranging from Rs. 50000/- to 1,50,000/- in the hope ot gettuig employment. They were also asJied to reach BomDav. Amounts were deposited bv tnem ui Uie banK: accoiint ot Sandeep Uunarai ana Kavmoncl. T'nev were also m.ade to pav addltional amount in ftie naine ol pass port, however no employment was given to fhe victims and in these circunistances, report was lodged and both tfae Couits below acting upon the statements of above witnesses have convicted and sentenced the applicant and whicn is concurrent tinding of tact and It does not call for interterence. .3. l nave nearcl leaiTiea counsel tor me parties. 6. P.W. 8 Siat. Manjuion has categoricaily stated that Ravmond along with Maoita Deen came to her and uiformed gtgSPS^ heF tjiat iftheyaFe prepaTed-to deposit Rs. 50,000/-TAiey ma^ -obtain eiaployment in Australia whereupon she paid Rs. 25000/- to Eaymond in April 2Q03 fhereafter she paid Rs. 1 laidi in three installments to fhe applicant and his wtfe. On being asked by the appUcant and his wife.they reached Chennai and where it was promised that they shaU be going to Australia via Singapore, however, ao employment was given to ner as promisea nor ttie money was retiirned. Buniiar is Uie statement of Cl-Lhaya Naidu (P.W. 10) who clamied mat she paid Rs. 50000/-to the applicant and his wife fhereafter she was asked to go to Bombav in Uie monfh of dune bv fhe appUcant and Manita Ueen. She stayed in a lodge, number of other persons were also there at Bombay from Bhuai. She met Kaymond in the company of Sandeep Guharai however she retumed Bhilai. Sunuar is tne statement of Naveen Chandra j'P.W. 11'| who has categoricauv atleged that Raymond promised for eiaployment in Australia and asked for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-. He had also assured that he shall accompanv him upto Australia and accordingiy a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was paid by hun to applicant. He had gone to Bombay with ofher 12- l£> persons. Utner witnesses SuLnila SudtiaManta (P.W. 12), S.K.D. Samuel (P.W. 13), Shailja (P.W.14), Smt. Yashmm (P.W.15J, Mohd. Isharak Nijami f'P.W. 16), Maniula Singh j'P.W. 17), Javed Ahmed (P.W. 18), P. Sahiiia Siiresh ('P.W. 19), J. Amitrao (P.W.20'1 and Smt. Malti Jadhav ('P.W. 21) were also examuied and Coiirts below after appreciating the evidence of mese wimesses and on e basis of oUier evlctence avaUable on recora uiat ttie cneated persons were taken to Bombay and Cheruiai by the applicant on the pretext that they were being taken to Australia for employment which was never provided to them by the applicant convicted the applicant. /. it is settled law tnat wnere the trial Court and ftie appeuate Coiirt on appreciauon ot evidence available on record reacnect to Uie concurrent lincluig ot tact tnat tne charge agalnst me accusea was proved beyonct reasonable doubt, orctlnarily it_ -^'•^^^^^^^^-^^^'^'^^n^y^ 'f-'^L^'-^^'^''^'^^^-^"^'-''^ •?'^..; •' v-. .-: '.•.•=•' •••'•:'--L': •..^..^•»B,.i^^l • )tf! is n6feopen'^;tE^Uiglal3®UEt^^ui^ findJng^^tfie^Qoyils^^B^ on re-appreciation ;of evidenc&^iBsi-e^ionati^sdiction^to instant case,the applicant was not abte to^point out that appreciation of evidence by both the Coilrts below was perverse and fhe only ground urged was fhat fhe otber eo-accused Mamta Deen has been acquitted thbuKh stinUar evidence .was available against her. Both the Gourts below considering the role played bv fhe appUcant that he was instrumental in-coUecttng fhe money in the nam.e of providing employDient and subsequentiv giiided fhe victims to reach Bombay and Madras. y. in uie resiitt, ttie peUtion is aevold ot substance ancl ftie same deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. <r.