AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No.428 of 2010 The State of Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus Sharad Kumar Thawait, S/o Baldau Thawait, aged about 24 years, R/o Kadam Chowk, Champa, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant/State : Mr. Shivnath Shrivas, P.L.

For Respondent : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Proceedings through Video Conferencing)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board

04.02.2022

1. Appellant/State filed this acquittal appeal under Section

378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenging judgment of acquittal dated 19.08.2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.200 of 2002 whereby learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent from charges under Sections 507 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal, are that, complainant Noharlal Dewangan lodged a report on 01.07.1998 with concerned Police Station stating that he is engaged in the business of cloth selling. Since last about 5-6 months, some unknown person is sending unnamed letters of obscene comments. Letters are being sent from Raipur or Korba. In letters, obscene language and comments are being used against his wife, sister and niece. Last letter was received on 24.06.1998. In complaint, suspicion was raised upon five persons namely, Lala Thawait, Ganpati Dewangan, Chootelal Shriwas, Kedarnath Dewangan and respondent. Based on written report, First Information Report was registered. During course of investigation, applicant was arrested and charge-sheet was filed against him. Prosecution examined as many eight witnesses. Statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, he pleaded not to be guilty. Prosecution also produced the documents, which were marked as Exhibits P/1 to P/24 including report of Handwriting Expert (State Examiner). After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted the respondent from aforementioned charges.

3. Mr. Shivnath Shrivas, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/appellant would submit that learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence available on record properly. He submits that based on complaint of PW-2 Noharlal Dewangan, Police seized letter written by unknown person from PW-2 Noharlal Dewangan vide Ex. P/3. After receipt of letter, sample hand writing of respondent was taken. Letter seized and sample hand writing of respondent was sent to Handwriting Expert (State Handwriting Examiner). PW-7 Mahendra Singh Thakur upon examining questioned documents forwarded to him, submitted report on 17.12.2019 and found documents marked as S-1 to S-40 to be written by same person who wrote document marked as Q-1 to Q-6. Opinion of Handwriting Expert is marked as Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/ 7. He submits that when there is report of Handwriting Expert against respondent, learned Court below erred in acquitting respondent from charges. It is contented that accused can be convicted on the basis of report of Handwriting Expert. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon rulings, in case of Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1967 MPLJ 473 and Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1973 MPLJ 674 (SC). He also contended that learned Court below not appreciated the evidence of witnesses properly, particularly evidence of PW-2 Noharlal Dewangan, PW-5 Surendra Mishra, PW-7 Mahendra Singh Thakur and PW-8 Prashant Katlam. The finding recorded by trial Court is perverse to evidence available on record, hence, it deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, Ms. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent opposing submissions of learned counsel for appellant would submit that finding recorded by trial Court is based on appreciation of d