Elderly woman acquitted in cheating case

A local court has acquitted 62-year-old Krishna Kumari Sharma, who was arrested in a cheating case, after the prosecution failed to prove charges framed against her.

The police registered the case under Section 420 and 406 of IPC, and 4 of the Prize Chit Fund Circulation Act, 1978, on a complaint filed by Ravi Prakash Gupta and 35 co-complainants on February 25, 2015.

The complainants said they were members of the “kitty”/committee being run by the accused and all members contributed different amounts in the “kitty”.

They asked the accused to disburse the amount but she refused. When they visited the accused’s house, they were attacked by her family, the complainants alleged.

The police registered an FIR against the accused and started an investigation.

During the course of investigation, the allegations of manhandling and threatening were found to be baseless. However, the police found that Krishna Kumari had cheated 28 complainants out of Rs 30,22,575.

Ten complainants joined the investigation and it turned out they were duped of a total of Rs.9,03,577.

After completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the court. After finding a prima facie case, the court farmed charges against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The public prosecutor said the complainant, Ravi Prakash Gupta, who retired from the BSNL as Assistant Director, recorded his statement that after much persuasion by Krishna Kumari, he invested his money in the committee run by her in 2012. She had promised to give him Rs 4,50,000, but failed.

However, Amar Singh Chahal, counsel for the accused, denied the charges.

After hearing of the arguments, the court acquitted the accused. The court said the Investigating Officer had stated in his evidence that the complainant did not provide any proof of payment made to the accused or any other receipt. So, the source of the alleged money is clearly not proved on record. Further, as per Section 3 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, any person, who participates in a committee, is equally liable for the offence. The accused is an old woman. The complainant is a retired Assistant Director. It is not possible for a woman like the accused to lure the complainant with such a huge amount. Also, there is no recovery of any amount of money from the accused. The prosecution has failed to explain that if the accused had taken some money from the complainant, then what did she do with that money, said the court.

The prosecution was required to prove the trail of money used by leading evidence, but it was not done and there is no evidence on the case file to show that the accused has used such a huge somewhere, which is another lacuna in the prosecution case, the court added.

Chandigarh