1 CRA No. 807 of 2016 2025:CGHC:32353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 807 of 2016 1 - Ramjeet Ram S/o Mohar Ram Korwa Aged About 24 Years R/o Mudhi, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. K. Saxena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 11/07/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2016 passed in Special Sessions Case No. 08/2015 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), District SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.15 10:40:32 +0530 2 CRA No. 807 of 2016 Jashpur, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the father of the victim (PW-1) lodged a report stating that on 10/07/2015, his daughter went to wash her hands at the public tap where the accused namely; Ramjeet Korwa resides in their village came; caught her hand; and took her. His daughter returned after three days and on enquiring, she told that Ramjeet had forcibly dragged her with him. He took her from Sulesha to village Kurkuriya and kept her at his grandmother's house. The next day the accused left her in the garden. Since the accused Ramjeet had earlier also kidnapped his daughter once, he along with his brother Kaidu tried to find out the whereabouts of his daughter. He went to Ramjeet's house where he met his daughter who on questioning told that while coming from elder father's house she met Ramjeet who forcibly abducted her by promising to marry her and raped her. 3. During investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/22) was prepared. Statement of the Victim and the Statements of witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges 3 CRA No. 807 of 2016 were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.05.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He would submit that the medical report is not supported the version of the prosecution. In the evidence of the witnesses, it can be seen that there are material contradiction and omissions. According to the learned counsel only to harass the appellant the false case has been foisted against him and without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made 4 CRA No. 807 of 2016 by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The sole question for consideration is whether the accused has forcefully taken away the victim or not. 11. PW/1 – father of the victim in his cross-examination has stated that he did not immediately lodge a report in the police station about the first incident occurred in the month of August in which his daughter was being caught by accused Ramjeet and taken to his house and his daughter returned home after 2-3 days. He voluntarily said that his brother had gone to look for her who told him about accused Ramjeet taking her away. He himself stated that after the incident, no report has been filed till 08 days of her missing. The accused lives in his house as tenant and while residing in his house, his daughter used to meet the wife of accused namely Jalakumari and they had a friendly relationship. He himself stated that at that time his daughter had gone to another village with the accused to attend the wedding of the accused's relative. PW-3 mother of the victim reiterated the version of her husband i.e. PW- 1 and nothing extra has been elicited by the prosecution. 12. The victim PW/2 has categorically stated in her deposition that the accused had not done anything wrong with her in his house. She stated 5 CRA No. 807 of 2016 that she used to live with the wife of accused. At this stage, the victim PW/2 has declared hostile. In her cross-examination, she stated that the accused alongwith his family living on rent in our house, she used to call him as Kaka (Uncle) and his wife Jalkumari as Kaki (Aunt). She further stated that the accused always treated her like his daughter and even after the accused vacated our house, he used to talk to me whenever he met. She voluntarily stated that she went to the accused's house on her own will. She also stated that before giving the statement in Jashpur Magistrate Court, her father and other family members explained her what statement she had to give in the Court and she herself admitted the fact that she gave the statement before the Jashpur Magistrate Court as explained by her father. She stated that she went to the house of accused and told his wife Jalkumari that Aunty I have come as a guest to your family. She also stated that the accused did not forcibly keep her in their house. She stated that her father did not like her going to the house of the accused and talking to them because of the accused vacating their house. She vehemently stated that she had gone to the house of the accused to meet them on her own free will, due to which her father got annoyed and filed a report on false grounds and maliciously implicated the accused. She stated that the accused did not lure her and take her to his house. 13. Upon cumulative analysis, it is found that there is material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, further looking to the conduct of father and mother in not lodging the immediate FIR or missing report itself creates doubt upon the prosecution case and it 6 CRA No. 807 of 2016 appears to be a false case of implication of the appellant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the offence under Section 363 of the IPC for abduction cannot be held reliable against the appellant. 14. The statement of the prosecution witnesses exhibits significant contradictions and omissions that undermine its reliability and credibility. Inconsistencies in the timeline and factual details suggest discrepancies that call into question the accuracy of the account. Furthermore, critical omissions regarding key events and circumstances hinder a comprehensive understanding of the situation, potentially indicating selective memory or intentional withholding of information. Such inconsistencies and gaps necessitate a cautious approach in weighing the evidentiary value of the victim’s statement, as they may affect the overall integrity of the case and the pursuit of truth. 15. Upon considering the entire evidence available on record, this Court found that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses, which does not inspire confidence over the credibility of their statements, which in the opinion of this Court, seems unreliable. 16. As far as the question of age of the victim is concerned, the learned trial Court has appreciated the fact that the victim was major at the time of incident. Father of the victim also stated that he is illiterate, unable to recognize the writings and not capable enough to tell the age of his daughter; also the victim herself stated in her deposition that she is unable to tell her actual date of birth; and her mother also stated that she 7 CRA No. 807 of 2016 cannot tell her daughter’s exact date of birth. However it is apparent from the statement of the victim that she on her own will went to the house of the accused appellant to meet him, therefore, under these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to pay heed towards the age of the victim. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had forcefully taken away the Victim, and from the evidence of the victim, the same creates doubt, therefore, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 18. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge leveled against him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 19. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge S. Bhilwar/ Gowri