1 2025:CGHC:6905 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 814 of 2013 1 - Trivendra Kumar Shrivas @ Raju S/o . Veersing Shrivas Aged About 21 Years R/o. Paterapali, P.S. Baghbahara, Distt. Mahasmund C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Baghbahara, Distt. Mahasmund C.G., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For the appellant : Mr. Shailendra Dubey & Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judgment on Board 06/02/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.07.2013 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.20/2012 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/s 363 of IPC and sentenced him RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 2 months. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that a missing report was filed by the father of victim in the Police Station to the effect that her daughter was studying 10th Class in girls School and on 03.11.2011, as usual, she had gone to the school along with her friends for studying and has not returned home since then. When they searched for the victim, they found out that one Triven alias Ranu of Paterapali village had lured and kidnapped his daughter, by promising to make her his wife. The victim’s father Vikram gave a written report Ex.P-1 at Baghbahara Police Station, on the basis of which a case was registered against the accused u/s 363 & 366 IPC in Baghbahara Police station. During the investigation, certificate regarding the age of victim was collected and the statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of formal investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses to prove its case. Thereafter the accused was examined u/s 313 CrPC wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age. He referred to the statement of victim (PW-3) and submits that she herself volunteered that she had gone to Raipur with the appellant of her own free will and did not inform her parents about it and further they got married and were living together, therefore, she was a consenting party. He submits that in view of such evidence of prosecutrix, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained, which needs interference and prays that the appellant be acquitted. 3 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that after considering the facts and evidence, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, which needs no interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 7. The victim (PW-3) herself has stated in her court statement that she had gone to Raipur with the appellant of her own free will and had not informed her parents about it. She has admitted in cross-examination that she had taken the appellant with her and they got married and were living together voluntarily and she wants to live with the appellant. Thus it is clear that she was an consenting party. 8. The conviction of the appellant is under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code for which it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident i.e., 03/11/2011. 9. In the evidence presented regarding the age of the victim (PW-3), the victim herself has stated her date of birth as 09/08/1992 and as defence evidence, the school's Dakhil Kharij register, exhibits D-3 and D-4, have been produced in which also the date of birth stated by the victim viz 09/08/1992, is recorded in the name of the victim and this Admission-Discharge (Dakhil Kharij) register has been certified by defence witness Mrs. Laxmi Barik (PW- 1), who was an assistant teacher of Primary School Paterapali. On calculation from the date of birth 09/08/1992, the victim was more than 18 years old on the date of incident, 03/11/2011. This evidence has not been 4 believed by the trial court. Rather, the trial court has convicted the accused by relying on the Kotwari register, exhibit P-5. 10. In the Kotwari register (Ex.P-5), the date of birth of the girl child of the mother (P.W.-2) and father (P.W.-1) is recorded as 08/09/1994. This information was given to Kotwar Bhagatram (P.S.-4) by the victim's maternal uncle (P.W.-5) which the Kotwar Bhagatram (P.S.-4) has stated to have recorded. However, it is a noteworthy fact that in this information (Ex.P-5) neither the name of the victim which has been mentioned in the prosecution case is recorded nor the date of giving the information is recorded. In the above situation when Kotwar Bhagatram (P.W.-4) himself has accepted that the name of the victim is not recorded but the date of birth is recorded in the name of some other person i.e., Ganeshi wherein the date of giving the information is also not recorded. In such a situation, it becomes doubtful whether the said entry is of the victim and the grounds on which the trial court has relied on the said Kotwari register are not found to be clear and reliable because the victim's mother (PW-2) and father (PW-1) were also unable to tell the victim's date of birth. In this way, the victim's date of birth being 08/09/1994 is not proved beyond doubt and it is also not proved that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of incident-03/11/2011. Since she was the consenting party, , the offence under section 363 of IPC is not found to be proved. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned judgment does not deserve to be sustainable. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under section 363 of IPC. 5 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed 13. The appellant is on bail. He is not required to surrender in this case. His bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao