1 CRA No.428 of 2016 2025:CGHC:34562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 428 of 2016 Ishwar @ Ajju S/o Gorakh Nat Nag Aged About 20 Years Caste Swiper, R/o Nayamunda Ambedkar Ward Jagdalpur, P.S. Bodhghat Revenue And Civil District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh .. Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bodhghat, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ..Respondent For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate For Respondent/State: Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 21/07/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11/03/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur, Special Judge POCSO in Special Case No.7/2016 whereby the appellant has been sentence and convicted as under:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.23 14:32:41 +0530 2 CRA No.428 of 2016 Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the IPC S.I. for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine,additional im- prisonment for 6 months. Under Section 366(A) of the IPC S.I. for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine,additional im- prisonment for 6 months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that mother of victim (PW-1) lodged a missing report on 01-11-2015 that on 25-10-2015, at about 6 p.m., her daughter/victim went to kitchen for making tea, thereafter, she was not found. During investigation, on 02/11/2015, the victim was recovered from the possession of the present appellant and it is alleged that on the pretext of marriage, the appellant took the victim to Raipur and stayed at his friend’s house. Thereafter, recovery panchnama and spot map were prepared vide Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-8 respectively. Appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-10 and after due investigation, final report was filed before the concerned Court. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned 3 CRA No.428 of 2016 trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that as per prosecution, the victim was missing since 25/10/2015 and the FIR was lodged on 02/11/2015, hence, there is a long delay in lodging of FIR by the mother of victim. He further submits that the victim did not support the case of the prosecution; she stated in her evidence that due to some quarrel with her mother, she left the house and went to Raipur with the appellant. Moreover, there are contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the victim in respect to allegations made in the FIR. Hence, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the statement of the victim and other witnesses are fully reliable. There are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant is guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment 4 CRA No.428 of 2016 of conviction and sentence against the appellant which does not require for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. PW-3, victim stated in her evidence that she knows the appellant. She stated that the police took her statement and questioned her where the appellant had taken her, then she told them that the appellant had taken her to Raipur. On being asked by the police, the victim told that nothing had happened with her. The police had asked her why she had gone Raipur, then the victim told them that she had a fight with her mother, so she had gone to Raipur and she had not told her mother about this. She stated that her mother used to scold her regarding the domestic chores and says “you keep sitting idle, who will do the work” that is why she had gone to Raipur. When she had gone to Raipur, she had not taken anything with her. She further stated that the appellant took her Raipur by Royal Bus at night. In cross-examination, she stated that she knows the appellant from 6th standard. On 25/10/2015, when she quarreled with her mother, she left the house and met with the appellant at Tiranga Chowk, where the appellant told her that he was going to Raipur, to which, she also had gone Raipur with the appellant. After reaching Raipur, she told the appellant that the work for which she came to Raipur was not completed, so she 5 CRA No.428 of 2016 would have to stay. Then, the appellant told her that Karan is his friend who lives with his family and if she want, she can stay there. She stated that from 25.10.2015 to 01.11.2015, she stayed in Raipur due to her need. She stated that when her work was not completed in Raipur till 01.11.2015, she told the appellant to go home, then the appellant brought her to Jagdalpur at night and she stayed in the house of the appellant where his parents also lives. She further admits that at the time she was leaving the house of the appellant to go to her house in the afternoon, her mother reached the house of the appellant with the police and took her from there. 8. PW-1, mother of victim stated in her evidence that the incident took place about 2-3 months ago. She stated that the appellant had eloped with her daughter/victim from home around 5-6 pm. She had reported the incident at the Bodhghat police station. Later, het daughter was recovered at the house of the appellant after three-four days and the victim was handed over to her. In cross-examination, she admits that that the appellant was already talking to her daughter and she did not like the appellant talking to her daughter. When she came to know that her daughter was talking to the appellant, she made her understood and told that she should not talk to the appellant. 9. PW-2, Manmati, neighbor of the complainant, stated in her cross- 6 CRA No.428 of 2016 examination that PW-1, mother of victim used to scold her daughter/victim whenever she came to know that the victim used to talk with the appellant. 10. Considering the statement of victim PW-3 that because of quarrel with her mother PW-1, she left the house and met with the appellant at bus stand, from where, by her own will, she had gone with the appellant at Raipur and stayed in the house of the friend of the appellant for a few days. On 01/11/2015, on her request, the appellant took the victim from Raipur to Jagdalpur at night and she stayed in the house of the appellant, where the parents of the appellant also lives. Next day, when she was going to her house, mother of the victim reached the house of the appellant along with police and took her from there. Apart from that, looking to the statement of victim, she deposed that her mother always used to scold her regarding the domestic chores. PW-1, mother of victim stated that her daughter/victim used to talk with the appellant and she did not like the appellant talking to her daughter. PW-2 Manmati, neighbor of victim stated that in her cross-examination that the the mother of victim used to scold her daughter/victim whenever she came to know that the victim used to talk with the appellant. Hence, it is manifest from the aforesaid evidence that the appellant had not forcefully abducted the appellant, the victim herself gone with the appellant to Raipur and stayed with his friend's house for a few days. Moreover, the appellant and victim 7 CRA No.428 of 2016 known to each other from 6th standard and used to talk each other, as such, the victim had gone to Raipur and stayed at the house of the friend of the appellant by her own will and consent and she categorically state before the Police that nothing has happened with her. 11. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. The appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 12. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep