1 2025:CGHC:7790-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 177 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kirandul, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh., ... Appellant versus Krishna Kumar Gedam @ Golu S/o Baburao Gedam, Aged About 27 Years R/o Ring Road No. 4, Kirandul, Police Station Kirandul, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State :Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent :Shri Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board. 13.02.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.02.14 10:41:13 +0530 2 dated 03.01.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) in Sessions Trial No.311/2011, whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is, that on 17.07.2011, a missing report(Ex.P-9/C) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, stating therein, that on 15.07.2011 at 1.30 pm, his daughter while informing her mother that she is going to her friend’s house at Singarpur, but did not return even by evening, therefore, they searched for her, but they didn’t get any information about her whereabouts and based upon its inquiry, it was revealed that the respondent, while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her to Diva-Mumbai and has committed sexual intercourse with her. An FIR (Ex.P-10) was thereafter registered against the respondent on 25.07.2011 in connection with Crime No.61/2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. After recording the statement of the prosexutrix and others’, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bacheli, District Dantewada with regard to the alleged offence as mentioned herein-above and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the Court of Sessions for its trial, where charges have been framed against the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited 15 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent has not committed the alleged offence contrary to the wish of the prosecutrix and accordingly, acquitted him from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not the author of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly, the statement of the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent from the commission of alleged offence, as such. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the trial Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecutrix had gone on 4 15.07.2011 at 1.30 pm, while intimating her mother that she is going to her friend’s house and when she did not return by the evening, the father of the prosecutrix has lodged the missing report (Ex.P-9/C) on 17.07.2011 before the Police Station, Kirandul, District Dantewada and during its inquiry, it was revealed that the respondent, while alluring to marry, took her to Diva-Mumbai and has committed sexual intercourse with her and the alleged offences have, accordingly, been registered against him. In order to establish the said fact, the prosecutrix (PW-1) entered into the witness box and it was stated that the respondent has threatened to abduct her brother, who is studying in nearby School and that by alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her to Diva-Mumbai and kept her in his relative’s house. It was stated further that on 22.07.2011, she received the information that her mother is not well and, therefore, she returned to home on 25.07.2011. Although, it was stated by her that the respondent has threatened to abduct her brother and while alluring her on the pretext of marriage, took her to Diva- Mumbai, but with regard to the alleged threat, as was made by her before the Court, nothing was, however, stated by her in her statement (Ex.D-1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. That apart, it appears from the statement of mother (PW-3) that her daughter had stayed at Kondagaon with one Krishna Singh and Shambhunath and had stated specifically at para 14 that both, i.e. her daughter and the accused/respondent are in love affair and, stated further at para 15 that if the accused would not have belonged to Harijan Community, marriage of him would have been solemnized with her daughter. It, 5 thus, appears that the prosecutrix and respondent are in relation, as such, it cannot be said that the respondent has abducted or took her forcefully while alluring her on the pretext of marriage or by threatening to abduct her brother. The prosecutrix has, thus, on her own wish had gone with the respondent on the fateful day, i.e. 15.07.2011 and, therefore, the trial Court, has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged offence, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 9. The appeal being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita