1 CRA No.1559/2025 2025:CGHC:56745-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1559 of 2025 1 - Bimla Yadav W/o Late Dileep Yadav Aged About 36 Years Caste- Raut R/o Village- Tangargaon, P.S. Kasabell District- Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Nilu @ Nirmala Nayak W/o Komal Ahirwar Aged About 31 Years Caste- Dom, R/o Village- Udaipura, P.S. Bijavar, District- Chhatarpur (M.P.) 3 - Komal Ahirwar S/o Omeda Ahirwar Aged About 33 Years Caste- Dom, R/o Village- Udaipura, P.S. Bijawar, District- Chhatarpur (M.P.) ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Tapkara, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Nishikant Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Tharkur. Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 21.11.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellants-accused under Section AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.25 11:14:43 +0530 2 CRA No.1559/2025 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/07/2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Ambikapur, District Surguja in Special Criminal Case No. 33/2024, whereby the appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 r/w 120 B of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation each Under Section 365 r/w 120 B of IPC (in which Section 368 is contained) R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation each Under Section 366-A r/w 120 B of IPC R.I. for 4 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation each Under Section 370 r/w 120 B of IPC R.I. for 14 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 1. Facts of the case, in brief, is that complainant- Sampet Yadav PW-1 has lodged a report that victims i.e. PW-2, PW-3 and PW- 4, children of his grand son Bhuneshwar who died at the age of 18 years, therefore, the children use to reside with Gudal, elder brother of complainant. On 12.04.2024 his daughter-in-law informed him about the missing of children from the house of Gudal, then he inquired and Arvind Yadav, Devnandan and Lodharm told him that Bimla Yadav/A-1 who is nephew (Bhanji) of complainant took the victims along with her on scooty. After 2-3 days, when he called A-1, she denied about taking the 3 CRA No.1559/2025 children/victims. Thereafter, on the basis of this, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-5. Memorandum statements were recorded. Recovery Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-8. After completion of investigation, final report was prepared. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 56 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellants herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal have been preferred by the appellants-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and material available on record. The statement of victims and witnesses goes to show that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the case and the victims have not been 4 CRA No.1559/2025 trafficked for any kind of exploitation, threat of assault made by the appellants. The victims have categorically stated that they were no forced into any kind of labour work or forced to any physical or sexual exploitation. The prosecution has completely failed to prove any offence committed by the A-2 and A-3 as there is no material evidence against them. The whole case of the prosecution is based upon conjecture and surmise. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. PW-2 (victim), stated in his evidence that he knows A-1 and does not know A-2 and A-3. He stated that he along with his two sisters were taken away by appellant. While interrogation, he first said that the appellant took them by bus, then in Bolero. In cross- examination, he stated that he had not visited the house of the appellant. It is correct to say that the appellant never took him 5 CRA No.1559/2025 anywhere in a vehicle. He had not gone outside the house. 8. PW-1, complainant stated in his evidence that when he asked the victims/children regarding the incident, they stated that the appellant told them that they would receive their father’s money in Jashpur and thereafter took them on a scooty to Tapkara. From Tapkara, she boarded them in bus and took them to Kunkuri. From Kunkuri, she took them to Kansabel by bus. At Kansabel, they met Nirmala, who told the children that they would get good work, the two sisters would be married into a big family, and that Shashikant would stay with her. Then, brought them to Ambikapur by bus. Apart from this, the children did not say anything else. 9. PW-3 stated in her evidence that when their family members reported the incident, the A-2 and A-3 were saying to tell the family that they had gone to visit some relatives. After that, A-2 brought all three of them to Ambikapur and took them on a bus to Kansabel. In Kansabel, they met A-1, who took them to the Tapkara police station. She too was telling them to tell their family members that they had gone to visit relatives. She further stated that in Udaipur, A-2 and A-3 kept her in their house. After two or three days, they called about three boys for her to meet. The accused A-2 and A-3, were telling to marry, and they had brought those boys for her to marry. Thereafter, she refused to marry. 10. PW-4 stated in her evidence that her elder sister (PW-3) was 6 CRA No.1559/2025 called by A-2 and A-3 to meet 2-3 boys for marriage. But her elder sister said that she was too young and refused to get married. 11. PW-16, Sub Inspector, stated in his evidence that in the documents (Exhibit P-2) related to handing over the children/victims after their recovery, the time is not mentioned. He submits that a general railway ticket does not contain the passenger’s name. He further submits that he did not seize any mobile phone from A-2. He further stated that he cannot state in whose name the mobile number is registered. From the CDR, one can only know the mobile number, the timing of the calls, and the location; it does not reveal what conversation took place. 12. PW-6, memorandum witness stated in his evidence that he has not remember whether the police has taken the statement of appellants in from of him. He further stated that the police has not seized anything from the appellants. In cross-examination, he stated that when the children were met and asked, they stated that A-1 had taken them on a scooter to Tapkara, telling them that they would receive their father’s money. In Tapkara, after paying ₹500 as bus fare, she had sent them to the Kansabel. The children stated to him that at Kansabel, A-2 met them and took them by bus to Ambikapur, and from there, she took them by train to Madhya Pradesh. 13. Upon careful examination of evidence on record, PW-2 (victim) 7 CRA No.1559/2025 admitted that he knew only A-1 and did not know A-2 and A-3. He also stated that he had never been taken anywhere by the A-1 in a vehicle and had not left the house, thereby casting serious doubt on the claim that the appellant transported the children. PW-1 (complainant) and PW-6 gave statements attributing the movement of the children to A-1 and other accused. However, the statements are inconsistent regarding the mode of transport (bus /Bolero/scooty), the sequence of travel, and the persons involved at each stage, creating material contradictions in the prosecution’s narrative. PW-3’s testimony further indicates that A-2 and A-3 told the family that the children had gone to visit relatives. The role of the appellants in this account is uncertain, and it is clear that multiple versions of the incident exist, undermining the credibility of the prosecution case. PW-16, Sub Inspector, admitted that the documents relating to the recovery of the children do not mention the time of recovery. The general railway tickets produced do not bear the names of passengers, no mobile phones were seized from the appellants, and the Call Detail Records (CDRs) only reveal the number, timing, and location, without any evidence of the content of communication. PW-6 also confirmed that the police did not seize any incriminating material from the appellants in front of him and could not confirm that the children’s statements conclusively implicated the appellants. PW-2 (victim) categorically deposed that he had not visited the house of the A-1 and never 8 CRA No.1559/2025 took anywhere in a vehicle. He had not gone outside the house. 14. Apart from that, it is further noted that there is no evidence that the appellants assaulted the victims/children or subjected them to any form of physical or mental harm. There is also no evidence to suggest that the appellants forced the children to perform labor, coerced them into marriage, or engaged in any conduct constituting human trafficking. The appellants have not forcibly abducted the victims. The prosecution has failed to prove any of these essential ingredients required for such offenses. Moreover, the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 indicate that the alleged attempts to arrange marriage were repeatedly refused by the victims themselves, who stated that they were too young to marry. There is no evidence that the appellants forcibly married, assaulted, or coerced the victims in any manner. 15. From the material available on record, it is quite evident that most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the version of the prosecution. It is also evident that the prosecution utterly failed to establish that the victims have been exploited physically or sexually or forced them in any kind of work. 16. In view of these material inconsistencies, the absence of direct evidence implicating the appellants, and the lack of any acts constituting assault, forced labor, forced marriage, or human 9 CRA No.1559/2025 trafficking, the Court finds that the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof. 17. In the result, the appeal is Allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. 18. The appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as required under the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellants shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 19. 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/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Amardeep