1 2025:CGHC:47201-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 83 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus Rajeshwar Ram, S/o Lalbihari, Aged About 20 Years, Caste Korva, R/o Machhari Dumarpani, Thana Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant/State : Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent : Shri J.K. Saxena, Advocate. DB: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15/09/2025 1. The present acquittal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 75/2016, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges under Sections 363 and 370 of the IPC. SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.09.17 10:38:09 +0530 2 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29/06/2016 at about 3:00 O'clock the complainant namely, Nava Sai went call of nature then he saw his minor son namely, Laxman aged about 15 years, 11 months and 3 days was sleeping on the bed and thereafter in the morning about 5:00 O'clock, his son was missing from the bed. The complainant tried to search his son- Laxman, but has failed and on the same day it reveals that other minor boys, along with his son, namely, Pardeshi, Ritesh, Sandeep and Naval Sai, were also missing. During search it was found that the accused/ respondent namely, Rajeshwar Ram took the minor boys from their lawful guardianship by giving allurement for providing job and more money, abducted them by a vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG 15/B 4382 from Village Dumarpani, P.S. Bagicha, Jashpur to Jharsoguda Tapkara Road. Thereafter, the complainant Nava Sai (P.W.-8) lodged a missing report to the Police Station Bagicha, Jashpur, based on which, F.I.R. (Ex.P-29) in Crime No. 138/2016 of I.P.C. was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 370 of the I.P.C. 3. After registering the offence, the police started the investigation. During the investigation, a spot map (Ex.P-32) was prepared. The Bolero Jeep was seized vide Ex.P-13. The Investigating Officer, M.J. Firdousi (PW-16) recovered the mark sheets of the victims and recovery panchnama vide Ex.P-7 was prepared and victims Ritesh, Sandeep, Laxman, Pardeshi and Navalsai were recovered from the custody of respondent- Rajeshwar Ram. The statements 3 of the victims were recorded as PW-1 (Pardeshi), PW-12 (Ritesh), PW-13 (Sandeep), PW-10 (Laxman) and PW-14 (Navalsai) and the accused-respondent was arrested on 01/07/2016 vide Ex.P- 31. After completion of usual investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, who in turn, has committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, who framed the charge against the accused-respondent under Sections 363 and 370 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. He further submits that learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged. Learned trial Court is not justified by discarding the evidence of the complainant/father of the victim PW-8 (Nava Sai) in its proper perspective, who while lodging the report has stated that his son Laxman was aged about 15 years, 11 months and 3 days and the other boys were also 4 minor in between 14 to 16 years old as well as the statements of the victims, who were examined as PW-12 (Ritesh), PW-13 (Sandeep), PW-10 (Laxman), PW-11 (Pardeshi) and PW-14 (Navalsai). He submits that learned trial Court was not justified by giving too much weightage to the minor omissions and contradictions that appeared in the prosecution evidence. As such, the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused/respondent deserves to be convicted for aforementioned offence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused/ respondent supports the impugned judgment of acquittal and submits that learned trial Court, while considering the evidence available on record, has rightly acquitted the accused/ respondent, which warrants no interference by this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. 7. The respondent was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 370 of IPC, based upon the report lodged by the father/complainant (PW-8) of the victim as the respondent- accused, while alluring his son Laxman has taken away him for providing job and more money from village Dumarpani to Jharsuguda along with other victims. 8. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the victim was 5 examined as PW-10 and, a bare perusal of his statement, particularly para 2, would show that the respondent came in a jeep and asked the victim and his four other friends, whether they will go Jharsuguda for work, then they said that they will go and they sit in the jeep of the respondent and when they reached near Tapkara, the Police party caught them and informed to Police Station, Bagicha from where his father came and brought them to home on Supurdnama. Though, Laxman (PW-10) has stated in para 2 in his examination-in-chief that the accused-respondent along with his friends has asked them as to whether they will go to Jharsuguda for work, but in his cross-examination at para 4, he turned hostile stating that he and his friends have not go to Jharsuguda for work on the allurement of the accused- respondent. Similar are the statements of PW-12 (Ritesh), PW-13 (Sandeep), PW-11(Pardeshi) and PW-14 (Navalsai). The Investigating officer M.J. Firdausi (PW-16) has deposed in his statement that on 01/07/2016, the abducted children Sandeep, Ritesh, Naval Sai, Laxman and Pardesi were sent to Community Health Centre, Bagicha for medical check-up and on 13/11/2016, the Headmaster of Primary School, Bahina Chattan and the Headmaster of Primary School, Rangpur were contacted for Dakhil Kharij register for ascertaining the age of the missing children vide Ex.P-1 and obtained the copies of the same. Perusal of the copy of the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-1) revealed that the and found that the children/victim were in between 14 to 16 years 6 old. It is, thus, evident from the statements of the victim Laxman (PW-10) and his other friends Sandeep, Ritesh, Naval Sai and Pardesi that the accused-respondent has never taken them away from their lawful guardianship, while alluring on the pretext of providing job. 9. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 10. In the matter of Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Para-25 as under: "25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr.PC. the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get 7 weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 11. As the Supreme Court has held in the matter of Kistoora Ram (supra), Jafarudheen (supra), an appellate Court should interfere with an acquittal only if the trial Court's judgment is perverse, clearly illegal, or results in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the trial Court's findings are reasonable and based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 12. In paragraph 21 of the judgment, the trial Court has rightly observed that accused-respondent has not committed the alleged offence of abducting the victim and his friends from their lawful guardianship on the pretext of providing job and more money by taking them from village Dumarpani to Jharsuguda. The other abducted children/victim Pardeshi (PW-11), Ritesh (PW-12), Sandeep (PW-13) and Naval Sai (PW-14) have also denied in their cross-examination that on 29/6/2016, the accused had called Sandeep from his mobile phone and promised to get him a good job and that at the behest of the accused they, along with the other abducted children came to the accused at Machhri Dumrapani under the influence of the accused without informing their parents and also denied that the accused took them to Jharsuguda in his Bolero vehicle. Thus, Laxman (PW-10) and other victims, who were accompanying him themselves have also denied that the accused had allured and abducted them and taken 8 towards Jharsuguda in a Bolero vehicle. In such a situation, the evidence presented against the accused-respondent does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge under Sections 363 and 370 of the IPC. 13. In the present case, the trial Court has duly considered all material aspects, including inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. It has given detailed and cogent reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 14. It is also to be noted that the incident relates to the year 2016 and the appeal has been pending for about 7 and 1/2 years. In such a situation, unless a gross perversity and miscarriage of justice is shown, interference with an order of acquittal after such a long lapse of time is unwarranted. 15. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice sunita