1 2025:CGHC:55076-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.82 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Safiq Ansari S/o Mikail Ansari Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mahavirganj, Chowki Vijaynagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sanjay Kumar Singh S/o Ramnath Singh Khairwar Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mahavirganj, Chowki Vijaynagar, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents/Accused For Appellant : Shri Sachhidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini appears along with Shri Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocates DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 12/11/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 30/08/2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) (Authorized under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.11.13 10:52:41 +0530 2 Act, 1989 in Special Sessions Trial No.78/2016, whereby, the respondent No.1-Shafik Ansari has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 343 and 376(2)(n) of IPC, read with Section 5(l)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while respondent No.2-Sanjay Kumar Singh has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366-A and 343 of IPC, read with Section 5(l)/6/7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2) From perusal of the record, it appears that an FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 19.07.2016 before the Police Chowki Vijay Nagar, Police Station Ramanujganj of District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, stating therein, that his daughter-the prosecutrix, who is 15 years old, had gone to the school in the morning around 9 AM, but, did not return and upon enquiry, it was informed by the teachers of the concerned school that she left the school around 3 PM as she was not feeling well and after knowing the said fact, he enquired about her from his relatives, but did not get any of her whereabouts and, it was, therefore, apprehended by him that some unknown person has abducted his daughter while alluring her. Based upon the alleged information, an offence was registered against an unknown person under Section 363 of IPC and, during investigation, she was recovered from Nalagarh, District Solan of the State of Himachal Pradesh, on 08.08.2016 from the possession of respondent No.1-Shafik Ansari and after her recovery, she was examined medically by Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-3), who upon her examination, referred to the higher center for 3 determination of her age and, during further investigation, Dakhil-Kharij Register (Ex.P-12-AC) and the Declaration Form (Ex.D-3), based upon which, the date of birth was entered in the said Dakhil-Kharij Register as ‘12.07.2001’, were recovered from the concerned school, and after completion of the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned trial Court and based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge-sheeted for the offences as mentioned herein-above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents along with Caste Certificate of the prosecutrix and also Declaration Form regarding her date of birth, while none was examined by the respondents in their defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the minority of the prosecutrix and, since she has visited several places along with the respondents, therefore, it was held that she was one of the consenting party for the alleged offence and, accordingly, they have been acquitted from the commission of the alleged crime and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the prosecutrix was not minor at the relevant point of time, is apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, has not been scanned in 4 its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondents as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the prosecutrix had left the house on 16.07.2016 around 9 AM, but did not return, therefore, when her father (PW-1) did not get any of her whereabouts, despite of its searching from his relatives, a report was lodged against an unknown person, by stating that someone while alluring his daughter, has abducted her and during the investigation, she was found to be recovered from the possession of respondent No.1-Shafik Ansari on 08.08.2016 at Nalagarh, District Solan of the State of Himachal Pradesh. 9) In order to establish the alleged allegations, the prosecutrix was examined as PW-2 and, perusal of her testimony would reveal the fact that she went to the Village Meghuli from the Village-Mahavirganj and thereafter, she went to Ramanujganj along with the respondents by Bus and thereafter, went to Gadwa (Jharkhand) and then, went to Nalagarh, District Solan of the State of Himachal Pradesh by Train and they had resided there on a rented premises. She has, thus, visited various places from 16.07.2016, the date when she left her home for the school up to 08.08.2016, when she recovered from Nalagarh, District Solan (H.P.). It is to be seen further that during this period, 5 when she was going to Ramanujganj and Gadwa by Bus, she did not raise any alarm, nor has raised any objection, when she went to Nalagarh, District Solan by Train. What is, therefore, reflected from her conduct that she, on her own, had visited various places along with the respondents and, therefore, it cannot be said that she was either abducted, or kidnapped by them forcefully or compelled her to go along with them. 10) It is, therefore, now to be seen as to whether she was minor at the relevant point of time or not and, for establishing her minority, the prosecution has produced the Dakhil-Kharij Register (Ex.P-12-AC) and the Declaration Form (Ex.D-3), based upon which, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was entered therein after recovering the same from the concerned School. In order to establish the same, the Headmaster of the concerned School, namely, Pramod Prasad was examined as PW- 4. It, however, appears from a bare perusal of his cross-examination that the alleged entry regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix was neither made by him, nor the alleged Declaration Form (Ex.D-3) was filled by him. Even otherwise, a bare perusal of the Declaration Form (Ex.D-3), based upon which, the alleged entry pertaining to her birth date was made therein while showing as ‘12.07.2001’, would show that there is some manipulation with regard to the “month” and the said fact was specifically admitted by him. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it in order to arrive at a conclusion that her date of birth is ‘12.07.2001’ as shown therein. 11) Pertinently to be noted here further at this juncture that when the prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Snehlata Tirkey (PW-3), who did not 6 get any kind of external injury on her body vide her report Ex.P-10, has referred her to the higher center vide her report Ex.P-11 for determination of her age, but, no report was, however, placed on record, so as to hold that she was minor at the relevant point of time. The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove the minority of the prosecutrix. 12) As observed herein-above, since the prosecutrix has visited several places along with the respondents without raising any objection or alarm, when she was travelling by Bus from Mahavirganj to Ramanujganj and to Gadwa (Jharkhand) and thereafter, to Nalagarh, District Solan (Himachal Pradesh) by Train and the conduct of her is, therefore, apparent that she has visited said several places along with the respondents on her own and since she was not found to be a minor, therefore, the trial Court, upon taking note of these materials, has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was a consenting party with regard to the alleged offence, while acquitting them for the commission of the alleged crime. 13) Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SSD/-SD/-D/-D//- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane