1 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 2025:CGHC:53283-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1093 of 2025 Tulshi Chandrakar S/o. Ashok Aged About 25 Years R/o. Sarora, Near Krishna Enterprises Colony, Police Station D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Saraswati Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 1327 of 2025 Vikram Singh Chouhan @ Veer Singh S/o Bhramdev, Aged About 21 Years R/o Phool Chowk, Near Bajrang Mandir, Police Station- Moudhapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Respondent (Cause title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant in CRA No.1093/2025 : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No.1327/2025 : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.04 10:49:12 +0530 2 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 31/10/2025 1. Since both the appeals arising out of same sessions trial, therefore, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. In the present case, there are five accused persons namely; Vikram Singh, Altaf Khan, Vikas Singh Rajpoot, Beena Thakur and Tulsi Chandrakar, and out of which, three accused persons i.e. Altaf Khan, Vikas Singh Rajpoot and Beena Thakur have been acquitted from the trial Court. The present appellants namely; Vikram Singh Chouhan @ Veer Singh (CRA No.1327/2025) and Tulsi Chandrakar (CRA No.1093/2025) have been convicted. 3. These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15/05/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2nd Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur C.G. in Special Criminal Case No.229/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Accused: Tulshi Chandrakar (CRA No.1093/2025) : Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the IPC R.I. for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. Accused: Vikram Singh Chouhan (CRA No.1327/2025) 3 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 of the IPC R.I. for 3 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. Under Section 366 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month Under Section 323 of the IPC R.I. for 6 months. Under Section 506 Part-1 of the IPC R.I. for 1 year & fine of Rs.500/- in de- fault of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month Under Section 4 of the POCSO Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 20 years & fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 month. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, is that PW-3, father of the victim lodged a missing report at Police Station Sarswati Nagar that on 11/12/2019 at 8 a.m. the victim had gone somewhere and did not return home. Thereafter, he started searching his daughter at the houses of relatives and acquaintances but could not find her. Based on above facts, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-38. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-4. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Vikram Singh, on pretext of marriage, took the victim at Nawa Raipur where he gave her intoxicants, and made physical relationship with her, meanwhile he also took victim at the house of his aunt namely Beena Thakur (acquitted accused) and, other co-accused persons supported the main 4 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 accused Vikram Singh. Based on above facts, FIR was registered against the accused persons. Recovery Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-17. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-2. The victim was medically examined by Dr. Snehlata Singh (PW-5) and submitted a medical report vide Ex.P/13. With regard to ascertain the age of the victim, Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P- 10/C) birth certificate Article A-C was seized. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 5. In order to bring home the above-stated offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 42 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. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They submit that the victim herself went to the appellant Vikram at various places and stayed with him by her own will. They further submit that the victim and the appellant-Vikram are known to each other and the victim was a consenting party. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the actual age of the victim and PW-4, Office 5 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 Executive of the School stated in his evidence that he has not recorded the date of birth of victim in the Dakhil Kharij register. Learned counsel further submit that accused Tulshi Chandrakar was a school Van Driver and he is not the main accused in the case. The victim used to go school in the Van of Tulshi(Driver). On the date of incident, the vicitm herself had gone with Tulshi. They also submit that the allegation of abduction against Tulshi false and baseless as the vicimt used to go school in the in the Van of Tulshi, who was a Driver. FSL report also negative in the case, no human sperm was found on the vaginal slide and undergarments of victim and Accused Vikram. The entire incident is highly doubtful, therefore, the conviction of the appellants are not sustainable and they may be acquitted of the charges framed against them. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants are guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants which does not require for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 10. The first question arose for the consideration would be whether the victim was minor and less than 18 years of age on the date of incident or not. 11. PW-2, mother of victim stated that at the date of birth of victim is 10/12/2004. PW-3, father of victim stated in his evidence that the date of birth of victim is 10/12/2004. PW-1 Victim stated in her evidence that her date of birth is 10/12/2004. 12. PW-4, Sanjay Tripathi, Office Executive of the school has deposed in his statement that the Dakhil Kharij Register Ex.P-10/C was seized by the police. He deposed that the victim got admission in the school in 1st class and in the dakhil-kharij register, the date of birth of victim has been mentioned as 10/12/2004. In cross- examination, he has admitted that the entries in the said register with regard to date of birth of the victim was not made by him. Copy of birth certificate (Art. A-C) issued by the Registrar (Birth- Death) has been produced wherein the date of birth has been mentioned as 10/12/2004. Thus, it is crystal clear that on the date of incident the victim has completed more than 15 years of age. 13. Very recently in the matter of Tilku Alias Tilak Singh V. The State Of Uttarakhand, reported in 2025 INSC 226, the Supreme Court has held that he victim, who is between 16 to 18 years of age is very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her. Relevant para of the said judgment states as under:- 7 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 “16. Even if the finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the prosecutrix was between 16 to 18 years of age is to be accepted, in our view, the offence under Sections 363 and 366 IPC would still not be made out. 17. This Court in the case of S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras, reported in 1964 SCC OnLine SC 36 had an occasion to consider almost similar facts that arise for consideration in the present case. This Court has observed thus: “7. …..It will thus be seen that taking or enticiting away a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping. Here, we are not concerned with enticement but what we have to find out is whether the part played by the appellant amounts to “taking” out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of Savitri. We have no doubt that though Savitri had been left by S. Natarajan at the house of his relative K. Nataranjan she still continued to be in the lawful keeping of the former but then the question remains as to what is it which the appellant did that constitutes in law “taking”. There is not a word in the deposition of Savitri from which an inference could be drawn that she left the house of K. Natarajan at the instance or even a suggestion of the appellant. In fact she candidly admits that on the morning of October 1st, she herself telephoned to the appellant to meet her in his car at a certain place, went up to that place and finding him waiting in the car got into that car 8 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 of her own accord. No doubt, she says that she did not tell the appellant where to go and that it was the appellant himself who drove the car to Guindy and then to Mylapore and other places. Further, Savitri has stated that she had decided to marry the appellant. There is no suggestion that the appellant took her to the Sub-Registrar's office and got the agreement of marriage registered there (thinking that this was sufficient in law to make them man and wife) by force or blandishments or anything like that. On the other hand the evidence of the girl leaves no doubt that the insistence of marriage came from her side. The appellant, by complying with her wishes can by no stretch of imagination be said to have taken her out of the keeping of her lawful guardian. After the registration of the agreement both the appellant and Savitri lived as man and wife and visited different places. There is no suggestion in Savitri's evidence, who, it may be mentioned had attained the age of discretion and was on the verge of attaining majority that she was made by the appellant to accompany him by administering any threat to her or by any blandishments. The fact of her accompanying the appellant all along is quite consistent with Savitri's own desire to be the wife of the appellant in which the desire of accompanying him wherever he went was course implicit. In these circumstances we find nothing from which an inference could be drawn that the appellant had been guilty of taking away Savitri out of the keeping of her father. She willingly 9 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 accompanied him and the law did not cast upon him the duty of taking her back to her father's house or even of telling her not to accompany him. She was not a child of tender years who was unable to think for herself but, as already stated, was on the verge of attaining majority and was capable of knowing what was good and what was bad for her…….” 18. It is thus clear that the prosecutrix, who according to the learned Single Judge of the High Court, was between 16 to 18 years of age was very much in the age of understanding as to what was right and wrong for her. 19. From the evidence of the prosecutrix itself, it will be clear that she had voluntarily gone along with the appellant herein, travelled to various places and also resided as husband and wife at Dehradun.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the victim (PW-1) stated that her date of birth is 10/12/2004, PW-2, mother of victim and PW-3 father of victim have stated in their deposition that the date of birth of their daughter is 10/12/2004. However, PW-4, Office Executive of school, where the victim studied, her date of birth recorded in the dakhil kharij register is 10/12/2004, but PW-4 categorically stated that the said entries of date of birth of the vicitm was not recorded by him. 15. Now, the next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellants for the said offences. 10 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 16. PW-1 Victim stated in her evidence that she is active in social media Instagram account. Accused Vikram was his friend in Instagram friend and she has known to him since September 2019. She came to know about Vikram from driver Tulsi Chandrakar. Accused Tulsi showed her photos of accused Vikram on his mobile phone. After that, she received a friend request from accused Vikram, which she accepted. She stated that in Class 9 at Kangervelli Academy School, she used to travel school from her home in Van. Accused Tulsi Chandrakar was driver of the school Van. From September 2019 to December 2019, she communicated with accused Vikram on Instagram and by phone. She stated that she didn't have her own phone, so she used to use her mother's phone to access Instagram. Accused Tulsi Chandrakar would arrange phone conversations with accused Vikram. On her birthday I.e 10.12.2019. After closing of school, accused Tulsi arranged a phone conversation with accused Vikam. Accused Vikam wished her happy birthday and told her to pick me up the next morning and drop her back in his van after school was over. Next day, she was on a van to go to school, and accused Tulsi dropped her off at 8 a.m. near Anupam Garden, near the electricity office. Accused Vikram was present there, whom she was meeting in person for the first time. Accused Vikram was on a scooter. He was accompanied by a friend, whose name she do not know. She sat on his scooter with 11 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 accused Vikram, and his friend. Vikram was driving. Thereafter, all of them went to the house of accused Vikram's aunt Bina Thakur at Phool Chowk. Vikram took her inside the house. Accused Bina Thakur was there. She gave us water. After this, accused Vikram tried to kiss her, but she refused to do so. Then, accused Vikram said he would go to celebrate her birthday. Accused Vikram called two of his friends, who arrived within 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, she along with Vikram and his friends had gone secluded area, accused Vikram offered me a bottle of yellow and brown liquid to drink. When she refused, Vikram's two friends grabbed her, and accused Vikram poured the liquid into her mouth. After drinking the liquid, she began to feel unconscious and then accused Vikram committed sexual intercourse with her. She fainted from the pain. When she regained consciousness, she was in the room and accused Vikram was in his room. Then accused Vikram called the same friends with whom they had gone to Naya Raipur. She further stated that she had gone with the friends of the accused and ran away from the spot. 17. PW-5, Dr. Snehlata Singh, who conducted the medical examination of victim stated that the external part of the victim’s genitalia was healthy and normal, and no injuy was found. The pubic hair was shaved. At the 6 o’clock position on the hymen, there was a mark of rupture, which was found to be painful. Due to the pain, she did not conduct an internal examination. Two 12 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 slides were prepared from the discharge near the hymenal area, sealed, and handed over to female constable with advice for chemical examination. 18. PW-2, mother of victim stated in her evidence that the victim did not have a mobile phone. The witness herself stated that the victim used her and her husband’s phone for studying. 19. In the FSL report vide Ex.P-27, no human sperm was found on the, vaginal slide and undergarments of victim and accused Vikram. Thus, FSL report found negative. 20. The appellants have been convicted for offence of kidnapping. Kidnapping has been defined under Section 359 of the IPC. According to Section 359 of the IPC, kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Section 361 of the IPC defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship which states as under:- “361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.-Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.” 21. The object of Section 359 of the IPC is at least as much to protect children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes, as for the the protection of the rights of parents and guardians having the lawful charge or custody of 13 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 minors or insane persons. Section 361 has four ingredients:- (1) Taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind. (2) Such minor must be under sixteen years of age, if a male, or under eighteen years or age, if a female. (3) The taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind. (4) Such taking or enticing must be without the consent of such guardian. So far as kidnapping a minor girl from lawful guardianship is concerned, the ingredients are : (i) that the girl was under 18 years of age; (ii) such minor was in the keeping of a lawful guardian, and (iii) the accused took or induced such person to leave out of such keeping and such taking was done without the consent of the lawful guardian. 22. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of ingredients of offence under Section 361 of the IPC which is punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, it is evident from the statement of the victim (PW-1) recorded before the trial Court wherein she categorically stated that she knows the appellant-Vikram earlier from the date of incident through Instagram and the victim used to go school in the Van of Tulshi (driver). In her statement, the victim stated that she used to talk with the appellant Vikram over the mobile phone of her parents and also through the phone of Tulshi. She further stated that on her birthday, she met with the appellant 14 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 and when Vikram insisted to meet her next day, she herself came with Tulshi and from there, she had gone with Vikram by her own will. Thereafter, she stayed in the house of the aunt of Vikram with him. It is to be noticed here that the victim herself came with Tulshi, she had not be forced by him to come and from there victim had gone with Vikram by her own will. Mere introduction or arranging a phone call, without proof of mens rea or participation in the offence, cannot make him liable for the alleged incident. There is nothing to suggest that the appellants had taken or enticed the victim out of the lawful guardianship of her parents, nor is there any material to establish that she was compelled or induced for the purpose of marriage, or that any threat or intimidation was extended to her. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the act/omission of the appellant, if any, would not tantamount to “taking” within the meaning of Section 361 of the IPC. Similarly, there is no evidence of enticing the minor victim by the appellant. In view thereof, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 363 (for Tulshi), Section 363, 366 & 506 Part I IPC (for Vikram) are not made out. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under the aforesaid provisions cannot be sustained. 23. Furthermore, with regard to the charge under Section 323 IPC, the prosecution has failed to establish that any assault or use of criminal force resulting in hurt was caused by the appellant- 15 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 Vikram to the victim. The evidence on record does not disclose any act of physical violence or compulsion on the part of the appellant Vikram. Had the victim been forcibly abducted or subjected to assault against her will, she would have raised an alarm or made a complaint to someone. The medical examination report also corroborates this version, as it reveals no injuries on her person. Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section 323 IPC are not satisfied, and the said charge cannot be sustained against the appellant Vikram. 24. Also from the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear from the statement of victim PW-1 that she was active on social media (Instagram) and had been in friendly communication with accused Vikram since September 2019, after being introduced to him by van driver Tulsi. She voluntarily accepted Vikram’s friend request and maintained regular phone and Instagram conversations with him for several months, using her mother’s phone. On 10.12.2019 (her birthday), Vikram wished her and proposed to meet her the next morning. On 11.12.2019, the victim willingly accompanied Vikram after being dropped near Anupam Garden by Tulsi Chandrakar. She sat on Vikram’s scooter along with his friend and later went with Vikram to his aunt Bina Thakur’s house at Phool Chowk. Thereafter, she accompanied Vikram and his friends to another place near Naya Raipur for birthday celebration. Her own statement shows that she travelled 16 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 with Vikram voluntarily on multiple occasions and interacted with him both in person and through social media prior to the incident. Although she later alleged that Vikram made her consume a drink and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will, her prior conduct i.e. continued communication in social media and on phone, meeting him privately, and accompanying him without coercion, which indicates that she was a consenting party to meeting and accompanying the accused. Apart from that, FSL report is negative and ho human sperm was found on the undergarments of victim and accused Vikram. 25. The law is well settled that in case of rape, conviction can be maintained even on the basis of sole testimony of the victim. However, there is an important caveat which is that the testimony of the victim must inspire confidence. Even though the testimony of the victim is not required to be corroborated, if her statement is not believable, then the accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution has to bring home the charges leveled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 26. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 17 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 27. In the result:- • Both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15/05/2025 is set aside. • Appellant-Tulshi Chandrakar(CRA No.1093/2025) is acquitted from the charge under Section 363 IPC. He is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. • Appellant-Vikram Singh Chouhan @ Veer Singh (CRA No.1327/2025) is acquitted from the charge under Section 363, 366, 323, 506 Part I of IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18 CRA No.1093/2025 & CRA No.1327 of 2025 28. 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