1 2025:CGHC:10938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 298 of 2023 1. Bhagwat Sahu S/o Vishnu Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khairbanakala, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) 2. Jagjivan Sahu S/o Kandra Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Khairbanakala, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) 3. Horilal Sahu S/o Jaysingh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Khairbanakala, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG) 4. Thanesh Patel S/o Santosh Patel Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 5. Prakash Sahu S/o Mahangu Das Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Taro, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 6. Gaukaran Sahu S/o Dhuniram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 05/03/2025 1. I.A. No.5/2025, an application for urgent hearing, is allowed and with the consent of the parties, this appeal is being heard finally. 2. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.1.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.34/2019 by which the trial Court convicted appellant No.1 for commission of offence under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506 Part-I and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.200/-, RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.200/-; RI for 6 months with fine of Rs.200/-; RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/- plus default stipulations, respectively. Appellants No.2 to 6 have been convicted under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.200/-, RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/-, RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.200/- plus default stipulations, respectively. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant lodged written complaint in Police Station Sahaspur Lohara to the effect that on 20.5.2019 at about 12:45 p.m. the accused persons forcefully, on the point of knife, took her wife in the Scorpio Vehicle bearing registration mark CG09-JC-4666. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.79/2019 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 365,323, 34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act 3 was registered against accused persons. During investigation, the victim was recovered from possession of accused Bhagwat in village Khairbana Kala. Victim was medically examined, her statement was recorded and thereafter the offence under Sections 294 & 366 of IPC were also added. One button knife each was recovered from possession of accused Bhagwat and Dhanesh Patel and Bolero vehicle was recovered from possession of Driver Prakash Sahu. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet against the accused persons under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506 Part-I and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and from where it was received by the trial Court for trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. They examined one witness in their defence. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para-2 of this judgment. However, appellants No.2 to 6 have been acquitted from the charge under Section 323 of IPC. 6. Learned counsel for appellant would argue that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is bad-in-law and contrary to 4 facts and evidence of the case. He submits that the appellants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated due to animosity. He submits that there was love affair between appellant No.1 and the victim, they have mobile talks also and on the date of alleged incident she herself came with appellant No.1. As per prosecution case, the victim was kidnapped in a broader day light from a crowded place, but no independent witness of alleged kidnapping is examined by prosecution. Alleged eyewitness of incident namely PW-6 Bhuneshwari @ Pooja Dhurve, friend of victim, did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Seizure witness PW-4 has also not supported recovery of knife from appellant No.1 and also denied to identify appellant No.4, which not only makes the recovery of knife suspicious but also the story of prosecution that the victim was kidnapped on the point of knife. He further argues that the conviction of appellants is based on the evidence of interested witnesses and the same be not accepted as truthful inasmuch as the presence of these witnesses at the time of occurrence was extremely doubtful. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgment was passed by the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The same is well reasoned establishing the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, 5 confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial Court including the impugned judgment. 9. On a perusal of evidence of the abductee (PW-2) it is evident that on the date of incident when she was sitting in her class, appellant No.1 Bhagwat armed with knife came there, gave a slap on her cheek, dragged her outside the class by catching hold of her hairs and put him in Bolero Vehicle in which other accused persons, six in numbers, were already sitting. Accused Bhagwat Sahu had been assaulting her saying as to why she has married some other person and he was also giving life threat to her. After 2-3 hours, the accused persons took her to the house of appellant No.1- Bhagwat where also she was assaulted by appellant No.1. Meanwhile, her husband and police came to the house of appellant No.1 and brought her and all accused persons to police station. From the cross-examination of victim (PW-2) nothing was elicited to shake her testimony in regard to role played by appellant No.1 Bhagwat Sahu in crime in question. 10. The aforesaid evidence of victim (PW-2) stands corroborated with the evidence of independent witnesses Palakdas Manikpuri (P.W.- 11) as also medical evidence. Palakdas Manikpuri (PW-11), who was working working as Guest Professor in the college of victim, has stated in his evidence that during lunch time, when he was sitting in his office, Puja (PW-6) came and informed him that about 6 5-6 persons have forcibly taken the victim, then he came outside and saw that 5-6 persons were forcefully taking the victim in the Scorpio vehicle, which was unsuccessfully chased by the students of institute. This witness was subjected to extensive cross- examination but no discrepancy could be impeached in any manner regarding the deposition that the victim was forcefully taken by 5-6 persons. 11. From the evidence of Dr. Kharsan (PW-14), who medically examined the victim on 20.5.2019, it is evident that upon examination, he noticed abrasion mark on her left leg thumb, victim was complaining off pain in right leg and both cheeks. Further, the evidence of ASI Manohar Lal Sinha (P.W.-14) reveals that on 20.5.2019, Rajkumar Sahu (P.W.-1) had lodged report about kidnapping of his wife PW-3, who was recovered from the custody of appellant No.1 Bhagwat. 12. Thus, on a meticulous scrutiny and scanning of the evidence on record, it is apparent that appellant No.1-Bhagwat was actively involved in the kidnapping of victim (PW-2) with intent to confine her wrongfully, causing criminal intimidation by giving her threat of life as also voluntarily causing simple hurts to her. Hence, the complicity of appellant No.1 in crime in question stands established beyond doubt. The trial court did not commit any mistake by convicting the appellant No.1-Bhagwat for the offence punishable under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506 Part-I and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 7 13. So far as involvement of appellants No.2 to 6 in crime in question is concerned, name of these appellants is not mentioned in the FIR and even in the statement recorded under Section 164 (5) of CrPC, the victim (PW-3) did not mention name of any of these appellants as the partners in crime with appellant No.1. In the cross-examination, victim denied to have had any acquaintance with these appellants and admitted that accused persons have made to sit her in back seat of vehicle by putting her head down. It appears that she has disclosed the name of these appellants for the first time in the Court during recording of her statement. It is true that testimony of the witness in the court is the substantive evidence and a proper identification by the witness in a TIP can only corroborate his testimony in the Court. In this case, as PW-3 has no prior acquaintance with these appellants and as she does not seem to have noticed any identifying features of the assailants, it would certainly have been ideal, had the police conducted a TIP. There is no whisper in the entire record that any TIP Parade has been organized or any other mode of identification has been adopted by the Investigating Officer for identification of these appellants. In the absence of a proper identification, it may not be safe to rely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW-3 to hold the appellants No.2 to 6 guilty of the offences alleged against them. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that from the evidence of the victim (PW-3) the identity of these appellants is not established beyond reasonable 8 doubt and this being the position, appellants No.2 to 6 are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Impugned judgment so far as it relates to appellants No.2 to 6 namely Jagjivan Sahu, Horilal Sahu, Thanesh Patel, Prakash Sahu and Gaukaran Sahuis concerned, it is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the charges under Sections 365/34, 366/34 & 506 Part-1 of IPC. 15. However, conviction of appellant No.1-Bhagwat Sahu under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 323 & 506 Part-1 of IPC and sentence imposed under these offences are hereby confirmed. Appellant No.1-Bhagwat Sahu is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court concerned within three weeks from today, failing which he shall be immediately taken into custody by the trial Court and sent to jail to serve out remaining part of sentences imposed upon him after adjustment of sentence already undergone, if any. 16. Appellants No.2 to 6 namely Jagjivan Sahu, Horilal Sahu, Thanesh Patel, Prakash Sahu and Gaukaran Sahu are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months from today in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023). They shall also furnish an undertaking before the trial Court concerned that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment challenging their acquittal or 9 for grant of leave, then on receipt of notice thereof, they shall appear before the Supreme Court. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice nisha SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI