1 2026:CGHC:1839-DB NAFR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full - 13-01-2026 - 14-01-2026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 459 of 2018 The State Of Chhatttisgarh Through Police Station- Sitapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Geeta Kispotta W/o Anil Ekka Aged About 40 Years 2 - Shobhan Bada S/o Thapa Bada Aged About 25 Years Both R/o Village Kotchhal, Police Station Sitapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer For Respondents : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board (13th January, 2026) Per Rajani Dubey, J The appeal is listed for hearing on admission. However, with the consent of the parties, it is heard finally. 02. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the judgment dated 31st July, 2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Surguja (Ambikapur) in ST No.01/2017 acquitting the respondents of the charges u/s 363, 366, 370/34 of IPC. 03. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on August 20, 2016, around 12:00 pm, the accused, Gita Kispotta, came to the house of prosecutrix (PW-02) and told her to come to Delhi and asked her to visit her house in the morning. On August 24, 2018, when the prosecutrix went to her house, the accused, Gita, told her to go to her sister's house in Madwatal with her daughter/minor girl, and instructed her to say that she had come to collect kareel if anyone asked. She also told her to stay there and said she would come later and take her to Delhi. The complainant (PW-02) then went to Madwatal with the minor girl on the Suraj bus from Village-Kotchhal. On 25.8.2016 the father of the prosecutrix namely Babulal (PW-04) with Piyus and Raju came to Madwatal, and the prosecutrix (PW-02) told them everything. Later, the prosecutrix (PW-02) found out that the accused, Gita, 3 Shobhan, and the minor girl had taken her to Madwatal to lure her to Delhi. The next day i.e. August 25, 2016, complainant Nirmal Ram Kispotta (PW-3) made a written complaint to PS-Dharamjaigarh vide Ex.P/9 whereupon ASI Simson Minj (PW-8) registered an FIR (Ex.P/10) under zero number against the accused persons and later on PW-6 Bhavna Khandare registered FIR (Ex.P/19) under Crime No.139/2016. On August 27, 2016, Sub-Inspector K.P. Gupta (PW-09) recovered the prosecutrix (PW-02) from the custody of the accused, Gita, in the presence of witnesses Babulal and Piyush Khakha, and prepared a recovery memo (Ex.P-04). During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared, mark sheets of the prosecutrix were seized and after completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Sections 363, 366A and 370 of IPC was filed against the accused persons. However, supplementary charge sheet against the minor girl/juvenile was filed separately before the concerned juvenile court. 04. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366 and 370/34 of IPC against the accused which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 09 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution 4 case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by them in defence. 05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents of all the charges by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal. 06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court was not justified in giving too much weightage to the minor omissions and contradictions in the prosecution evidence particularly that of the prosecutrix (PW-2) who narrated the entire incident happened with her. Further, the learned trial court erred in holding the victim to be a consenting party in light of specific allegation made by her regarding her kidnapping. Learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of KP Gupta (PW-9) in its correct perspective who recovered the prosecutrix from the possession of the present accused which affirms the commission of offence by the present accused. Therefore, considering the overall evidence on record, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused are liable to be held guilty of the charges leveled against them and sentenced accordingly. 5 07. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court having minutely examined the oral and documentary evidence rightly recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused and there being nothing on record to suggest that the said finding is unjust or perverse, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 08. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 09. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the respondents/accused were charged under Sections 363, 366 and 370/34 of IPC by the learned trial Court and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence they are acquitted of all these charges by the impugned judgment. 10. Prosecutrix (PW-2) states that on the date of incident accused Geeta came to her house at 6 am and told that she is to be taken to Delhi where she will get a lot of money. She states that she went to the accused Gita's house, however, she sent her (PW-2) with her minor daughter (juvenile in conflict with law) to her relatives’ house in Madwatal by Suraj bus. She admits her signature on recovery memo Ex.P/4, spot map Ex.P/3 and P/5, Supurdnama Ex.P/6 and her statement before the Magistrate Ex.P/8. The prosecution declared her 6 hostile and cross-examined where she admits that she went to the house of sister of accused Geeta at Madwatal with juvenile accused and stayed there as accused Geeta had told that she would come to take her Delhi but she (Geeta) did not come there. She admits the suggestion of the defence that while leaving Village Madwatal for getting a bus, at that time accused Geeta was not there. She also admits that she was taken from Madwatal to Dharamjaigarh police station by her father. She did not identify the accused Shobhan and stated that she does not know him and never met him. 11. PW-3 father of the prosecutrix states that when his daughter went missing, he enquired from the accused Geeta as also from the female friends of her daughter but got no information. However, on the same day the villagers of Kotchhal on being enquired informed him that accused Geeta sent the prosecutrix with her minor daughter (juvenile accused) to somewhere. Thereafter he along with other villagers including the Sarpanch went to Village Kotchhal but accused Geeta did not give any information about his daughter. Having come to know from the neighbours of accused Geeta that the prosecutrix would have been sent with the juvenile accused by accused Geeta to Madwata, he went with his companions to Madwatal by motorcycle where they found the prosecutrix with juvenile accused/daughter of accused Geeta on the way to bus stand and brought them back. He admits the suggestion of the defence that seeing him approaching, his daughter started running away, he then chased her and caught. He also admits that when he 7 spotted his daughter at Madwatal, she was not bound or restrained, and she was found in a completely free state. 12. PW-4 Babulal Ekka states that he went with father of the prosecutrix to Madwatal and brought her back. He admits the suggestion of the defence that when they went to Village Kotchhal, the prosecutrix was found standing alone by the side of the road, seeing them she started running away and then they chased and caught her and brought to police station. 13. PW-7 mother of the prosecutrix also made the similar statement and stated that her husband brought the prosecutrix back from Madwatal. She admits that she did not see accused Geeta taking away her daughter. 14. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents/ accused. All the witnesses have categorically stated that the prosecutrix went with juvenile accused i.e. minor daughter of accused Geeta and none of them saw the accused persons with the prosecutrix on the date when she went missing. The witnesses also admit the suggestion that seeing her father approaching, the prosecutrix started running away, she was chased and then caught. Learned trial Court rightly found that in all the statements including the one u/s 164 of 8 CrPC of the prosecutrix it was not mentioned that the prosecutrix went with accused Geeta. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:- “(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 9 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, considering the evidence of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, it is clear that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the respondents/accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The statement of the prosecutrix is inconsistent with the prosecution case, she was declared hostile and did not identify the accused Shobhan and stated that she did not know him. There is evidence of her father that when he spotted her at Village Madwatal, she was in a completely free state, and there was no evidence of force or coercion used by the respondents/accused. Thus looking to the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution coupled with the conduct of the prosecutrix during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was fully justified in recording a finding of acquittal in favour of the respondents/accused and there is no scope for any interference by this Court. 17. In the result, the appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.01.14 16:24:38 +0530