2026:CGHC:6493-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 404 of 2024 Ankit Minj S/o Tetush Minj Aged About 21 Years Residence Of Village - Barpani, Police Chouki - Aara, Thana And District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshikendre - Jashpur, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav For Respondent/State : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 05.02.2026 Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri SS Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State. 1. Present appeal under section 374 (2) of the CRPC 1973 has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge / Additional charge of FTC, district-Jashpur in special Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.10 17:59:51 +0530 Cra 404 of 2024 2 POCSO Case-6 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with default stipulation: Conviction Sentence Under Section 363 IPC Imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 366 IPC Imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- (Both the sentences to run concurrently) Under Section 366-A IPC Imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 376(2)(n) and Section 06 of the POCSO Act Imprisonment for 20 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- 2. Brief facts of the case are that the victim-PW1 who went missing from 27.01.2022 and a missing report was lodged by her father-PW2 to the Police Station-Jashpur. Based on the missing report-Ex.P5, FIR Ex.P6 was registered against suspected accused Ankit Minz, present appellant for the offence under section 363 IPC. During the investigation, the victim recovered from the possession of the appellant on 24.02.22 and recovery panchnama Ex.P1 was prepared in presence of the witnesses. Victim was sent for her medical examination to the district hospital Jashpur, where she was medically examined by Dr.Madhulika Shrivastava-PW11, who gave her report Ex.P22. While medically examining the victim, doctor has not noticed any external injury on her body and the victim was advised for Obstretric Test (OBS) and Gynaecologist opinion, Ultrasonography (USG) Abdomen for fetal wellbeing and dental opinion for age determination with respect to Cra 404 of 2024 3 her date of birth and age. School register has also been seized by the police and after retaining its attested true copy Ex.P12C, the original register was returned. According to the school register, her date of birth is 13.08.2005. Progress report card of the victim of class-V has also been seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.P9. Spot map Ex.P3 was prepared by the Patwari and Ex.P7 was prepared by the police. Appellant was arrested on 24.2.2022 and he too was sent for his medical examination to the District Hospital, Jashpur, who gave medical report Ex.P21. As per medical report of the appellant, no injuries have been found on his body and he was found to be capable to perform sexual intercourse. 3. Statement of the victim under Section 161 CRPC has been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376 (2) of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) before the learned trial court. 4. The learned trial court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 366(A) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove the charges framed against the appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC has also been recorded in which he denied the Cra 404 of 2024 4 circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgement. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the offence in question. Age of the victim has not been proved by leading cogent evidence. School record has not been proved in accordance with law by examining its author, or the basis on which the entries have been made in it. In absence of any cogent evidence, the school record Ex.P12C does not carry any presumptive value to determine age of the victim. There is no birth certificate, Kotwari register, or any ossification test report, produced by the prosecution for determination of age of the victim. In absence of any proof, it cannot be held that victim was minor or less than 18 years of age on the date of incident. He would further submit that victim was having love affair with the appellant, and she on her own will eloped with him. Both of them resided together for a considerable period without raising any objection by the victim to anyone. While travelling with the appellant also, she has not made any complaint to any one on the way and has not raised any alarm. Even while making physical relation with the appellant, she has not protested and there is no sign of any struggle on her body. She has not Cra 404 of 2024 5 received any external injury on her body, and therefore, the entire conduct of the victim clearly shows that she was a consenting party in eloping with the appellant and in making consensual physical relation with him. Therefore, no offence either of kidnapping, or rape, is made to be against the appellant and he is entitled for his acquittal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the state opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, and submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. But for some minor omissions and contradictions, their evidence is sufficient to hold conviction of the appellant for the offence in question. The evidence of the victim inspires confidence and does not require any corroboration with other evidence. Even though no injuries have been found on her body it does not dilute the case of the prosecution that no offence is committed by the appellant. The school record is admissible evidence which has been proved by PW9, who is teacher and in-charge/Headmaster of the school. The minor victim was being kidnapped by the appellant and he made physical relation with her which itself comes under the definition of rape. The learned trial court after considering the entire evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant, which is not required to be interfered with. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial court with utmost circumspection. Cra 404 of 2024 6 10. The first and foremost question arises for consideration would be age of the victim as to whether on the date of incident she was minor and less than 18 years of age or not. 11. The prosecution mainly relied upon the document Ex.P12C the school register which is sought to be proved by PW9, who is the teacher and in- charge headmaster of the school. He stated in his evidence that police has seized the school register Ex.P12 with respect to the date of birth of the victim. After retaining its attested true copy Ex.P12C, original register was returned to the school which he brought today with him. As per the school register, date of birth of the victim is recorded as 13.08.2005. In his cross examination, he admitted that in the school register Ex.P12 the entries have not been made by him. He also admitted that the relevant entries with respect to victim’s date of birth have not been made by him. He further admitted that the basis on which the entries have been made in the school register is also not there. From the evidence of this witness, it is quite vivid that he is not the author of the school register, and the basis on which the entries have been made in it is also not there. From perusal of the school register Ex.P12C it does not disclose as to in which class victim took admission in the school. 12. The admissibility and evidentiary value of the school register has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Cra 404 of 2024 7 13. In the matter of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs State of UP and Others, 2006 (5) SCC 584, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following in Para 26 of its judgment: “26.In Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit [1988 Supp. SCC 604], this Court held: “To render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record; secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact; and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty, or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded." (emphasis supplied) 14. In case of Alamelu and Another Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, 2011 (2) SCC 385, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the TC (transfer certificate) which is issued by a Government school, duly signed by the Headmaster would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act 1872. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the victim in absence of any material on the basis of which the age was recorded. Cra 404 of 2024 8 15. In paragraphs 40, and 48 of its judgment in case of Alamelu (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “40. Undoubtedly, the transfer certificate, Ex.P16 indicates that the girl's date of birth was 15th June, 1977. Therefore, even according to the aforesaid certificate, she would be above 16 years of age (16 years 1 month and 16 days) on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 31st July, 1993. The transfer certificate has been issued by a Government School and has been duly signed by the Headmaster. Therefore, it would be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the admissibility of such a document would be of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the girl in the absence of the material on the basis of which the age was recorded......... 48. We may further notice that even with reference to Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a public document has to be tested by applying the same standard in civil as well as criminal proceedings. In this context, it would be appropriate to notice the observations made by this Court in the case of Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. held as follows:- "The age of a person as recorded in the school register or otherwise may be used for various purposes, namely, for obtaining admission; for obtaining an appointment; for contesting election; registration of marriage; obtaining a separate unit under the ceiling laws; and even for the Cra 404 of 2024 9 purpose of litigating before a civil forum e.g. necessity of being represented in a court of law by a guardian or where a suit is filed on the ground that the plaintiff being a minor he was not appropriately represented therein or any transaction made on his behalf was void as he was a minor. A court of law for the purpose of determining the age of a (2006) 5 SCC 584 party to the lis, having regard to the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act will have to apply the same standard. No different standard can be applied in case of an accused as in a case of abduction or rape, or similar offence where the victim or the victim although might have consented with the accused, if on the basis of the entries made in the register maintained by the school, a judgment of conviction is recorded, the accused would be deprived of his constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution, as in that case the accused may unjustly be convicted." 16. In case of Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2022 (8) SCC 602, while considering various judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 33 as under : “33. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows: 33.2.2. If an application is filed before the Court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the JJ Cra 404 of 2024 10 Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub- section (2) of section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be. XXXX XXXX XXX 33.3. That when a claim for juvenility is raised, the burden is on the person raising the claim to satisfy the Court to discharge the initial burden. However, the documents mentioned in Rule 12(3) (a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the JJ Rules 2007 made under the JJ Act, 2000 or sub-section (2) of section 94 of JJ Act, 2015, shall be sufficient for prima facie satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the aforesaid documents a presumption of juvenility may be raised. 33.4. The said presumption is however not conclusive proof of the age of juvenility and the same may be rebutted by contra evidence let in by the opposite side. 33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a Court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the concerned criminal court. In case of an inquiry, the Court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of section 94 of 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of Cra 404 of 2024 11 the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance. 33.6. That it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an abstract formula to determine the age of a person. It has to be on the basis of the material on record and on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties in each case. 33.7 This Court has observed that a hypertechnical approach should not be adopted when evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in support of the plea that he was a juvenile. 33.8. If two views are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases. This is in order to ensure that the benefit of the JJ Act, 2015 is made applicable to the juvenile in conflict with law. At the same time, the Court should ensure that the JJ Act, 2015 is not misused by persons to escape punishment after having committed serious offences. 33.9. That when the determination of age is on the basis of evidence such as school records, it is necessary that the same would have to be considered as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as any public or official document Cra 404 of 2024 12 maintained in the discharge of official duty would have greater credibility than private documents. 33.10. Any document which is in consonance with public documents, such as matriculation certificate, could be accepted by the Court or the JJ Board provided such public document is credible and authentic as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act viz., section 35 and other provisions. 33.11. Ossification Test cannot be the sole criterion for age determination and a mechanical view regarding the age of a person cannot be adopted solely on the basis of medical opinion by radiological examination. Such evidence is not conclusive evidence but only a very useful guiding factor to be considered in the absence of documents mentioned in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015.” 17. Recently, in case of P. Yuvaprakash Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2023 (SCC Online) SC 846, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 14 to 17 as under : “14. Section 94 (2) (iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through “an ossification test” or “any other latest medical Cra 404 of 2024 13 age determination test” conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. 15. In a recent decision, in Rishipal Singh Solanki vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. this court outlined the procedure to be followed in cases where age determination is required. The court was dealing with Rule 12 of the erstwhile Juvenile Justice Rules (which is in pari materia) with Section 94 of the JJ Act, and held as follows: “20. Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007 deals with the procedure to be followed in determination of age. The Cra 404 of 2024 14 juvenility of a person in conflict with law had to be decided prima facie on the basis of physical appearance, or documents, if available. But an inquiry into the determination of age by the Court or the JJ Board was by seeking evidence by obtaining: (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Only in the absence of either (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the medical opinion could be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board to declare the age of the juvenile or child. It was also provided that while determination was being made, benefit could be given to the child or juvenile by considering the age on lower side within the margin of one year.” 16. Speaking about provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, especially the various options in Section 94 (2) of the JJ Act, this court held in Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors that: “Clause (i) of Section 94 (2) places the date of birth certificate from the school and the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the 2021 (12) SCR 502 [2019] 9 SCR 735 concerned examination board in the same category (namely (i) above). In Cra 404 of 2024 15 the absence thereof category (ii) provides for obtaining the birth certificate of the corporation, municipal authority or panchayat. It is only in the absence of (i) and (ii) that age determination by means of medical analysis is provided. Section 94(2)(a)(i) indicates a significant change over the provisions which were contained in Rule 12(3)(a) of the Rules of 2007 made under the Act of 2000. Under Rule 12(3)(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificate was given precedence and it was only in the event of the certificate not being available that the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, could be obtained. In Section 94(2)(i) both the date of birth certificate from the school as well as the matriculation or equivalent certificate are placed in the same category. 17. In Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal, this court, through a three-judge bench, held that the burden of proving that someone is a juvenile (or below the prescribed age) is upon the person claiming it. Further, in that decision, the court indicated the hierarchy of documents that would be accepted in order of preference.” 18. Referring to the facts of the present case, except the school register and progress report card of the victim of class-V, no other documentary evidence is there to prove the age of the victim. The victim in her evidence does not disclose her date of birth. In cross-examination she stated that age Cra 404 of 2024 16 of her elder brother is about 30 years and her middle brother is about 28 years and she is the youngest among them. Though she stated that there was age difference of 13-14 years between her and her middle brother Ravish, she denied that age gap is only 4 to 5 years. She further stated that her parents have got prepared her birth certificate. 19. PW2 father of the victim has stated that age of his daughter is about 17 years and he could not disclose her date of birth. In his cross examination he too stated that his elder son is aged about 35 years, middle son aged about 28 to 30 years and the victim is the youngest. In his cross examination, he stated that he knew the date of birth of the victim and he had gone to school for her admission. He has not got prepared her birth certificate but has got the entry made in the Kotwar register. He also said that Aadhar Card of the victim was prepared but he forgotten the date of birth noted in it. 20. PW3, mother of the victim too has not disclosed date of birth of the victim. In her cross-examination she stated that the victim is her only daughter and she is her eldest one. She further admitted that her husband got two marriages and from his first marriage two sons are there and she further admitted that she informed birth of victim to the Panchayat. 21. Except the above evidences, there is no other evidence about the age of the victim. Even her parents could not disclose her date of birth despite the statement made by her father that he knew her date of birth. There is no any birth certificate, kotwari register or ossification test report is there Cra 404 of 2024 17 produced by the prosecution. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved age of the victim that she was minor on the date of incident and less than 18 years of age. Yet the trial court had held the victim ‘minor’. 22. So far as the offence of kidnapping and rape is concerned, we again examine the prosecution witnesses. 23. PW1-victim has stated in her evidence that in the year 2019 appellant came to her village, then she introduced with him. They exchanged their mobile phone numbers and used to talk with each other regularly. She likes him and used to meet him. During their meetings they made physical relation 3-4 times, she asked the appellant that she is willing go with him and then on 26.01.2022 she had gone to Baikunthpur along with the appellant by Rajhans bus. They stayed in the house of appellant where his parents were also residing. They stayed in a room together. On 24.02.2022 police along with her father, came there and took her back. In cross-examination, she stated that she along with the appellant had gone to Baikunthpur. On 27.01.2022 at about 6.30 pm in the evening she alone had come to river from her house and then she eloped with the appellant without informing to any of her family members. At Baikunthpur parents and other family members of the appellant were residing together and they too resided with them. Cra 404 of 2024 18 From evidence of the victim it clearly transpires that she was having love affair with the appellant since 2019, they exchanged their mobile phones, regularly made conversation, used to meet each other and made physical relation without there being any objection. Before eloping with the appellant vicitim made physical relation with him when they used to meet each other, which clearly demonstrates that she was a consenting party in the act of the appellant. There is no allegation that appellant used any force or pressurized her to go with him, rather it is the evidence of the victim that she herself asked the appellant that she is willing to go with him. They travelled upto Baikunthpur by bus but she has not made any compliant that the appellant is kidnapping her and has not raised any alarm. All these things show that she herself eloped with the appellant and made consensual physical relation. 24. So far as the kidnapping, or taking away the minor girl is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Varadarajan Vs State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, observed in paras 9 & 10 as below : “9. It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between “taking” and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's Cra 404 of 2024 19 protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian. 10. It would, however, be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the father's protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. In our opinion, if evidence to establish one of those things is lacking it would not be legitimate to infer that the accused is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she has actually left her guardian's house or a house where her guardian had kept her, joined the accused and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian's house by taking her along with him from place to place. No doubt, the part played by the accused could be regarded as facilitating the fulfillment of the intention of the girl. That part, in our opinion, falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and is, therefore, not tantamount to “taking”.” Cra 404 of 2024 20 25. PW2 father of the victim has stated in his evidence that when he could not find whereabouts of his daughter, he lodged a missing report to the Police which is Ex.P.5, thereafter, they recovered the victim from the house of the appellant. He also stated in his evidence that he received information about the victim from the friends of the appellant, that he took his daughter to Baikunthpur and then they recovered her. In cross-examination, he stated that appellant came to the village at the time of death rituals of his elder mother and he stayed in the house of her elder mother, which is situated in the same vicinity where he is residing. His daughter was with them upto 6pm and she might have gone with the appellant after that. Except this, there is no other allegation against the appellant by father of the victim. 26. PW3 mother of the victim too stated that the appellant came to the village on death rituals of her relative, and kidnapped her daughter. Nothing specific is there in her evidence that victim informed her that appellant kidnapped her, or she informed the incident to her. Though other witnesses PW4-Jagatram, PW5- Jitani Bai, and PW6- Atma Minaj have been examined by the prosecution, but these witnesses are with respect to missing of the appellant as well as the victim. 27. PW11-Dr.Madhulika Shrivastav, who medically examined the victim, has not found any external injury on the body of the victim but she noticed that the victim was carrying pregnancy of five months at the time of her medical examination. She advised the victim for Obstretric Test (OBS) and Cra 404 of 2024 21 Gynaecologist opinion, Ultrasonography (USG) Abdomen for fetal wellbeing and dental opinion for age determination with respect to her date of birth and age, and for confirmation of her pregnancy, and dental examination for age determination, and her MLC report is Ex.P22. When it is found that victim is involved in making consensual physical relation, the pregnancy does not have any specific bearing in the allegation of rape. 28. The version of the victim commands great respect and acceptability, but if there are some circumstances which cast some doubt in the mind of the court on the veracity of her evidence, then it will not be safe to rely upon the said version of the victim. There are omissions and contradiction in the statement of the victim and her family members, including her mother. 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 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 levelled against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case. 29. In view of the foregoing consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the offence of kidnapping and rape against the appellant and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. Cra 404 of 2024 22 30. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed, and the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. He is acquitted from all the offences. 31. Appellant is reported to be in jail since 24.02.2022, and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 32. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 BNSS, 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 reliable 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 judgement or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 33. The trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma