1 CGHC010228722026 2026:CGHC:34393-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1422 of 2026 Budhnath Ram @ Dhodho Son of Shri Soma Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Gadiyajor, Police Station Kurdem, District Simdega (Jharkhand), Presently Resided At Village Bangurkela, Police Station Duldula District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 06.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. Today, the present appeal is listed for admission, however, considering the fact the present appeal has been filed against the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 short sentence and the appellant is on interim bail granted by the trial Court, hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear the matter finally at this stage only. 3. I.A. No. 02 of 2026, is an application for condonation of delay of 11 days in preferring the instant appeal. 4. Since the learned State counsel has no objection if delay in filing the appeal is condoned as the accused has statutory right to file an appeal and cause shown by the appellant in filing the appeal beyond the time appears to be satisfactory, we condone the delay in filing the present appeal. 5. The appeal stands admitted. 6. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 7. This criminal appeal under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2026 passed by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.14/2024, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 363 of IPC (Section 137 of BNS) RI for 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for two months 3 U/s 354 of IPC (Section 74 BNS) RI for 02 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for two months U/s 354(A) of IPC (Section 75 of BNS) RI for 01 year and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional SI for 01 month 8. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the father of the victim (PW-1) appeared before the Duldula Police Station, Jashpur District (Chhattisgarh) and submitted a written application (Ex.P-1) stating that his daughter X (the names of the victim and her father have been written in symbolic form to protect confidentiality) had gone away from home on 16/07/2023 at around 1:00 pm without informing anyone. Despite searching for her whereabouts, he suspected that his daughter had been lured away by unknown persons. Based on the said information, Sub-Inspector Rajkumar Kashyap (PW-10) registered a missing person report at the Duldula Police Station and on the said basis, FIR bearing Crime No. 15/2024 was registered under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code as per Ex.P-2. 9. During the investigation, it was found that accused Budhnath Ram @ Dhodho lured victim X with the promise of a good job and took her to Delhi, where she was employed as a domestic help. When the victim informed her parents about the incident by phone, the victim's family reprimanded the accused and asked them to bring the victim back. They filed a police report against the accused. 4 The accused brought the victim from Delhi and handed her over to her parents. During the investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajkumar Kashyap (PW-10) arrived at the scene and prepared a scene map (Ex.P-4). Victim X was recovered from her home as per Ex.P-6. She was handed over to Victim X's parents, and a surrender memo (Ex.P-3) was prepared. Statements of victim X and witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses, and an arrest memo (Ex.P-8) was prepared, and his family was informed vide Ex.P-18. In order to record the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC, a request letter was sent to concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who recorded the statement of the victim vide Ex.P-7. In order to ascertain the age of victim, a memo (Ex.P-10) was sent to the Headmaster of concerned School for presenting the Dakhil Kharij Register regarding the age of the victim X, and on production the orginal Dakhil Kharij Register and affidavit regarding date of birth were seized vide Ex.P-11 and after retaining photocopy of the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-12) and affidavit regarding date of birth (Ex.P-13C), the originals were handed to the concerned Headmaster. A site map of the incident site, Ex.P-15, was prepared by the Patwari. 10. On the basis of evidence collected during investigation, when evidence of crime was found against the accused, a charge sheet was prepared under sections 363, 370(A), 354, 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from 5 Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and presented in the Jurisdictional Court, which was later on sent to the Court of Special Judge (NIA Act), Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) for trial. 11. When the charges were framed against the accused under sections 363, 370(A), 354, 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act, he denied the charges and demanded a trial. 12. In order prove the offence alleged against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. At the trial under Section 351 of the BNSS, the accused denied any facts other than those admitted, claiming innocence and falsely implicating him out of enmity. 13. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.05.2026, while acquitting the accused under Sections 370, 370A of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph 7 of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are contrary to the facts available on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The entire prosecution case rests on mere suspicion entertained by 6 the father of the victim, as reflected from the written complaint (Ex.P-1), wherein he only stated that his daughter had left the house without informing anyone and suspected that some unknown person might have enticed her away. There was no allegation against the present appellant at the time of lodging the missing report or the FIR. It is only during the course of investigation that the appellant was implicated, without there being any cogent or independent evidence to establish that he had kidnapped or abducted the victim from the lawful guardianship of her parents. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the victim herself does not support the prosecution case of kidnapping. The material available on record demonstrates that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the appellant to Delhi for the purpose of employment as a domestic helper and there is no evidence that force, coercion, inducement or deceit was employed by the appellant. He further submitted that on receiving information from the victim's family, the appellant himself brought the victim back from Delhi and handed her over to her parents. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with that of a person guilty of kidnapping or wrongful confinement. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the appellant had any dishonest or criminal intention while taking the victim to Delhi. In the absence of proof of enticing or taking the victim out of the keeping of her lawful guardian, the conviction cannot be sustained. 7 15. Without prejudice to the submissions on the merits of the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in the alternative, the appellant confines his prayer to the quantum of sentence. It is submitted that the appellant has already undergone a 177 days of incarceration during investigation and trial and presently the appellant is on interim bail upto. Learned counsel also submit that the incident pertains to the year 2023 and the appellant has already faced the agony of criminal proceedings for a considerable period. The victim has been safely restored to her family and there is no allegation of any physical assault or other aggravating circumstance. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the age of the appellant, it is prayed that while maintaining the conviction, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, with an appropriate enhancement of the fine amount, if this Court deems it just and proper, in order to balance the ends of justice. Such a course would adequately serve the object of sentencing while also taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances of the present case. 16. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made by the appellant and submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and do not warrant any 8 interference. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully established that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident and that the appellant had taken her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. The testimony of the victim, duly corroborated by the documentary evidence regarding her age and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, clearly establishes the ingredients of the offence. Merely because the appellant subsequently brought the victim back to her parents does not absolve him of the criminal liability already incurred. 17. Learned State counsel further submits that there are no exceptional or mitigating circumstances warranting reduction of the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. The offence concerns the kidnapping of a minor girl, which is a serious offence affecting not only the victim but also society at large. The sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and does not call for any reduction. Enhancement of the fine amount cannot be a substitute for the substantive sentence prescribed by law, particularly when the trial Court has already imposed an appropriate sentence after considering all relevant circumstances. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed, and the conviction as well as the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be affirmed. However, it is submitted that if this Hon'ble Court is inclined to take a lenient view on the question of sentence, the State leaves the matter to the discretion of this 9 Hon'ble Court, subject to such conditions, including enhancement of the fine amount, as may be deemed just and proper. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully gone through the entire evidence available on record, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, and the documents exhibited by the prosecution. 19. Upon reappreciation of the evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence while recording the finding of guilt against the appellant. The testimony of the victim, duly corroborated by the evidence of her father and the Investigating Officer, coupled with the documentary evidence regarding her age, establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor on the date of the incident and that the appellant had taken her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under Section 363 of IPC (corresponding Section 137 of BNS) warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 20. So far as the conviction of the appellant under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 74 and 75 of BNS) is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any material infirmity or contradiction in the testimony of the victim so as to discredit her version. The statement of the 10 victim, both during the course of investigation and before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, has remained consistent with regard to the conduct of the appellant and the circumstances in which the incident took place. 21. Section 354 IPC (corresponding to Section 74 of BNS) provides punishment for assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intention or knowledge that such act is likely to outrage her modesty. Similarly, Section 354-A (corresponding to Section 75 of BNS) IPC criminalises specified acts of sexual harassment, including unwelcome conduct of sexual nature. The testimony of the victim, read along with the surrounding circumstances established by the prosecution, clearly demonstrates that the acts committed by the appellant were not merely incidental but were of such nature as to attract the aforesaid penal provisions. The victim, being a minor girl, was taken away by the appellant by inducing her on the pretext of providing employment, and the manner in which she was dealt with clearly reflects conduct falling within the mischief sought to be prevented by Sections 354 and 354-A IPC (corresponding to Sections 74 and 75 of BNS). 22. It is well settled that the testimony of the victim of a sexual offence stands on the same footing as that of any other injured witness and, if found reliable and trustworthy, can form the sole basis of conviction. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence of the prosecutrix in sexual offences is entitled to great weight and 11 absence of corroboration is not a rule of law. Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550, it has been held that the testimony of a victim of sexual assault does not require corroboration as a matter of law, provided it inspires confidence. 23. In the present case, the evidence of the victim has remained consistent and has received support from the surrounding circumstances, including the fact that she was recovered from the appellant's custody and was thereafter handed over to her parents. The conduct of the appellant in taking the victim away on the pretext of providing employment, without informing her guardians, coupled with the circumstances in which she was brought back, provides sufficient basis to uphold the finding recorded by the learned trial Court under Sections 354 and 354-A IPC (corresponding to Sections 74 and 75 of BNS). Accordingly, the same are hereby upheld. 24. The only question that survives for consideration is with regard to the quantum of sentence. It is well settled that sentencing is not a mechanical exercise and must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, while also taking into account the mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that while imposing sentence, the Court must strike a balance between the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the antecedents of the accused and the possibility of his reformation. 12 Reference in this regard may be made to State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar, (2008) 7 SCC 550, wherein the Supreme Court observed that sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on sound principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Similar principles have been reiterated in Ravada Sasikala v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2017) 4 SCC 546, wherein it has been held that proportionality is the governing principle in awarding sentence and the Court is required to balance the competing interests of society, the victim and the offender. 25. In the present case, it is not disputed that the appellant has remained in custody for a substantial period i.e. 177 days during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction. The record further reveals that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedents. The victim has already been restored to the custody of her parents and there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant is a habitual offender. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the age and antecedents of the appellant, the period already undergone by him, and the fact that the criminal proceedings have remained pending for a considerable period, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately served by reducing the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, while simultaneously directing him to pay reasonable monetary compensation to the victim. Such an approach would subserve 13 the twin objects of sentencing, namely, proportionality and victim- centric justice. 26. The concept of victim compensation has received statutory recognition under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, where applicable). In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while awarding sentence, Courts are required to apply their mind to the question of compensation to the victim and that compensation forms an integral part of the sentencing process. Likewise, in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551, it was observed that the power to award compensation is intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system and should be exercised liberally in appropriate cases. 27. Having regard to the aforesaid principles and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that while the conviction of the appellant deserves to be affirmed, the substantive sentence awarded by the learned trial Court calls for modification. 28. The conviction of the appellant for the offence recorded by the learned trial Court is affirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is modified and reduced to the period already undergone by him. It is further 14 directed that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) to the victim by way of compensation within a period of one month from the date of this judgment before the learned trial Court. Upon such deposit, the learned trial Court shall ensure that the entire amount is disbursed to the victim after due verification and identification, in accordance with law. 29. It is made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the appellant to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court shall automatically stand revived, and the learned trial Court shall take appropriate steps for securing the appellant's custody and enforcing the sentence in accordance with law. 30. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. It is stated that the appellant on bail. His bail bonds and sureties stand discharged. He is not required to surrender. 31. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra