1 2026:CGHC:17068 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 16.03.2026 15.04.2026 -- 15.04.2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 16.03.2026 Judgment delivered on : 15.04.2026 CRA No. 874 of 2007 1 – Harishankar, S/o Banshidhar Chauhan, aged about 23 years, R/o Village- Darri, Police Station- Dabhara, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station- Dabhara, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.09.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa C.G., in Sessions Case No. 232/2006 whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 of IPC R.I. for 3 months Under Section 457 read with Section 149 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months Under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC R.I. for 3 months Under Section 365 read with Section 149 of IPC R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months Under Section 367 read with Section 149 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 6 months 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Piluram Chauhan, a resident of Village Churabhantha within the jurisdiction of Police Station Dabhra, is engaged in agriculture. It is 3 alleged that on 18.08.2004, his house was subjected to theft and one Ashok Chauhan was suspected in connection therewith. Subsequently, the complainant’s son, Hemant Chauhan, along with co-villagers Shankarlal and Jawahar, went in search of Ashok Chauhan, whereupon a dispute arose, which was later amicably settled. This fact was duly informed to the complainant by his son Hemant. Thereafter, it is alleged that Grahan Chauhan encountered Ashok Chauhan in Village Porsapali and instigated a dispute. Further, it is stated that Bedaram Chauhan, father of Grahan Chauhan and a resident of Village Churabhantha, summoned his son Kantilal to Korba in a Sumo vehicle, and also called Sounilal along with his father-in-law Tiharu Ram from Village Acharitpali. On 26.08.2004 at about 9:30 PM, the accused persons, namely Harishankar Chauhan, Bedaram Chauhan, Chandresh, Diwakar Sahu, Kantilal, Sounilal, Grahan Chauhan and Tiharu Ram, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the complainant after breaking open the door and assaulted Hemant Chauhan. It is further alleged that they forcibly abducted Hemant Chauhan and took him away in a Sumo vehicle. It is also stated that Shankarlal and his wife, Budeshwari Bai, had already been forcibly seated in the said vehicle and all three persons were taken away to an unknown place. The complainant has expressed apprehension that the abducted persons, namely Hemant Chauhan, Shankarlal and Budeshwari Bai were subjected 4 to assault and possibly murdered and their bodies disposed of at an undisclosed location. The incident occurred during the course of the assault and forcible abduction from the complainant’s residence. Immediately thereafter, the complainant lodged a report at Police Station Dabhra at about 1:00 AM, which was registered by the Station House Officer, A.K. Tiwari and investigation was commenced. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Court of the Commissioner at Sakti, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Bilaspur. Subsequently, the Sessions case has been transferred to this Court for proper adjudication in accordance with law. Learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 147, 323, 457, 365, 367 read with Section 149 of IPC, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to substantiate the charges against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence were put to him. The accused/appellant denied the same in toto, pleaded innocence and asserted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of his defence, the accused/appellant examined Grahanlal as Defence Witness No. 1 (D.W.-1) and further examined himself as Defence Witness No. 2 (D.W.-2). 5 4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, found the prosecution case to be credible and trustworthy. Accordingly, vide judgment dated 11.09.2007, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as detailed in paragraph 1 of the said judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction, sentence and findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and unsustainable in law. Learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence and fail to support the prosecution case; hence, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including abduction and kidnapping, against the appellant. The version of the complainant is not corroborated by any independent or reliable evidence, rendering it untrustworthy and unsafe for conviction. He further submits that exist material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimonies of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, which go to the root of the case and demolish the prosecution story. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the 6 appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 14.10.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. D-470-DB of 2014 in the matter of Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others. 6. On the other hand, learned State submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is well-reasoned, lawful and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including abduction and kidnapping stand duly established. Hence, the conviction calls for no interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 147, 323, 457, 365 and 367 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the said offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him. 9. Piluram Chouhan (P.W.-1) deposed that on the date of the incident, i.e., 27.08.2004, all the accused persons initially went to the house of Shankar Chauhan, where they assaulted Shankar 7 Chauhan and his wife Bundeshwari and forcibly took them out of the house, making them sit in a jeep. Thereafter, the accused came to the house of the witness in the said jeep. Upon hearing the commotion, Hemant Chauhan came out from the shed, at which point accused Grahanlal, Savanilal, Vedram, Krantilal and Tiharuram began assaulting him with sticks and hands. Simultaneously, Harishankar, Diwakar and Dinesh arrived from the street side, forcefully pushed open the door and broke the chains. Thereafter, all the accused persons collectively assaulted Hemant Chauhan in the shed of the witness’s house, forcibly took him away, made him sit in the jeep and abducted him. The witness further stated that after the incident, he lodged a report at Police Station Dabhra, which is marked as Ex.P/1. 10. Hemant Kumar (P.W.-2) deposed that one day prior to the incident, i.e., on 26.08.2004, a quarrel had taken place between him and the accused persons. On the following day, the accused arrived in a jeep, went to the house of his maternal uncle, Shankar Chauhan, and after assaulting him and his wife, forcibly made them sit in the jeep. Thereafter, the accused came to his house, abused him, dragged him out while assaulting him and compelled him to sit in the vehicle. He further stated that the accused persons took him to Bhupdevpur, where they continued to abuse, threaten and assault him. He also alleged that at Bhupdevpur Police Station, the accused got him and Shankarlal beaten by a police officer. Thereafter, the accused again made him sit in the 8 vehicle and took him to village Churaghata. In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that Harishankar and Grahanlal had also been assaulted and that a report in that regard was lodged at Police Station Dabhra. He further stated that a compromise had been agreed upon between the parties. The witness expressed his lack of knowledge regarding any report lodged at Bhupdevpur Police Station. He also denied the suggestion that on 26.08.2004, he, along with Shankar, Jeev Rakhan (Kotwar), Bundeshwari Bai and the accused persons, had gone to Bhupdevpur Police Station in a jeep for the purpose of effecting a compromise. In para 8 of his cross-examination, the witness admitted that constables of Police Station Bhupdevpur assaulted him with hands and fists. He further stated that at the time of recording his police statement, he had disclosed that the constables of Bhupdevpur Police Station had beaten him and due to such assault, he had sustained injuries. He added that if this fact was not mentioned in his statement (Ex.D/1), he was unaware of the reason for such omission. In para 10, the witness stated that he went to Bhupdevpur Police Station and informed a police constable that the accused persons had kidnapped him, assaulted him severely, threatened him, and forcibly made him sit in the jeep. He further stated that the said constable did not pay any heed to their complaint and 9 sent them back along with the accused persons. In para 12 of his cross-examination, the witness stated that the accused persons made him sit in the jeep and at that time, Shankarlal and his wife were also present there. In para 15, he stated that, “ यह कहना गलत ह किक मैं अपना स्वेच्छा से अकियक्तगण क जीप मैं बै ठकर पदेवेपर गय था। यह बैत सेह ह किक पदेवेपर मैं थाना प्रर नाह किमैंलना क करण स्वेच्छापवे$क अकियक्तगण क सेथा वेपसे आ गय ” था और अपना घर चल गय था। In para 16, he admitted that when he went to Bhupdevpur with the accused, he did not talk to his father. 11. Smt. Bundeshwari Bai (P.W.-3), whose name has been incorrectly mentioned in the deposition sheet as Duleshwari Bai, stated that she identified accused Tiharu in accordance with the Identification Memo (Ex.P/4). In para 4 of her cross-examination, the witness stated that when she came to her husband’s house from her parental home, she came to know that Harishankar and Grihanlal had lodged a report regarding assault against her husband and Hemant at Police Stations Dabhra and Bhupdevpur. In para 9, she stated that on the night of the incident, when they were returning from Churaghat to Bhupdevpur in a jeep, Jeevrakhan (Kotwar) was also travelling with them in the same vehicle. She further deposed that after reaching Bhupdevpur, she 10 along with Hemant, Shankar and the accused persons approached a police constable. However, she denied the suggestion that they had gone to the police station for the purpose of compromising the matter. In para 12, she stated that they had reached Bhupdevpur Police Station, but since no Inspector was present, a constable made inquiries from them and thereafter sent them back, following which all of them returned in the same vehicle. 12. In the matter of Jasbir (supra), Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that, “Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgment as well as the statement (Annexure A-1) of complainant Jasbir Singh made before the trial Court, while stepping into the witness box as PW1, this Court is of the considered view that the offences under Sections 364 and 367 IPC were not made out as the quarrel took place in the chowk in front of Peeranwali. While the quarrel was going on, the parties went inside the house of accused Rachhpal Singh, which was at a distance of 20 feet from Peeranwali. As regards the offence under Section 325 IPC, it would be worthwhile to note that the doctor, who had medico-legally examined the complainant and declared the injuries to be grievous was not examined by the prosecution. Further, the use of the fire arm is also not established as none had suffered any injury as a result of alleged firing of the same.” 11 13. Section 365 IPC provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine such person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 14. Section 367 IPC provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be subjected to grievous hurt, slavery, or any form of exploitation, or knowing it to be likely that such person will be so subjected, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 15. Jawaharlal (P.W.-5), Smt. Arti Chouhan (P.W.-12) and Rohit Chouhan (P.W.-13) have deposed that upon hearing noise, they saw the accused persons taking Hemant, Shankar and his wife in a jeep. However, in their cross-examination, all these witnesses admitted that the said persons returned on the same night in the same jeep. 16. It has come on record from the statements of all the witnesses that a counter-case was also registered against the complainant party. The complainant and other witnesses have admitted that the incident involving assault on accused Harishankar and Grahanlal was subsequently compromised between the parties. 17. The complainant, Pilu Ram Chouhan (P.W.-1), alleged that the accused persons kidnapped Hemant Chouhan, Shankarlal and 12 Bundeshwari Bai. However, he admitted in his cross-examination that they were taken to the police station along with the accused persons and thereafter all of them returned together in the same jeep. 18. Gourelal Giri (P.W.-9), who medically examined the injured, found only simple injuries on the body of Shankarlal and Hemant Chouhan. 19. From the overall evidence, it is apparent that a quarrel had taken place between both parties and FIRs were lodged by each side against the other. It is further evident that there are material omissions and contradictions between the police statements and the court depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Such inconsistencies render the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses unreliable. The learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate these admissions and contradictions, thereby arriving at erroneous findings which are unsustainable in law. 20. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses are found to be exaggerated. Notably, Hemant Chouhan, Shankar Lal and Bundeshwari Bai have admitted that they had gone to the police station along with the accused persons and returned on the same night after finding that the Inspector was not present. This circumstance substantially weakens the prosecution case and negates the allegation of kidnapping or abduction. 21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that 13 the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to acquittal of all the charges. 23. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, the appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24.The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV