1 2026:CGHC:4091 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 648 of 2005 Ghanshyam Kosaria S/o. Rohit Kosaria, Aged about 20 years, Occupation Student, R/o. Village, Chandi, P.S. Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raipur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 23/01/2026 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 (4) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment dated 30.07.2005 passed by 13th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 2005, by which the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 363 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 363 IPC. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 12:16:42 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the victim’s step father lodged FIR in Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur (Ex.P-1) on 08.04.2005 alleging that the appellant took his minor daughter (PW-2) from lawful guardianship of her father without her consent. It is also alleged that on 07.07.2005 at about 2 PM the appellant allured his daughter for marriage, took her to Raipur with his friend and kept her in the house of Sajanu Jangde (PW-8) and thereafter he brought her back to Village Chandi. The police registered the FIR bearing Crime No. 93 of 2005 under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. The victim was recovered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Fist Class, Raipur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur which was registered as Sessions Case No. 171 of 2005. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined 12 witnesses, Mehtaru Kosaria (PW-1), victim (PW-2), Ramkumar (Pw-3), Ku. Devanti Tandon (PW-4), Budhiman (PW-5), Santosh Kumar Baghel (PW- 6), Taman Lal Kurre (PW-7), Sanjnu Jangade (PW-8), Makhanlal Banjare (PW-9), Sub Inspector R.P. Shukla (PW-10), Domar Tandon (PW-11), constable Prafull Kumar Panda (PW-12), Inspector K.B. Dwivedi (PW-13) and exhibited the documents FIR (Ex. P-1), seizure memo (Ex.P-2), statements of witnesses (Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5), Map (Ex.P-6), arrest memo (Ex.P-7), Statement (Ex.P-8), birth Register (Ex.P-9). 5. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 CRPC in which he denied the allegation made against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. The appellant has stated that the dispute arose between Mehatru and his father, as such she has 3 implicated him in the instant case and exhibited document Ex.D-1 in his support. 6. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court on the basis of material on record and upon considering the statements of the witnesses has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant as mentioned in above. 7. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to the evidence, material on record as the statements of the victim has not been taken into consideration in its true prospect. She would further submit that during pendecy of the appeal, the appellant and the victim have solemnized marriage long 18 years back and blessed with 5 children. She has further submitted that the appellant and the victim after marriage living peacefully and the appellant remained in custody from 11.04.2005 to 15.04.2005, therefore, looking to his conduct and his overt- act, his sentence may be reduced to the period, which he has already undergone in the custody. She would further submit that if the appellant has to undergo remaining sentence as awarded by the trail Court it may ruin the family as he is only the bread earner. She would further submit that this is the fit case where this Court should adopt reformative theory of sentencing not the punitive looking to the special facts and circumstances of the case. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, thus the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offence. He would further submit that the findings and the approach of the trial court in this regard being 4 based on proper appreciation of the evidence are in conformity with law, the same does not require any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of this appeal. 9. This Court directed the appellant and the victim to appear before this Court on 23.01.2026 and to file affidavit to substantiate that they have already solemnized marriage. In pursuance of direction given by this Court, affidavit of the victim and the accused has been filed wherein they have admitted about the fact of marriage and birth of five children from their wedlock. The same is taken on record. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. From the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is proved that at the time of incident the age of victim was 14 years and 6 months, as such she was minor. Appellant took the victim from Chandi to Raipur without obtaining due permission from her father. Police recovered the victim from the possession of the appellant, as such the ingredients of offence under Section 363 of IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, therefore, order of conviction passed by the trail Court does not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 12. However, looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case that the victim and the appellant have already solemnized marriage and living peacefully with five children, as such there are mitigating factors available on record and also taking into consideration that it is a fit case where this Court should adopt reformative theory of sentence not punitive. The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Sandeep Singh Thakur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2927 has also closed the proceedings under Section 376 IPC on the count that 5 the victim and the accused by the intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme court has solemnized the marriage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 12,13 and 14 as under:- 12. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as the second respondent also submitted that the appellant and the second respondent are since married and residing together, in the interest of justice criminal proceedings may be quashed. 13. Learned counsel for the standing counsel for the first respondent-state submitted that having regard to the facts of this case, appropriate orders may be made in this appeal. 14. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the developments that have taken place in this appeal, we think interest of justice would be sub-served if the FIR No. 29 of 2021 dated 02.11.2021 lodged with Women Police Station, District Sagar and the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar and the order of conviction and sentence passed dated 12.04.2024 therein, stand quashed. Consequently, CRA No. 4869 of 2024 pending on the file of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is rendered infructuous. 13. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Singh (supra) and also considering the fact that the victim and the appellant are living peacefully as husband and wife, blessed with five children, therefore, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence awarded by the trial Court of 3 years for commission of offence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant from 11.04.2015 to 15.04.2015 as there is no minimum sentence prescribed under Section 363 of IPC. Now the appellant is convicted under Section 363 of the IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Accordingly the appeal allowed in part. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail and his bail bonds shall continue for the period of six months in view of Section 437 of the CrPC. Let a copy of 6 this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh