Vinod Paikra, aged about 19 years, S/o Santosh Paikra, Occupation - Cultivation, R/o Village v. State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:35891 AFR Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=CHATTISGARH, c=IN Date: 2025.07.25 16:55:18 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 837 of 2005 Vinod Paikra, aged about 19 years, S/o Santosh Paikra, Occupation - Cultivation, R/o Village Nawapara, Thana Gharghoda, District Raigarh. ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Raigarh, District Raigarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant For Respondent : : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment on Board 24/07/2025 1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.11.2005 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.131/2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of 2 Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix (PW-11) is aged about 21 years and appellant was aged about 19 years at the relevant time. On 03.06.2004 at about 5 am the prosecutrix without informing to her parents left the home. When she did not return upto 8 Am, her father SK (PW-1) lodged a missing report bearing No.11/04 at Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh, consequent to which, information was recorded same day in Daily Diary No.87. It is also stated in the report that the prosecutrix has taken her clothes, cash of Rs.27,000/- and jewellery of her mother and gone somewhere else. During investigation, it was found that the accused/appellant has enticed the prosecutrix for making relation with him, abducted her and also committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on 27.06.2004 FIR (Ex.P-10) was lodged for the offence under Section 366 and 376 of the IPC. After recovery of the prosecutrix, she was subjected to medical examination which was done by doctor (PW-6) who gave her opinion vide Ex.P-9 that at the time of examination, the prosecutrix was carrying pregnancy of one and a half months. The respondent/accused was also subjected to medical examination vide Ex.P-20 which was done by doctor (PW-14), who after physical examination of the appellant opined that the appellant was able to perform sexual intercourse. 3 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 376 and 366 of the IPC. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents viz Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-20. 5. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he pleaded innocence and false implication. The defence has also exhibited two documents which are the love letters written by the prosecutrix vide Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. 6. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 376 of the IPC, however, convicted and sentenced him under section 366 of the IPC as mentioned in initial paragraph of this judgment. 7. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime and trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting the appellant under Section 366 of the IPC as necessary ingredients of said offence are not attracted. Learned counsel further submits that at the relevant time the prosecutrix was major and aged about 21 years which itself makes it clear that no compulsion was made on behalf of the appellant to entice and kidnap the prosecutrix. Learned counsel also submits that the trial Court itself observed that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she herself willfully joined the company of the appellant. In such 4 circumstances, the present one is clear case of acquittal. In view of such submission, learned counsel prays to allow the appeal. 8. Ms. Noopur Sonkar, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the impugned judgment is well merited and same does not call for any interference. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on the record with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to constitute the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to prove necessary ingredients of the said offence which are as below :- (a) that the accused kidnapped as understood in Section 360 or 361 IPC or abducted the victim as understood in Section 362 IPC; (b) that the victim of the aforesaid kidnapping or abduction was a female; (c) that the accused during the kidnapping or abducting had intention to knew it likely that (1) such woman might or would be forced to marry a person against her will, or (2) that she might or would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or (3) by means of criminal intimidation or otherwise by inducing a woman to go from any place with 5 intent that she may be or knowing that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. 11. In the present case, the trial Court after analysis of the evidence concluded that the victim is a consenting party and attained the age of majority. At the relevant time, the victim was aged 21 years and appellant was aged 19 years. It was also observed by the trial Court that the accused studied up-to 9th Class whereas the prosecutrix was a graduated lady and was doing job. After leaving the parental home, the victim has gone with the appellant and stayed at hotel situated at Ambikapur where they disclosed their identity as brother and sister. Further, from perusal of evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-11), it is vivid that victim has visited several places along with the appellant and also stayed with him for several days. She has also stated about intercourse with the appellant. However, despite such evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 366 IPC. 12. In the matter of Kavita Chandrakant Vs. Lakhani Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr [(2018) 6 SCC 664], the Supreme Court materially observed that mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, the mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any 6 person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 IPC, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him under Section 366 IPC. 13. Further, the word 'entice' involves an idea of inducement or allurement. One does not entice another unless the latter attempts to do a thing which she or he would not otherwise do. In the case at hand, father of the victim (PW-1) has lodged a report that the victim has taken the cash of Rs.27,000/- and jewellery of her mother and left the house. From the evidence available on record, it is also apparent that the prosecutrix stayed along with appellant for several days, and there was relation between them before the date of incident also. 14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, it could not be said that the appellant has enticed the prosecutrix in any manner who was mature and graduated lady and was also doing a job at the relevant time. Moreover, it is alleged that the appellant has met the prosecutrix on various occasions, however, the prosecutrix has not raised any alarm and did not make complaint before anybody. 15. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed to attract the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 366 of the IPC and the prosecution has also 7 failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision
16. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused/appellant under Section 366 IPC are hereby set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. 17. The appellant is reported to be on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by him shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months in view of the provisions contained under Section 437- A of the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay