• Mani Yadav @ Rakesh S/o Triloki Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Krishna v. • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Supela, District - Bhilai
Case Details
1 CRA No. 520 of 2016 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.09.17 10:54:11 +0530 2025:CGHC:46586 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 520 of 2016 • Mani Yadav @ Rakesh S/o Triloki Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Krishna Nagar, Near Sayed Baba Majar, Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Supela, District - Bhilai Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Judgment on Board 11/09/2025 1. In the case at hand, 03 accused persons were tried and out of them, two accused persons were acquitted by the trial Court as the prosecution has 2 CRA No. 520 of 2016 failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges against accused Kushal Jagat and A. Bablu Rao under Sections 363/34, 366(A)/34 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Hence, accused Kushal Jagat and A. Bablu Rao are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.04.2016 passed in Special Trial No. 94/2014 by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 04 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Kamrul Haq (PW- 4) father of the victim approached the Supela police station on 16.06.2014 and lodged a report against the accused to the effect that his minor daughter aged about 17 years, left the house on 15.06.2014 at 3:30 PM saying that she was going to her friend's house but did not return till evening and on searching in the vicinity, she could not be found. However, during this time, he got information that his daughter was seen with a boy named Mani Yadav (appellant herein) resident of Krishna Nagar Supela. Therefore, he suspects that Mani Yadav has lured and taken away his minor daughter from his legal custody. On the basis of the report lodged by him, Police Station Supela registered an FIR 3 CRA No. 520 of 2016 (Ex.P/7) against the accused and the investigation was taken up. 4. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Statement of the Victim and the Statements of witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 06.04.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the 4 CRA No. 520 of 2016 prosecutrix/ Victim was below 18 years of age at the time of incident, there was a love affair between them. Hence, without there being any cogent evidence with regard to the abduction, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. As far as the age of the victim is concerned, the prosecution has failed to produce any reasonable or reliable document to prove that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. The victim’s mother (PW/1) stated in her deposition that the victim is her elder daughter and her date of birth is 11/09/1998. However, during cross-examination, she stated that the victim was born in the District Hospital, Durg, and although a birth certificate was obtained, it was not submitted to the police. Instead, only the victim's mark sheet was provided. She further admitted that she did not accompany her daughter at the time of school admission and, therefore, could not confirm what date of birth the victim's father had given to the school. 11. PW/4, the father of the victim, stated that although he did not remember her exact date of birth, she was about 17 years old at the time of the 5 CRA No. 520 of 2016 incident. This statement lacks reliability due to its ambiguity. Furthermore, there is a clear contradiction between the statements of the victim and her mother. While the mother claimed the date of birth to be 11/09/1998, the victim herself stated that her date of birth is 10/09/1997. 12. These inconsistencies in the statements of key witnesses regarding the victim’s date of birth cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s claim that the victim was a minor at the relevant time. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the trial Court’s conclusion and affirmed the finding recorded by it and this Court finds it appropriate that the accused was rightly acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 13. So far as the charges levelled against the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(ढ़) IPC and section 4 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and recorded its finding by stating that the appellant has not committed any offence under the aforesaid sections, as the prosecution failed to establish the charges with credible and reliable evidence. The victim did not specifically allege that the appellant had committed forced sexual intercourse with her out of fear, due to coercion for her favour, or as a result of any compromise. Moreover, the witnesses, including mother (PW-1) and father (PW-4), did not provide any testimony indicating the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the alleged crime. Furthermore, there is no medical evidence on record clearly connects the appellant to the act of abduction or penetrative sexual assault. While the medical evidence may suggest that sexual intercourse did occur, the identity of 6 CRA No. 520 of 2016 the person responsible has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal trial, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused through clear, cogent, and trustworthy evidence, and not through conjecture or presumption. Since the prosecution has failed to meet this standard, the trial Court was justified in holding that no offence under the alleged sections was made out against the appellant. 14. As regards, the sole question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. 15. The appellant has been convicted for offence of kidnapping. Kidnapping has been defined under Section 359 of the IPC. According to Section 359 of the IPC, kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Section 361 of the IPC defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship which states as under:- “361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.-Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.” 16. The object of Section 359 of the IPC is at least as much to protect children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes, as for the the protection of the rights of parents and guardians having the lawful charge or custody of minors or insane persons. Section 361 has four ingredients:- 7 CRA No. 520 of 2016 (1) Taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind. (2) Such minor must be under sixteen years of age, if a male, or under eighteen years or age, if a female. (3) The taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind. (4) Such taking or enticing must be without the consent of such guardian. So far as kidnapping a minor girl from lawful guardianship is concerned, the ingredients are : (i) that the girl was under 18 years of age; (ii) such minor was in the keeping of a lawful guardian, and (iii) the accused took or induced such person to leave out of such keeping and such taking was done without the consent of the lawful guardian. 17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of ingredients of offence under Section 361 of the IPC which is punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, it is evident from the statement of the victim (PW/9) recorded before the trial Court wherein she categorically stated that she went to Supela to meet the appellant Mani Yadav from her home on her own free will and from there both of them went to a hotel where we had breakfast and left from there. 18. As such, there is no evidence on record that at any point of time, the appellant solicited or lured or induced or enticed the victim to go with him. On the other hand, it is clearly established that the victim herself accompanied the appellant and there is no inducement to the victim by the appellant to leave the lawful guardianship. Therefore, in the 8 CRA No. 520 of 2016 considered opinion of this Court, the act/omission of the appellant, if any, would not tantamount to “taking” within the meaning of Section 361 of the IPC. Similarly, there is no evidence of enticing the minor victim by the appellant. As such, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of the IPC. 19. The statement of the victim clearly reveals significant contradictions that undermine the credibility and reliability of her testimony. Initially, she stated that on 15/06/2014, the appellant along with acquitted accused Kushaljagat and Bablu Rao forcibly took her to Rajnandgaon by luring her with a promise of marriage, and that the other two acquitted accused actively assisted in the act of abduction. However, she later admits that she went to Supela to meet the appellant of her own free will, and from there, they both went to a hotel, had breakfast, and then left together. She further states that she does not remember anything after leaving the hotel as she was unconscious and later regained consciousness in Nagpur, with only a faint memory of traveling to Rajnandgaon and then by train. Crucially, she clarifies that she was only friendship with Mani and had never met the acquitted accused Kushaljagat and Bablu Rao before, nor was she aware of them being from her locality. She even states that she saw both of them for the first time in court. These clear contradictions and admissions show that the prosecutrix had willingly eloped with the appellant and that her later claims are inconsistent and contradictory. In light of these facts, her testimony lacks coherence and cannot be 9 CRA No. 520 of 2016 considered reliable for the purpose of securing a conviction. 20. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the evidence on record, it would not be safe for this Court to hold that the appellant has committed any offence of rape or kidnapping of the victim, rather it reflects from the evidence that the victim herself had gone with the appellant. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant committed the offence. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has not proved that the appellant had forcefully taken away the Victim from the lawful guardianship of her parents and from the evidence of the victim, the same creates doubt and also the fact that since, it has also not proved that at the time of incident the Victim was minor, therefore, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 22. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 23. 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. S. Bhilwar Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge