Sajni Bai W/o Kailash Chand Shikari, aged about 22 years, R/o Jairadih, Thana Ratanpur v. State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.08.29 17:30:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:43839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 578 of 2005 Sajni Bai W/o Kailash Chand Shikari, aged about 22 years, R/o Jairadih, Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Appellant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG) ... Respondent. For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Adv on behalf of Mrs. Renu Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Mukhta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment On Board 29.08.2025 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14th July 2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in ST No.45/2005, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 2. Prosecution case is that the prosecutrix (PW-3) a minor girl aged about 14 years has lodged an FIR (Ex.P-3) on 12.12.2004 at Police Station Ratanpur, Bilaspur to the effect that she is residing at Village JH and about 8-10 days ago her father and mother had gone to earn livelihood to other place. At the relevant time she was residing with her grand-mother KB (PW-4). It is further alleged that 7 days ago in the night at about 8 pm when she was sleeping with her grand-mother, the present appellant came to her house and taken her to her house on the pretext of watching TV. When she went to the house of the appellant, juvenile in conflict with law (CH), who is brother-in-law (Devar) of the appellant, was also present (hereinafter referred to as the "Juvenile"). After sometime, the appellant told the prosecutrix to chat with juvenile and she went to somewhere. Thereafter, the juvenile has closed the door of the room and committed rape with the prosecutrix and also threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone otherwise he would kill her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her grand-mother (PW-4) and when her parents returned home, the prosecutrix lodged the present FIR. 3. During investigation, underwear of the prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P-4. Crime details form and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-5. The ossification test of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. SK 3 (PW-10) who vide his report Ex.P-15 opined the age of the prosecutrix to be 15 to 17 years. The prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination by Dr. ST (PW-11) who vide medical report (Ex.P-7) opined that no internal or external injury was found on the body of the victim. Subsequently, statement of the witnesses were recorded. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, which in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant has stated that she has been falsely implicated. However, she has not adduced any evidence in her defence before the Court. 6. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the initial paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable as the appellant has not committed any offence provided under Section 366 of the IPC. He submits that being the neighbour of the appellant, the prosecutrix came to her house for watching TV and 4 there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant to force or seduce the prosecutrix to make illicit relation with juvenile. He submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the victim and other witnesses. Therefore, the trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant under Section 366-A of the IPC. On the basis of said submission, he prays to allow the appeal and to acquit the appellant from the said charge. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the same has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence on record. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The laudable object of enactment of Section 366-A is to punish the person who indulges in export or import of girl for prostitution. For the sake of brevity Section 366-A is reproduced hereunder:- "366A. Procuration of minor girl.—Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 11. Perusal of FIR (Ex.P-3) lodged by prosecutrix (PW-3) on 5 12.12.2004 would show that the incident occurred 7 days ago prior to the date of lodging of FIR. Further, initially the offence was only lodged against the juvenile in conflict with law (CH) who is brother-in-law (Dever) of the appellant and charge-sheet against him was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. In the FIR (Ex.P- 3), the victim has clearly mentioned the fact that the room was closed from inside by the juvenile, however, she has not stated therein that the door was closed by the present appellant. But while recording the Court statement, she has changed her version to state that the appellant has closed the door from outside. It is also stated that when she shouted for help, the appellant has not opened the door and when the juvenile called the present appellant, then the appellant has opened the door of the room. She has also alleged that while she was in room, the juvenile committed rape with her. Further, Dr. ST (PW-11) who has medically the victim did not find any injuries on the body of the victim. 12. Further, there are material contradictions in the statement recorded during investigation vide Ex.D-1, in the FIR (Ex.P-3) and in the Court statement of the victim (PW-3) with regard to the person who has closed the door during the happening of alleged incident. The other witness grand-mother of the victim KB (PW-4), who was residing with victim at the relevant time, in her evidence 6 deposed that juvenile has closed the door and committed wrong with the victim. On the contrary, brother of the victim NS (PW-5) and her mother PB (PW-6) stated that the victim told them that the appellant has closed the door, however, this fact is omitted in their police statement vide Ex.D-3 and Ex.D-4. 13. In order to attract the offence under Section 366-A of the IPC, the essence of offence lies in taking away the minor girl from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. Even if this Court accepts the prosecution story as it is, even then the only role attributed to the present appellant is that she has taken the victim for watching TV to her house. Moreover, in the initial FIR, it is nowhere stated that the appellant has closed the door of the room from outside. It also does not appear from the evidence as to in what manner the appellant has helped the juvenile for committing the rape of the prosecutrix. It appears that statement with regard to involvement of the present appellant has been exaggerated and developed during investigation and there are material contradictions and omissions on such aspect. 14. From the aforesaid discussion made, here-in-above, this Court is of the considered view that necessary ingredient of Section 366-A has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Even the story which has been developed with regard to involvement of present appellant is under cloud. In such 7 circumstances, there is no specific evidence against the present appellant for committing such offence and the appellant deserves to be acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 366-A of the IPC are set- aside and she is acquitted of the said charge. 16. The appellant is reported to be on bail. She need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by her shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. Judge Ajay Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)