Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5571-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.183 of 2018 SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant(s) 1 - Aserdan Tirkey S/o Yafat Tirkey Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Korendra Police Outpost Dokda, P. S. Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on board (30/01/2025) Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (Constituted under the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) and Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jashpur (CG) in Special Sessions Case No.35/2016, whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC and 2 Section 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2012”). 2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of the prosecutrix has lodged a missing report (Ex.P-14) on 12.03.2015 before the Police Station Kansabel, alleging inter alia, that his minor daughter had gone to Kunjara Mela on 26.02.2015, but did not return and upon searching, no information was, however, received and in the meantime, he received an information that his daughter was seen along with one John Tirkey and the respondent-Aserdan Tirkey in the said mela. On the basis of the alleged report, an FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered on 12.03.2015 against the respondent under Section 363 of IPC and during the course of investigation, she was recovered from the possession of the respondent on 20.12.2016. After recording the statement of the prosecutrix and others’ and after completing usual investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Additional Sessions Special Court, Jashpur, where the offence has been registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No.37/2015 under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 of IPC and under Section 5 and 6 of the Act, 2012 and, after considering the materials available on record, the charges have been framed against the respondent under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n) and also under Section 6 of the Act, 2012, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and produced 25 documents, while none was examined by the respondent in his defence. 3 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, particularly the statement of the prosecutrix, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecutrix was major at the relevant point of time and has gone with the respondent on her own wish and accordingly, the said respondent has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and being aggrieved, the appellant/State has preferred this appeal. 5) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the findings of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not liable for the commission of the alleged crime, is apparently contrary to law, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution, has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby, erred in acquitting the respondent-accused as such. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that a missing report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 12.03.2015 before the Police Station-Kansabel, wherein it has been alleged that his daughter/prosecutrix, who is minor, had gone to Kunjara Mela on 26.02.2015, but, did not return and on the basis of the said information, an FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered against the respondent for the commission of the offence under Section 363 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 20.12.2016 vide 4 Baramdagi Panchnama (Ex.P-19) from the possession of the respondent. After recovery of the prosecutrix, her statement (Ex.P-2) was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated by her that she had gone to Kerala along with the said respondent and lived along with him for a period of two years and had gone with him on her own wish and stated further that the said respondent has not committed anything forcefully contrary to her wish. 9) For establishing the fact regarding minority of the prosecutrix, the Dakhil Kharij Register (Ex.P-6-C) was placed on record and one Suresh Kumar, teacher of the concerned school, was examined as PW- 9, who has stated that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 10.05.1997. He, however, stated that the prosecutrix was admitted in the institution in the year 2003, whereas he is performing his duty in the said institution since 2007, therefore, he was not there, when the prosecutrix was admitted in the institution. 10) The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Rosa Toppo (PW-10), who after her examination, has submitted her report vide Ex.P-9 and for her age determination, she was referred for Radiological Test, but, no Radiological Test was conducted in order to determine the age of the prosecutrix. 11) Be that as it may, the father of the prosecutrix, who was examined as PW-2, has stated at para-8 that when he got his daughter’s admission in the school, at that particular point of time, she was 8 to 9 years old, but, at the time of admission, her age was recorded after reducing 2 to 3 years. He admits further that when her daughter has left the home, at that particular point of time, she was more than 18 years of age. The 5 prosecution has, therefore, failed to establish the fact that the prosecutrix was minor, when she had gone along with the respondent on 26.02.2015 on her own wish. As observed hereinabove, the prosecutrix (PW-1), has stated very specifically that she went to Kerala along with the said respondent on her own wish and had lived with him for over more than two years and the said respondent has not committed anything wrong with her forcefully, contrary to her own wish. 12) In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent for the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 13) The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. SD /SD/-/-SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/-- - (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Tumane