Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Shankargarh District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1662 of 2018 1 - Chetram S/o Late Safedar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Dhakiya Parvejpur, P. S. Telar, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, District : Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Shankargarh District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the, Cr.P.C.) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.10.2018 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. R-12/2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 370 of I.P.C. and sentenced for RI for 07 years with fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, further RI for 03 months. 2 2. In the present appeal there are two victims and they have been identified as victim-1(since deceased) and victim-2 (alive). 3.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts of the case are that the victim-1(since deceased) was missing since 14.06.2003 and the missing report was lodged by her father to the police station for which the inquiry was going on but her whereabouts could not be traced out. One villager have informed him that she saw both the victims were going with the another lady towards Durgapur and when she asked from them, they informed that they are going to Shankargarh. On the report made by the father of the victim-1(since deceased) the F.I.R. Ex.-P/8 was registered against the unknown persons for the offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. on 18.06.2003. 4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded on 19.12.2014 and then it was came into the knowledge of the police that the
Legal Reasoning
other accused Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya had come to their village and kidnapped their minor daughter/victim no. 1(since deceased) and 2 (PW-8) and went towards Delhi. Despite their various efforts they could not search them. When the brother of the victim-1(since deceased) had gone to Delhi along with the police party, they tressed out the victim-2 (PW-8) and took her back and then she informed that the two other co-accused Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya had allured them and took them to Delhi and after keeping her with them, the two other co-accused persons Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya sold the victim-1(since deceased) to the third accused Chetram (present appellant) and performed her marriage with him, thereafter, she had gone to matrimonial house at Uttar Pradesh and since then she has not met with her and subsequently came to know that she died in her matrimonial house by ailment. The police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons including the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 370, 120-B, 367, 376, 34 and 366 of I.P.C. before the learned Judicial 3 Magistrate First Class, Rajpur. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, thereafter, transferred the same to the learned trial Court for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the accused persons Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya for the offence under Section 363, 366, 367, 370 of I.P.C. whereas the charge against the present appellant was framed under Section 370 and 376 of I.P.C. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused persons have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant and other accused persons as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant that he committed the offence. In the present case the allegation against the present appellant that the victim- 1(since deceased) was sold to the present appellant who was minor and he has committed rape upon her but the facts came on record that the victim- 1(since deceased) has married with the appellant and was residing with him out of their wedlock one child has also been born and due to some complication at the time of delivery, she died. Therefore, she could not be examined before the learned trial Court as the witnesses. He would further submits that there is no allegation against the present appellant that he kidnapped the victim from their village and engaged in human trafficking. It is 4 also submitted by him that there is no cogent and clinching evidence with respect to age or date of birth of the victim that she was minor on the date of incident. In absence of any documentary evidence, the age of the victim cannot be determined that she was minor despite availability of the school records which is annexed with the charge-sheet yet the prosecution has not tried to prove the same to determine the actual age of the victim. There is no evidence in the record that the victim-1(since deceased) was soled to the present appellant. He would also submits that the witnesses who have been examined before the learned trial Court have specifically stated that could not know the present appellant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution the witnesses cannot be hold to be of that sterling quality on which the conviction of the appellant can be sustained and in absence of any evidence against the appellant his appeal is liable to be allowed and he is entitled for acquittal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution the guilt of the appellant has duly been proved. But for minor omissions and contradiction there is no material discrepancy in their evidence. The appellant could not rebut the evidence made by the witnesses in their chief examination although the victim-1(since deceased) could not be examined due to her death but the victim-2 (PW-8) have duly supported the prosecution case. PW-1(since deceased) father of the victim-1(since deceased) has also supported the prosecution case that her daughter was minor on the date of incident which has not been cross-examined in his cross-examination, therefore, considering the entire material produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the alleged offence under Section 370 of I.P.C. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court is absolutely justified and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 5 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. PW-1, who is the father of the victim-1(since deceased) have stated in his evidence that he did not know the appellant Chetram. About 10 year back, ame to their village they stayed there for about 15 days and secretly took his daughter and daughter of his brother also. When their daughters could not be found in the village they started searching her and ultimately missing report has been lodged at police station Shankargarh. The childrens of the village have informed them that a lady had taken his daughter with her. After 2 - 3 years, the daughter of his elder brother came in the village and informed that the victim-1(since deceased) has died, she has not disclosed anything to him. When the victim-2 (PW-8) informed about the fact that his daughter has died, the police had gone to Delhi and arrested the accused persons. In his cross-examination it only comes that the victim-2 (PW-8) have stated that they were kidnapped by Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya by giving allurement that they will visit Delhi. The victim-2 (PW-8) have informed that after keeping his daughter with them, they sold her to the appellant Chetram and performed her marriage with him, thereafter, she had gone to her matrimonial house. 12. In further cross-examination he stated that the victim-2 (PW-8) have not disclosed anything to him and he seen the appellant Chetram first time before the Court. He also did not know about the person with whom his daughter has got married. 13. PW-2 is the mother of the victim-1(since deceased), she too have stated that her daughter and her niece were kidnapped by the accused Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya they took them towards Delhi. On being information given by the victim-2 (PW-8) they came to know that the accused Surendra Hudiya has soled the victim-1(since deceased) and performed her marriage with the appellant Chetram. In cross-examination 6 she admitted that the victim-2 (PW-8) have not disclosed any information to her. 14. PW-3, who has stated in his evidence that about 10 years back the accused persons came to their village and stayed in the house of one Bhandu, thereafter, they took another girl to Delhi and again came to their village. In the second time they took the victim-1(since deceased) and victim-2 (PW-8) to Delhi and left there address and mobile number in the village. Thereafter, they lodged the report to the police and he had gone to Delhi to search their whereabouts. When he had gone to Delhi he could not able to trace out the address which was given by them and came back. After about 7 - 8 years when the victim-2 (PW-8) came to the village then the police persons took her towards Delhi and then the accused persons were arrested. In cross- examination he too have admitted that he did not know the appellant Chetram. He also admitted that the victim-2 (PW-8) have informed that the victim-1(since deceased) have performed marriage on her own will. 15. PW-4, is the brother of both the victims he too have stated in his evidence the accused persons took his both sisters towards Delhi and when their whereabouts could not be traced out they have lodged the report. When they had gone along with the victim-2 (PW-8) to Delhi they came to know that the victim-1(since deceased) had died. In cross-examination he too have stated that he came to know that his sister had married with the appellant Chetram on her own will by which she begotten a male child. His sister has died in natural death. 16. PW-5, have also stated in his evidence he did not know the appellant Chetram about years back the accused Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen came to the village from Delhi and stayed in the house one Dhandu, she asked to give one daughter to her then with the consent of his wife they given his daughter victim-2 (PW-8) to Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and they took her towards Delhi. After about a week Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen 7 again came to village and took another girl from the village. He also lodged the report with respect to the another girl who whom they have committed the offence. In cross-examination he admitted that the accused persons have not taken the victims in his presence and the third victim have not stated anything to him. 17. PW-6, have also made the similar statement as the PW-5 has deposed. They have lodged the report to the police and after 08 years of lodging of their report, when the third victim came to village, she informed the entire story to the villagers and their parents and then they came to know that the victim- 1(since deceased) and victim-2 (PW-8) were taken by the accused Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya towards Delhi and they performed their marriage with other persons. In cross-examination he too have admitted that the third victim has not disclosed any incident to him. 18. PW-7, is the witness who saw the accused persons taking the two victim- 1(since deceased) and victim-2(PW-8). She stated in her evidence that at about 10 - 12 years back when she was going to village Jarhadih, near Durgapur, she saw the victim-1(since deceased) and victim-2 (PW-8) going in a truck along with the accused Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen and Surendra Hudiya. The said truck was going from Durgapur to Shankargarh. 19. PW-8, is the victim who stated in her evidence that she did not know the appellant Chetram. The police informed her that the accused Chetram was got married with the victim-1(since deceased). In the year, 2003 the accused persons took them towards Delhi. After 10 - 15 days after reaching at Delhi, the accused persons have performed the marriage of the victim-1(since deceased) with another boy she also came to know that the third victim has also got married with another body. The accused Surendra Hudiya committed rape repeatedly by which she conceived pregnancy and ultimately delivered a male child who is presently about 10 years of age. Thereafter, she is residing with the son of the accused Smt. Shanti Devi @ Sukhmayeen 8 as husband and wife at Delhi. In her cross-examination also nothing could be elicited against the present appellant Chetram that he either kidnapped the victim-1(since deceased) or he purchased the victim-1(since deceased) and has performed marriage with her. She specifically stated in her examination that she stated about the victim-1(since deceased) on the information disclosed by the police persons. 20. From all these evidences there is nothing against the present appellant that he came to village of the victims or he is actively involved in taking them towards Delhi or even he actually performed marriage with her by which the victim-1(since deceased) procured a child. The witnesses even did not know about Chetram even PW-8 who is the victim-2 who also allegedly kidnapped by the accused persons did not know about the appellant Chetram. 21. Since there is no evidence against the present appellant Chetram in this case, that he either kidnapped the victims and took them towards Delhi and also there is no evidence that the appellant Chetram has performed marriage with the victim-1(since deceased) who subsequently died, it would be futile exercise to enter into the issue of determination of age of victim-1(since deceased). Although there is no documentary evidence led by the prosecution despite availability of her school records, except the oral evidence (PW-1), nothing is there in the record to show that she was minor on the date of incident. It would be very difficult for this Court to hold on the basis of oral evidence of PW-1 that the victim-1(since deceased) was minor when she was allegedly kidnapped by the accused persons and taken her towards Delhi. Had she been kidnapped or the present appellant Chetram engaged in trafficking of minor victims, she would not have resided with the appellant Chetram as his wife as alleged in the present case and some efforts she could have made to get out from the clutches of the appellant Chetram. Therefore, it can be hold that there is no cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant Chetram that he actually involved in human 9 trafficking as provided under Section 370 of I.P.C. and at least he is entitled for benefit of doubt. 22. From the foregoing reasons. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 370 of I.P.C. is not sustainable. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant Chetram is set aside. He is aquitted from the alleged offence under Section 370 of I.P.C. The appellant Chetram is reported to be on bail, his bail bond shall continue for further period of 6 months as provided under Section 481 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 23. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.20 19:27:59 +0530