Criminal appeal against conviction for kidnapping a minor girl. The court found prosecution evidence on the victim's age contradictory and unreliable, and her own testimony showed she accompanied the appellant voluntarily without enticement. The appeal was allowed and the appellant acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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
... Appellant
versus
... 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) : Mr. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Judgment on Board
11/09/2025
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.
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 363 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 04 years |
| and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default | |
| stipulation. |
3
CRA No. 520 of 2016
(Ex.P/7) against the accused and the investigation was taken up.
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.
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.
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.
7
CRA No. 520 of 2016
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.
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.
9
CRA No. 520 of 2016
considered reliable for the purpose of securing a conviction.
allowed .
Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge
S. Bhilwar
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.
Whether the appellant took or enticed the victim out of lawful guardianship under Section 361 IPC.
Whether the conviction under Section 363 IPC was justified.
10 provisions across 4 enactments
Mani Yadav @ Rakesh
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, District Bhilai
Bibhu Datta Guru
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
