Vinod Sahees Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.12.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Saraypali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and

¶16

2

¶17

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

¶18

2. As per the prosecution case, on 05.06.2016, a missing report was lodged at Police Station Saraypali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) by the father of the victim, namely Setkumar, stating that his daughter was missing since 03.06.2016. Subsequently, on 08.06.2016, the victim was found at the house of the present appellant. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent court.

¶19

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication. No defence evidence was led by the appellant. Upon completion of trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above, hence this appeal.

¶20

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant kidnapped the victim or instigated or abetted the commission of kidnapping. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 363 read with Section 109 of the IPC is unsustainable in law.

¶21

3

¶22

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has passed a well-reasoned judgment warranting no interference by this Court.

¶23

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly admitted that on the date of the incident, the prosecutrix-victim was below the age of 18 years, hence, the age of the victim is not in dispute and does not require further deliberation.

¶25

8. The prime question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellant kidnapped the victim or instigated, conspired, or intentionally aided the commission of kidnapping of the minor victim so as to attract the provisions of Section 363 read with Section 109 of the IPC.

¶26

9. PW-1 (the victim) has categorically stated that she was in a love relationship with minor Ravilal. As per the statements of PW-1 and PW2, the victim voluntarily accompanied Ravilal on a motorcycle and thereafter stayed at the house of the appellant. The victim further stated in paragraph 14 of her deposition that neither the appellant nor his family members asked her any question. There is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant kidnapped the victim or instigated her, or that he engaged in any conspiracy with Ravilal or any other person for kidnapping the victim. There is also no evidence to show that the appellant intentionally aided the commission of kidnapping by any act or illegal omission. The appellant neither misrepresented any

¶27

4

¶28

fact nor willfully concealed any material fact which he was legally bound to disclose.

¶29

10. It is pertinent to note that abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the abettor and not upon the act of the person abetted. As defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the essential ingredients of abetment against the appellant.

¶30

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 363 read with Section 109 of the IPC.

¶31

12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 363 read with Section 109 of the IPC is hereby set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge.

¶32

13. The records of the Court below be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance. Section 437 (A) of Cr. P.C. would be applicable for a period of 6 months.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) JUDGE

¶35

Saurabh

Vinod Sahees v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Sahees v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gorelal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rohit Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ratan Das Urf Pappu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaneshwari Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajit Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kartikram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh