Allowed

Bodhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 May 2026CRA/504/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC for taking a girl to Bhopal on a marriage assurance. The High Court found the age proof (school register entry without its author) unreliable and the radiological report indicated the victim was above 16, so consent negatived rape; ingredients of Section 366 were also not proved. Convictions set aside and the accused acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds to remain in force six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Bodhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:21381

¶3

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.08 10:52:56 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

AFR

¶6

CRA No. 504 of 2005 Judgment reserved on 09.04.2026

¶7

Judgment delivered on 07.05.2026

¶8

Bodhan S/o. Sukhdayal, Aged about 22 years, Resident of Village Piparlod, Police Station Patharia, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶9

... Appellant (s)

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patharia, District Bilaspur (CG)

¶12

		... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jogi, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Manish Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

C A V Judgment

¶15

This appeal is preferred under Section 372(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against judgment dated 29.03.2005 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 2004, wherein the said court convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-

¶16

¶17

under Section 366 IPC, R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/under Section 376 IPC with default stipulations and direction to run the sentences concurrently. The trial Court has convicted both the accused persons but since the only one accused has preferred the appeal, therefore, this Court is examining the case of the present appellant only.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Head Constable Padum Das Verman (PW-10) received the information of missing girl who has left the house without informing to anybody thereafter, he registered missing report No. 2 of 2004 at Police Station Pathariya wherein father of the victim stated that on 06.02.2004 after taking meal his daughter went to sleep in other room with his daughter-in-law, he along with his son was sleeping in another room. At about 3 PM, in the night, his daughter-in-law informed her husband that victim without informing to anybody has left the house. Thereafter, FIR No. 35 of 2004 under Section 363 and 366 IPC was registered against the appellant and the matter was investigated.

¶19

During investigation, it is revealed that appellant/Bodhan Sathami, allured the victim on the assurance of marriage and took her to Bhopal, KoheFiza. On the said information, the Police recovered the victim from the possession of the appellant. After obtaining consent of the victim, medical examination of the victim was done (Ex.P-3A) by PW-3 Dr. Usha Suryavanshi who for determination of age of the victim has advised for radiologist. Vaginal slides of the victim were prepared and sent to FSL for examination (Ex.P-18). The accused was also subjected to medical

¶20

¶21

examination vide Ex.P-8 by Dr. D.R. Singharul. Regarding date of birth of the victim, certificate was issued by the Headmaster of the School (Ex.P2) was produced by the prosecution wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 08.09.1990. The Police arrested the appellant and recovered the victim from his possession. Subsequently, offence under Section 363, 366, 376, 420, 368, 120 read with Section 34 IPC was also added against the appellant.

¶22

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Mungeli registered as Sessions Case No. 270 of 2004. The learned trial Court framed the charges under Section 366 and 376 of the IPC against the appellant.

¶23

The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined 12 witnesses i.e. Bhupal (PW-1), Assistant Teacher Suresh Dubey (PW-2), Medical Officer Smt. Usha Suryavanshi (PW-3), victim (PW-4), Punit (PW-5), Vimla Manhar (PW-6), Vimla Bai (PW-7), Dr. D.R. Sigraul (PW8), Krishna Kumar (PW-9), Padam Das Verman (PW-10), J.R. Chauhan (PW-11) and Shrawan Kumar (PW-12) and exhibited the documents from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant in support of his submission has examined Chaitibai (DW-1), Bhagwat (DW-2) and Titra

¶24

¶25

(DW-3) and annexed statement of victim (Ex.D-1), statement of Punitram (Ex.D-2) and statement of Vimlabai (Ex.D-3).

¶26

After hearing the parties, learned Sessions Judge (FTC) on the basis of material on record and upon considering the statements of the witnesses has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant as mentioned above. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant preferred this Criminal Appeal. During the trial, the appellant was remained in jail from 21.03.2004 to 27.08.2004 and other accused Sukhdayal from 21.03.2004 to 07.05.2004. This Court vide order dated 11.07.25005 has released the appellant on bail.

¶27

Victim (PW-4) in her statement deposed that the Bodhan and Patiram took her to the house of Kanchhediram where they locked her in a room whole day and on the mid night the appellants took her to Sargaon on a bicycle and thereafter they took her to Bilaspur in a bus and from Bilaspur to Bhopal in a train where appellant Bodhan committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. The victim further deposed that after two or three days of incident, her uncle came to Bhopal where she met him. She further deposed that appellant made pressure on his uncle for Jaimala Shadi and obtained signature of his uncle and thereafter his uncle returned to his home from Bhopal after five days of incident. She further deposed that Sukhdayal performed her marriage with Bodhan and for this purpose he called camera man at Bhopal where he took photograph of their marriage and photographs of marriage were taken out. The victim

¶28

¶29

further deposed that she stayed about one month in Bhopal where they resided as husband and wife and after one month two girls and one boy of police person came there and took her to Pathariya from Bhopal and handed over her to her mother. She further deposed her medical examination was done at Mungeli and her X-ray was done at Bilaspur wherein her age was disclosed as 14 years. The victim has further stated that whatever she was tutored by the appellant she deposed before Bhopal Police. She further stated that the appellant made pressure on her for marriage and in the cross examination, she has admitted that she has informed the Police at Bhopal regarding her affair with appellant Bodhan but voluntarily stated that as per tutoring of appellant and also stated that when she was residing in the house of Kanchhedi, she has not made any hue and cry and also admitted that Patiram and his wife have called upon her from the house. She has also admitted that when the train reached at Bilha other villagers have also met her and while talking with them she reached to Bhopal. She has also admitted that when she was residing at Bhopal constable Padum Verman has met her and also admitted that when her uncle Gokul reached to Bhopal, she has not informed him about forceful physical relationship by the appellant. She has again admitted at Bhopal she met with her uncle but she has not informed about forcefully taken her to Bhopal and making physical relationship with her.

¶30

(PW-7) mother of the victim has deposed before the Court that appellant Bodhan took her daughter from her lawful guardianship and when they

¶31

¶32

tried to find out her daughter but did not trace out her. She further deposed that “Sahas” informed them that the Bodhan took the victim to Bhopal with him then they send Gokul/uncle of the victim to find out her daughter at Bhopal and after returned Gokul informed that Bodhan committed marpit with him for creating pressure and to stop him there. In his cross-examination, she has admitted that Gokul/uncle of the victim talked her over the telephone.

¶33

Suresh Dubey, Assistant Teacher (PW-2) Headmaster of School Government Primary School, Piparload, Block Pathariya stated that on 05.03.2004, he has issued birth certificate of Pushpa and as per original dakhil kharij register of year 1993 to 2001, date of birth of the victim was 08.09.1990. He has further stated on the application of Punit, he has issued date of birth certificate of victim (Ex-P-2). In the cross- examination, he stated that he was not author of entry made in the dakhil kharij register. He is unable to state that who has made date of birth of victim in the register and on what basis her date of birth is mentioned. The victim was admitted in class one and she left the school in the class three in the year 2000.

¶34

Punit (PW-5) grand-father of the victim has deposed before the Court that he lodged the FIR in the Police Station Pathariya. He further deposed that Sahasram Sahu informed him that his granddaughter was with Bodhan at Bhopal then he sent his son Gokul to Bhopal for enquiry and his son informed him that Bodhan kept his grand-daughter with him

¶35

¶36

as his wife. He further deposed that as per (Ex.D-2), age of his granddaughter was 14 years at the time of incident.

¶37

Dr. Smt. Usha Suryavanshi (PW-3) medically examined the victim and advised for examination of the victim by a radiologist for age determination (Ex.P-3). She further deposed that on in July, 2004 she examined the victim wherein she did not find any external or internal injury on her body. In her opinion, the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse. In cross- examination she admits that during medical examination of the victim she did not find any symptom of forcible sexual intercourse on her body and for determination of age she has referred the victim to the Radiological department, Bilaspur.

¶38

12.Dr. D.R. Sighraoul (PW-8) is the doctor who medically examined accused/appellant wherein he found that the appellant was capable of performing sex.

¶39

13.Chaitibai (DW-1) deposed that the victim was capable for marriage and her parents were also ready for marriage, at that time people of village Pakariya have visited the house of victim but victim was reluctant for marriage as she was in love affair with Bodhan. In the cross-examination, she remained affirmed that the victim was in love with the appellant but she has stated that victim was not capable for marriage and also denied that the accused has abducted the victim or she ran away with the appellant. She has further admitted that the victim was in love affair with the appellant since one year and she studied only class-two.

¶40

¶41

Bhagwat (DW-2) deposed that the victim used to visit the house of appellant and she was in love affair with the appellant. In the crossexamination, he affirmed about the love affair between the appellant and the victim. He has further admitted that after 6 to 7 years of leaving school by the victim discussion regarding her marriage was started.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that from the entire evidence produced by the prosecution, it is quite vivid, that there was love affair between the appellant and the victim. He would further submit that date of birth of the victim has not been proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence as the prosecution failed to produce any record on the basis of which the date of birth has been recorded in the Dakhil Kharij register. He would further submit that the date of birth should be proved by coget evidence in the case related to commission of rape on the women, as such in absence of any cogent evidence regarding date of birth of victim, the offence of rape cannot be proved against the appellant thus he would pray for acquitting the appellant for offence under Sections 376 of the IPC.

¶43

He would further submit that so far as offence under Section 366 IPC is concerned, the prosecution is unable to prove any material on record regarding abduction of victim on the pretext of marriage by the appellant which is sin qua non for conviction of the appellant under Section 366 of the IPC. Thus he would pray for acquitting the appellant from the charges under Section 376 and 366 of the IPC. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to judgment of various High Courts in the case of Shiv

¶44

¶45

Prashad @ Kartaru vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi in CRL.A. No. 653 of 2023 decided on 15.12.2023 and Ayub @ Mubarik son of Hurmat vs. State of Rajasthan in CRA (Db) No. 124 of 2021 decided on 8^th August 2025.

¶46

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the victim has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Her evidence is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the said offence. He would submit that the prosecution has brought home the offence against the appellant and has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offence. It is argued that the testimony of the victim is cogent, natural, and consistent on material particulars, and she has supported the prosecution case not only in her statement under Section 161 CrPC but also during her deposition before the court. He would further submit that there is clinching evidence of abducting has been placed on record by the prosecution therefore, approach of the trial court in this regard being based on proper appreciation of the evidence are in conformity with law and the same does not require any interference at this stage either for acquittal to the appellant or modifying his conviction and sentence and would pray for dismissal of this appeal.

¶47

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶48

From this submission, the points emerged for determination for this Court are;-

¶49

¶50

(i) Whether the prosecution was able to prove that the victim was below 16 year and was not competent to give consent for physical intercourse to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC ?

¶51

(ii) Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is liable to be convicted for commission of offence under Section 366 IPC ?

¶52

Discussion and analysis on point No.1.

¶53

From the evidence of Dr. Smt. Usha Suryavanshi (PW-3), it is quite vivid that she advised for radiological examination of the victim for determination of the age but the prosecution despite availability of radiological report in the record of the case has not exhibited the same as the report annexed with the original record of the department is available wherein the age of the victim has been written above 15 years and below 17 years. Thus from the report, it is quite vivid, that the victim was above 16 years and despite this evidence available on record the prosecution has not exhibited the same for the reason best known to them. Even otherwise, it is well settled legal position of law that the prosecution should place on record all the evidence collected during investigation which they have miserably failed to do it.

¶54

The learned trial Court while relying upon the certificate prepared by the Headmaster of the school on the strength of dakhil kharij register has held that the age of the victim is 14 years. This finding suffers from perversity and illegality as the prosecution was unable to examine the witness who has made entry in the dakhil kharij register. In absence of author of entry made in the dakhil kharij register, it cannot be held to be proved as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manak

¶55

¶56

Chand Alias Mani vs. State of Haryana reported in (2024) 20 SCC

¶57

561 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶58

This Court in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (1988) Supp SCC 604 had observed that the date of birth in the register of a school would not have any evidentiary value without the testimony of the person making the entry or the person who gave the date of birth.

¶59

“14.…The date of birth mentioned in the scholar’s register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar’s register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. If the entry in the scholar’s register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no evidentiary value.

¶60

In our opinion, the proof submitted by the prosecution with regard to the age of the prosecutrix in the form of the school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, especially when there were contradictory evidences before the Trial Court as to the age of the prosecutrix. It was neither safe nor fair to convict the accused, particularly when the age of the prosecutrix was such a crucial factor in the case.

¶61

Secondly, we cannot lose sight of the fact that since age was such a crucial factor in the present case, the prosecution should have done a bone ossification test for determination of the age of the prosecutrix. This has not been done in the present case. On the other hand, as per the clinical examination of the prosecutrix which was done by PW-1, Dr. Kulwinder Kaur on 28.10.2000 and which has also been referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment, we find that the secondary sex characteristics of the prosecutrix were well developed. The doctor in her report mentions that the prosecutrix is a “well built adult female”. At another place it mentions “well developed pubic hair” and “external genitalia were fully developed and normal”. It then records her age as sixteen years as told to her by the mother of the prosecutrix. The report records that there were no external marks of injury over her breast, neck, face, abdomen

¶62

¶63

and thigh. The report then concludes, inter alia, about her age as under:

¶64

“At the time of medical examination of the patient, no force seems to have been used against her. I cannot opine about the age of the patient on the basis of development of her pubic hairs and genitalia etc. The patient was habitual to sexual intercourse because her labia minora was hypertrophied and hymen admitted two fingers.”

¶65

The doctor has refrained from giving an opinion herself as to the age, but in the same report the age is recorded as sixteen years. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, what was required to be done was a bone ossification test in order to come to some reliable conclusion as to the age of the prosecutrix. This has evidently not been done. Moreover, it has also come in evidence that the mother of the prosecutrix too had said that her daughter was sixteen years of age.

¶66

Considering the above stated legal position and the fact that though the radiological report was available on record, the prosecution has not exhibited the same as it goes against the prosecution case. From the report of the doctor available on record, it is quite vivid, that the victim was above 15 years and below 17 years, thus she was capable to give consent for physical relationship in absence of any infirmity to give consent. Thus, the accused cannot be convicted for commission of offence of rape.

¶67

23.This finding further supports from the corroborative evidence on record, particularly the statement of the victim wherein she has stated in her examination-in-chief itself that she remained in Bhopal for one month and she met so many villagers while going to Bhopal but not narrated the incident to anybody even to her uncle but tried to dilute the issue by stating that the accused has threatened her as well as assaulted the uncle but no such report was lodged by the uncle regarding alleged

¶68

¶69

threatened or assault made by the accused. Further considering the evidence of the defense wherein they have stated that the victim was in love affair with the appellant which remained unshaken in the cross examination. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is case of consent which is corroborated by the medical as well as ocular evidence of doctor (Ex.P-3), wherein doctor has stated that no injury was found on the private part of the victim, this clearly demonstrates that the victim was consenting party and it is a consensual act performed by the victim. Thus examining the entire evidence, material on record, it is proved that the victim was a consenting party and the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that victim was below 16 years, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges of offence under Section 376 IPC by granting benefit of doubt. Thus the point No.1 as determined by this Court is answered in favour of the appellant and against the State.

¶70

Discussion and analysis on point No.2.

¶71

24.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that from the evidence so brought on record by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the appellant had abducted the victim for compelling her for marriage with him.

¶72

25.In order to examine the conviction of the appellant under Section 366 I.P.C. Section 366 I.P.C. has to be reproduced which is as under;-

¶73

366 “Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.

¶74

—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that

¶75

¶76

she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent do ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.”

¶77

From the evidence of the victim, it is quite vivid that she categorically stated that she remained with the appellant at Bhopal for one month, during travel she met with so many villagers, while going to Bhopal but not narrated the incident to anybody even to her uncle at Bhopal. From further evidence of the victim wherein she has stated that the appellant performed marriage with her at Bhopal but has no where stated that the appellant by compelling the victim for marriage has abducted her. In fact, the victim has stated in her evidence that the door of her house where she was residing with her parents was opened and she was sleeping with her sister-in-law and accused Bodhan and Patiram have taken her to house of Kanchhedi and she did not make any resistance and thereafter she was taken to Bhopal by train. The other witness of the prosecution Punit (PW-3) has also not stated that the accused has abducted the victim for compelling her to perform marriage. Even the mother of the victim (PW-7) has nowhere stated that with intent to marry the appellant has abducted her daughter and in the cross-examination, she has also admitted in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC she has not stated that the appellant has compelled, forced or seduced the victim for marry. Even as per doctor evidence (PW-3), there is no injury was found

¶78

¶79

on the private part of the victim to prove that victim was forced or compelled for illicit intercourse. Thus, from the evidence led by the prosecution, it is quite vivid, that the prosecution is unable to prove that the accused has abducted the victim from the lawful guardianship of her parents or inducing the victim to compel her to perform marriage. Thus the prosecution is unable to establish the essential ingredients of Section 366 IPC for convicting the appellant. The view of this Court is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the cases of Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani vs The State Of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 6 SCC 664 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶80

In order to constitute the offence of ‘abduction’ a person must be carried off illegally by force or deception, that is, to compel a person by force or deceitful means to induce to go from one place to another. The intention of the accused is the basis and the gravamen of an offence under this Section. The volition, the intention and the conduct of the accused determine the offence; they can only bear upon the intent with which the accused kidnapped or abducted the woman, and the intent of the accused is the vital question for determination in each case. Once the necessary intent of the accused is established, the offence is complete, whether or not the accused succeeded in effecting his purpose, and whether or not the woman consented to the marriage or the illicit intercourse.

¶81

Apart from this, to constitute an offence under Section 366 IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused induced the complainant woman or compelled by force to go from any place, that such inducement was by deceitful means, that such abduction took place with the intent that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse and/or that the accused knew it to be likely that the complainant may be seduced to illicit intercourse as a result of her abduction. Mere abduction does not bring an accused under the ambit of this penal section. So far as charge under Section 366 IPC is concerned, mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to

¶82

¶83

marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

¶84

We are of the considered opinion that the essence of all the applications and orders filed before the courts below is same. There is no point in considering that in all the courts below, the other applications filed by Respondent No. 2 were not brought to the notice of the court at this stage. In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate if we would confine our discussion to the applicability of Section 366 of the IPC in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

¶85

Under such circumstances, the victim appears to be a consenting party and the prosecution is unable to prove reasonable doubt that the victim was below 16 years, as such no offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is made out against the appellant. Similarly from the fact, evidence on record, it is quite vivid, that prosecution is unable to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant abducted the victim for compelling her for marriage which is essential to attract the offence under Section 366 of IPC, therefore, I am of the view that the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him under Sections 366 IPC. Accordingly, point No. 2 is answered in favour of the appellant against the State.

¶86

Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC deserves to be set aside and it is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and it is allowed.

¶87

At present, the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain in force for six months in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC and 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

¶88

¶89