Prosecution must prove the victim's age with reliable evidence to establish guilt under Section 368 IPC.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari )

Judgment on Board

31/07/2025

1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.62/2014 whereby, respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 368 of IPC.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that juvenile in conflict with law ‘BK’ allured the minor victim girl ‘S’, aged about 15 years, on the pretext of marriage and established physical relations with her. Further case of prosecution is that present respondent knowing fully well the fact that prosecutrix was kidnapped by the juvenile in conflict with law confined her in a house situated at village ‘A’. Missing report was lodged vide No.16/2014. Prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of juvenile in conflict with law on 20.05.2014 vide Ex.P/8. On the said date, Victim lodged an FIR with the police station Sitapur vide Ex.P/12 disclosing that in the morning of 25.04.2014 at about 11 am, when she was going for work, on the way, juvenile in conflict with law made an offer of marriage to her and took her to the house of respondent at village ‘A’ and respondent/accused who is relative of juvenile in conflict with law allowed them to stay in his house. Thereafter, they went to Raigarh and rented a house and lived there. On 20.05.2014, when juvenile in conflict with law along with the victim was returning to village ‘J’, the Police recovered both from bus stand, Sitapur vide Ex.P/8. In the school register (Dakhil Kharij panji), date of birth of the victim is mentioned as 07.05.1999.

3. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

4. After committal, during trial, respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited 30 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/30.

6. Learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the State/appellant would submit that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and prays to allow the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents annexed with the appeal with utmost circumspection.

9. In order to prove a case under Section 368 IPC, the prosecution must prove (a) that the victim has been kidnapped or abducted; (b) that the accused has knowledge about the victim being kidnapped or abducted; (c) despite such knowledge, the accused ( not the kidnapper or abductor)

concealed the victim or wrongfully confined him or her.

10.In the instant case, case of the prosecution is that at the time of incident, victim (PW-5) was minor and below 18 years of age and she was kidnapped by the juvenile in conflict with law.

11.The first question which arises before this Court is whether on the date of incident, the prosecution has been able to prove that the prosecutrix was minor. In this regard, prosecution has filed Dakhil Kharij register vide Ex.P/29 (c) wherein, date of birth of the victim has been recorded as

07.05.1999.

12. Kunjal Ekka (PW-7), Head Master of the school, clearly admitted in her cross-examination, that she is not the author of the register and she further admits that at the time of admission, no declaration form with regard to date of birth has been obtained from the parents. She furthe