An appellate court may only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse or clearly illegal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

15/09/2025

1. The present acquittal appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.04.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 75/2016, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent from the charges under Sections 363 and

370 of the IPC.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29/06/2016 at about 3:00 O'clock the complainant namely, Nava Sai went call of nature then he saw his minor son namely, Laxman aged about 15 years, 11 months and 3 days was sleeping on the bed and thereafter in the morning about 5:00 O'clock, his son was missing from the bed. The complainant tried to search his son- Laxman, but has failed and on the same day it reveals that other minor boys, along with his son, namely, Pardeshi, Ritesh, Sandeep and Naval Sai, were also missing. During search it was found that the accused/ respondent namely, Rajeshwar Ram took the minor boys from their lawful guardianship by giving allurement for providing job and more money, abducted them by a vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG 15/B 4382 from Village Dumarpani, P.S. Bagicha, Jashpur to Jharsoguda Tapkara Road. Thereafter, the complainant Nava Sai (P.W.-8) lodged a missing report to the Police Station Bagicha, Jashpur, based on which, F.I.R. (Ex.P-29) in Crime No. 138/2016 of I.P.C. was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 370 of the I.P.C.

3. After registering the offence, the police started the investigation.

During the investigation, a spot map (Ex.P-32) was prepared. The Bolero Jeep was seized vide Ex.P-13. The Investigating Officer, M.J. Firdousi (PW-16) recovered the mark sheets of the victims and recovery panchnama vide Ex.P-7 was prepared and victims Ritesh, Sandeep, Laxman, Pardeshi and Navalsai were recovered from the custody of respondent- Rajeshwar Ram. The statements of the victims were recorded as PW-1 (Pardeshi), PW-12 (Ritesh), PW-13 (Sandeep), PW-10 (Laxman) and PW-14 (Navalsai) and the accused-respondent was arrested on 01/07/2016 vide Ex.P- 31. After completion of usual investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted its charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagicha, who in turn, has committed the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, who framed the charge against the accused-respondent under Sections 363 and

370 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that though the scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is very much limited, but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse, then the appellate Court is empowered to set aside the same and reverse the judgment of acquittal and convict the accused appropriately. He further submits that learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent from the offence charged. Learned trial Court is not justified by discarding the evidence of the complainant/father of the victim PW-8 (Nava Sai) in its proper perspective, who while lodging the report has stated that his son Laxman was aged about 15 years, 11 months and 3 days and the other boys were also minor in between 14 to 16 years old as well as the statements of the victims, who were examined as PW-12 (Ritesh), PW-1