2026:CGHC:6711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 197 of 2017 Vinod Sahees S/o Prabhu Lal Sahees, Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bitangeepalee, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saraypali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Ananya Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, P.L.

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA

Order on Board

06/02/2026

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 PW- 2, 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