##PAGE1##

1

AFR

Digitally

VISHAKHAsigned by

BEOHAR VISHAKHA

BEOHAR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 137 of 2015

1 - Rajeshwar @ Rajesh Joshi S/o Pittamber Joshi Aged About 24

Years R/o Savitripur, Police Station- Sankara, Civil And Revenue District

- Mahasamund C.G. , Chhattisgarh

... Appellant

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Police Station - Mahasamund,

Crime No. 618/14, Civil And Revenue District - Mahasamund C.G.

Chhattisgarh

... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. Kabeer Kalbani, Advocate on behalf

of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, P.L.

Division Bench

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

Judgment On Board

31.01.2026

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

2

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the

judgment dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court, Mahasamund, C.G. in Sessions Trial

No. 68/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code (for

short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine

amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two

years.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.09.2014, at about

3:45 PM, minor Premkumar (PW-2), aged about six years, was

being taken from his house to school by Yashwant Singh Balihar

(PW-3) on a motorcycle. It is alleged that near Bemcha Hanuman

Temple, the appellant- Rajeshwar @ Rajesh Joshi, obstructed the

motorcycle, forcibly removed the child from PW-3 Yashwant, and

took him away on his own motorcycle towards Tumgaon. It is

further alleged that information was transmitted to different police

stations and, ultimately, the appellant was apprehended near

Police Station Sankra, from where the child was recovered. On

the basis of the information given by Dwarkaram Dahariya

(PW-1), FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged, the offence was registered, and

the investigation was conducted.

3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted before the

jurisdictional Criminal Court and the case was committed to the

3

trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in

which appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by

stating that he has not committed the offence.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as

many as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 11

documents Exs.P-1 to P-11. However, the appellant in support of

his defence has examined one witness and exhibited 3

documents Exs.D-1 to D-3.

5. The trial Court, after completion of the trial and upon appreciation

of the oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment

acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 364 and

506 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act; however, it

convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the

opening paragraph of this judgment, against which he has

preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction of

the appellant under Section 363 of IPC is unsustainable in law

and is based merely on conjectures and surmises, as there is no

reliable and cogent evidence on record to establish his guilt. He

further submits that the testimony of PW-1 Dwarika Ram

Dahariya, grandfather of the alleged abducted child, suffers from

material contradictions and omissions and, therefore, is not

trustworthy. According to his own version, the appellant was

present at his house along with family members, and thereafter

the allegation of abduction was made against him, which renders

4

his statement inherently inconsistent and unreliable. He also

submits that the accused/appellant, the complainant, and the

minor child are close relatives. The evidence also reflects prior

enmity between the parties, as an FIR had earlier been lodged

against th