2026:CGHC:8600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1307 of 2017 Sonu Panika @ Shashikant Dewangan S/o Fekuram, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chhindiya, P. S. Patna, District Koriya Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jhilmili , District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla along with Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board

17/02/2026

1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (henceforth ‘the Cr.P.C.') questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.07.2017 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 04/2016 whereby the appellant stands convicted as under :-

Conviction Sentence U/s 363 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.

1000/-, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 6 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.06.2016, the complainant Dhanushdhari (PW-02) submitted a written report at Police Outpost Chandra stating that the accused Sonu Panika had taken away his minor daughter (the prosecutrix). According to the report, on 31.05.2016 at about 10:00 a.m., the complainant had gone to village Patwari to receive compensation for crop damage. He was stopped at village Toma for hearing of the matter and returned from there at about 12:00 noon. When he returned home, his daughter was not there. He called his wife Sunita (PW-04) from the field and upon asking about the children, she informed him that the prosecutrix had been at home earlier but had gone to the field; however, on making inquiries in the nearby area, she could not be found. On 01.06.2016, the complainant went to village Dadana in search of the prosecutrix, but no information was found, and he returned home. During this time, the prosecutrix’s friend Shanta informed him that the prosecutrix used to talk to a boy named Sonu from village Chhindia. Thereafter, the complainant obtained the phone number of the accused Sonu and called him, upon which the accused informed him that he had taken the prosecutrix to his house. After receiving this information, the complainant, along with Motilal, Girdhari Das, Bhajnaras, and Hariprasad, went to village Chhindia, where the prosecutrix was found at the accused’s house. Upon inquiry, she stated that the accused had enticed her on the pretext of marriage and taken her to his house, and that she would not go with them. On the report of PW-02, the Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Outpost Chandra recorded the written report and registered a “Zero” FIR. On the basis of the said FIR, Crime No. 59/2016 under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC was registered against the accused by the Station House Officer Rajesh Yadav (PW-10) at Police Station Jhilimili, and the First Information Report (Exhibit P-14) was recorded and investigation was taken up.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating evidence available on record, the Sessions Court vide judgment dated 29.07.2017 convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC in the manner as described above of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. In order to prove the charges against the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the appellant. After completion of trial, Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as described above. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the trial Judge has acted with material anomalies and illegality in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, which is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. That, the learned trial Judge