tsiggasiL<'as^aK^)3yt3E£^ aK^£:igi^t^ -A:'^S^SSS^K"^ ^MmJESiE,'WSS3S^!Si& ;M~ APPEI.EANT: ts%K?S ^^SiEatg^^Viatttsg^||I;Iiw',:':': ||%|jgB^||||tS i|I gistrate,:, ggi^Hrt^ f::::';'.' .;.;.;.:.'is 'B^^S; i- '•SSSK!sS&sSsWK S3 MSWl,SS^S ^SsSiWSESSiySS^Si'W^^'^sWs, ..< ' S!^^IS:'^fflBI^^^BlBS8SliS»E^®^£^-S^^y Satnainf[ ^®Batii^ffis,;Age<t^&ut-S:Ii,^ —>Satnami»''.4S';l:f;"•'"':;:-'; ff''^KI(SIBi8S8iM^8^%^'peNn^lab,y'':^ '••i:;^eigggigigig|s|ljjg||>^^i^,^ur,''^ .:&:iiSaSJSBfiiS!SEMSt^%^w:(G.©.^:''^ AppLicAiiiM^^^^^^KtffiiS'iiiiiiMi^SI W^j.S^^ssm w. BffiB@ D»E^'% :%^ ^i^^^^^^^^^^g^^^^^^g^^^ a< \ ?^:;.ffi&^^^ 'C^eMIH<' I^S^M % Sirgl^ Bench ; Hsn'ble Mr^S'Bstl^e Pfitmket" Acauittol <4i®eatN^105of 2&t0 APPELUNT State of Chhattisgarh Versus RESPON&ENTS Deepak son of Ramcharan Sathami andanother \ Shri Akhil Mishr'a» Deputy Swernment XdvoGafe fop the State/app^liant. .".• • • . '^ ''';' ..^M.."%- ;; \Norie forthe respondent,-rhough serwa, ^ ' 1 ; • CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&Efe 378 (1) 0(rTHE CODE G(? M (ipp6a!;anses oyt of the judgi 30.08.2006 passed by Additjonal S< i, ''Oi$tt. Bildspyp jn Sessions Tria!. ! ing the respondents/accused >je under Section 366/34 of tl ord.er. sions Seaed. 2. Bpief facts of the case are that on the basis o¥twr<itten comptaint (E?e.P-l^.jodgedrby Janakrgm (PW-1), on 14.3.20pE F.I.R. (Ex;P-2):was rssistered agoiinst the respondents/accused and another cb-accused nameiy Jagjeevan for the offehces >!e under Sections 363 and 366/34 QftheIndicL" Penai C6de.It has been qlleged bythe complaincuit ,TGnakr<»n!(PW-l) thafon 13.3.2005 he had asked hisminordaughterHemlatcito r to animals in the caftjs shed and immediately thereafter hecould hecirthevoiceof his daughtercofjing him. He has stated that when he came out from the house, he saw that the present respondsnts/accused and the Other VSSSS9!SHSsSSSSSIt co-accused Jagjeevan forcibty taking his dayghter. After investigation, the police hos fifed challan against the present respondents/accused ond also co-accused Jagjeevan. However, co-accused Jagjeevan was shown to be the absconder. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution hcs examined cs many as 11 witnessss. Statements of the respondents/accused were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denisd the charges tevelled against them and pteaded their innocence and false implicotion in the case. 4. By the judgment impugned the court below ho^ acquitted the respondents/accused for the offsnce punishcsble under Section 366/34 of the Indion Penal Code. 5. Counse! for the appellant/State submits that present is a case where JanGkram (PW-1) has seen the accused persons taking away his daughter from his JGwfu! gua"dianshlp and he has very categorically stated in the courf- about the entire incident. 1-te further submits that tili the completion of the triat, neither the minor daughter Hemlata coujd be traced nor the co-accussd Jag.jeevan, itself shows that the respondents/accused have helped them in absconding. He also submits that ct the tlme of commissisn of offsnce, prosecutrix Hemlata was beiow 18 years of age and, therefore, offence under Section 366/34 IPC is made out against the accused/respondents. 6. I havs heard co'jnse! for the appe-itant/State and perused the material available on record. 7. From the statsment of Janakram that though he has made ailegation dgainst the accused/respondents by saying that these accused persons aiong with other co-Qccused Jagjeevan had taksn his daughter from his house but the statement makes it cleap that there are material improyement m h'ss court statement from what he has stated in his case diary statemerit. That ap.rt, there ore material contradictions ond omissions in his statement and this is apparent from paragroph Nos. 10 to 21 of his courf- statement. Looking to this, ths court- beiow has disbelieved the statement of this witness. 8. Bisahin Bai (PW-3)- mother of the prosecutrix, as per the prosecutlon case, she was hearsciy witness whereas in the court she becomes eye witness and looking to the materia! improvement in her court statement, the court- below has disbeiieved the same and I find no reasor, to interfere with the finding as given by the court' be!ow in respect of the evidence of this witness. Derha (PW-6) - one of the eye witnesses to the incident has though stated that he has seen the respondents/accused taking away the prosecutrix towards RatiapQra viliage but his statement has not been found rejjable by the court below as he too has jmproved in his courf- statement. Similar is the position with the statement of AAanohar Mohle (PW-7) - brother of the pr'osecutrix and white making court statement he has also improved and has narrated those things which wos not narrated by hsm in his co.ss diary statement and, therefore, the court- below hcs disbeiieved fhe statement of this witness. In rsspect of the ag®of the prosecutrix, though the prosecution has adduced the evidence SM18aSSSSglSS8BiBgSS89igiSBSSSaSiS^^ thort' she was below 18 years of age but once the eye witnesses have been disbelieved bythe court- beiow it cannot be said that it is the accused/respondents who have kidnapped and abducted the prosecutrix. This is more so, when the prosecutrix herself has not been examined by the prosecution and in absence of her stotement, it wiil not be safe for this Court to conyict the accused/respondents for the offence under Section 366/34 of the Indian Pena! Code. 9. Considering the statement of these witnesses and other material avaiiable on record, the Court- below has arrived to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a!i reasonab'e doubts; the respondents/accused are entitied for acquittaj. 10. After hearing counset for the part'ies and going through the evidence availabls on record <md being wry much conscious of the existing legal position that in a case against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Courf' taking one wew favourabie to the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittat by the appeliate Court taking the other pssib!® view into consider-ation, is not permissibfe in law, this Court- is of the view thot the judgment impugned acquittlng the respondents/ accused of the offersce punishabie undsr Section 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is just and proper and does not cal! for any interference by this Court. 11. For the reasons aforemsntioned, there is no merit in thj present case and the same is dismissed accordingly. ^'^•^^ ^ ..f^6\^ V<vv" i^c