Chattisgarh High Court
Bhagwat Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:10938
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 298 of 2023
1. Bhagwat Sahu S/o Vishnu Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Khairbanakala, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG)
2. Jagjivan Sahu S/o Kandra Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
Khairbanakala, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG)
3. Horilal Sahu S/o Jaysingh Aged About 57 Years R/o Village
Khairbanakala, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (CG)
4. Thanesh Patel S/o Santosh Patel Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh
5. Prakash Sahu S/o Mahangu Das Aged About 25 Years R/o Village
Taro, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
6. Gaukaran Sahu S/o Dhuniram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Chimra, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General
2
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Judgment on Board
05/03/2025
1. I.A. No.5/2025, an application for urgent hearing, is allowed and
with the consent of the parties, this appeal is being heard finally.
2. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated
27.1.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No.34/2019 by which the trial
Court convicted appellant No.1 for commission of offence under
Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506 Part-I and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of
Rs.200/-, RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.200/-; RI for 6 months with
fine of Rs.200/-; RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.200/- plus default
stipulations, respectively. Appellants No.2 to 6 have been
convicted under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506 Part-I of the Indian
Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo RI
for 4 years with fine of Rs.200/-, RI for 1 year with fine of
Rs.200/-, RI for 4 years with fine of Rs.200/- plus default
stipulations, respectively.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant lodged written
complaint in Police Station Sahaspur Lohara to the effect that on
20.5.2019 at about 12:45 p.m. the accused persons forcefully, on
the point of knife, took her wife in the Scorpio Vehicle bearing
registration mark CG09-JC-4666. Based on the said complaint,
Crime No.79/2019 for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 365,323, 34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act
3
was registered against accused persons. During investigation, the
victim was recovered from possession of accused Bhagwat in
village Khairbana Kala. Victim was medically examined, her
statement was recorded and thereafter the offence under Sections
294 & 366 of IPC were also added. One button knife each was
recovered from possession of accused Bhagwat and Dhanesh
Patel and Bolero vehicle was recovered from possession of Driver
Prakash Sahu. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused
persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge-
sheet against the accused persons under Sections 365/34,
366/34, 506 Part-I and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was filed.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and from where
it was received by the trial Court for trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 16
witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellants were also
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the
charges levelled against them and pleaded innocence and false
implication in the case. They examined one witness in their
defence.
5. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide impugned judgment
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in
para-2 of this judgment. However, appellants No.2 to 6 have been
acquitted from the charge under Section 323 of IPC.
6. Learned counsel for appellant would argue that the judgment
passed by the learned trial Court is bad-in-law and contrary to
4
facts and evidence of the case. He submits that the appellants
have not committed any offence and they have been falsely
implicated due to animosity. He submits that there was love affair
between appellant No.1 and the victim, they have mobile talks
also and on the date of alleged incident she herself came with
appellant No.1. As per prosecution case, the victim was
kidnapped in a broader day light from a crowded place, but no
independent witness of alleged kidnapping is examined by
prosecution. Alleged eyewitness of incident namely PW-6
Bhuneshwari @ Pooja Dhurve, friend of victim, did not support the
prosecution case and turned hostile. Seizure witness PW-4 has
also not supported recovery of knife from appellant No.1 and also
denied to identify appellant No.4, which not only makes the
recovery of knife suspicious but also the story of prosecution that
the victim was kidnapped on the point of knife. He further argues
that the conviction of appellants is based on the evidence of
interested witnesses and the same be not accepted as truthful
inasmuch as the presence of these witnesses at the time of
occurrence was extremely doubtful.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State, while supporting the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence submits that the judgment was
passed by the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence
available on record. The same is well reasoned establishing the
guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
5
confirming the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, the appeal filed by the appellant may be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
trial Court including the impugned judgment.
9. On a perusal of evidence of the abductee (PW-2) it is evident that
on the date of incident when she was sitting in her class, appellant
No.1 Bhagwat armed with knife came there, gave a slap on her
cheek, dragged her outside the class by catching hold of her hairs
and put him in Bolero Vehicle in which other accused persons, six
in numbers, were already sitting. Accused Bhagwat Sahu had
been assaulting her saying as to why she has married some other
person and he was also giving life threat to her. After 2-3 hours,
the accused persons took her to the house of appellant No.1-
Bhagwat where also she was assaulted by appellant No.1.
Meanwhile, her husband and police came to the house of
appellant No.1 and brought her and all accused persons to police
station. From the cross-examination of victim (PW-2) nothing was
elicited to shake her testimony in regard to role played by
appellant No.1 Bhagwat Sahu in crime in question.
10. The aforesaid evidence of victim (PW-2) stands corroborated with
the evidence of independent witnesses Palakdas Manikpuri (P.W.-
11) as also medical evidence. Palakdas Manikpuri (PW-11), who
was working working as Guest Professor in the college of victim,
has stated in his evidence that during lunch time, when he was
sitting in his office, Puja (PW-6) came and informed him that about
6
5-6 persons have forcibly taken the victim, then he came outside
and saw that 5-6 persons were forcefully taking the victim in the
Scorpio vehicle, which was unsuccessfully chased by the students
of institute. This witness was subjected to extensive cross-
examination but no discrepancy could be impeached in any
manner regarding the deposition that the victim was forcefully
taken by 5-6 persons.
11. From the evidence of Dr. Kharsan (PW-14), who medically
examined the victim on 20.5.2019, it is evident that upon
examination, he noticed abrasion mark on her left leg thumb,
victim was complaining off pain in right leg and both cheeks.
Further, the evidence of ASI Manohar Lal Sinha (P.W.-14) reveals
that on 20.5.2019, Rajkumar Sahu (P.W.-1) had lodged report
about kidnapping of his wife PW-3, who was recovered from the
custody of appellant No.1 Bhagwat.
12. Thus, on a meticulous scrutiny and scanning of the evidence on
record, it is apparent that appellant No.1-Bhagwat was actively
involved in the kidnapping of victim (PW-2) with intent to confine
her wrongfully, causing criminal intimidation by giving her threat of
life as also voluntarily causing simple hurts to her. Hence, the
complicity of appellant No.1 in crime in question stands
established beyond doubt. The trial court did not commit any
mistake by convicting the appellant No.1-Bhagwat for the offence
punishable under Sections 365/34, 366/34, 506 Part-I and 323 of
the Indian Penal Code.
7
13. So far as involvement of appellants No.2 to 6 in crime in question
is concerned, name of these appellants is not mentioned in the
FIR and even in the statement recorded under Section 164 (5) of
CrPC, the victim (PW-3) did not mention name of any of these
appellants as the partners in crime with appellant No.1. In the
cross-examination, victim denied to have had any acquaintance
with these appellants and admitted that accused persons have
made to sit her in back seat of vehicle by putting her head down.
It appears that she has disclosed the name of these appellants for
the first time in the Court during recording of her statement. It is
true that testimony of the witness in the court is the substantive
evidence and a proper identification by the witness in a TIP can
only corroborate his testimony in the Court. In this case, as PW-3
has no prior acquaintance with these appellants and as she does
not seem to have noticed any identifying features of the
assailants, it would certainly have been ideal, had the police
conducted a TIP. There is no whisper in the entire record that any
TIP Parade has been organized or any other mode of
identification has been adopted by the Investigating Officer for
identification of these appellants. In the absence of a proper
identification, it may not be safe to rely on the uncorroborated
testimony of PW-3 to hold the appellants No.2 to 6 guilty of the
offences alleged against them. Hence, this Court is of the
considered opinion that from the evidence of the victim (PW-3) the
identity of these appellants is not established beyond reasonable
8
doubt and this being the position, appellants No.2 to 6 are entitled
to the benefit of reasonable doubt.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Impugned judgment so
far as it relates to appellants No.2 to 6 namely Jagjivan Sahu,
Horilal Sahu, Thanesh Patel, Prakash Sahu and Gaukaran
Sahuis concerned, it is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of
the charges under Sections 365/34, 366/34 & 506 Part-1 of IPC.
15. However, conviction of appellant No.1-Bhagwat Sahu under
Sections 365/34, 366/34, 323 & 506 Part-1 of IPC and sentence
imposed under these offences are hereby confirmed. Appellant
No.1-Bhagwat Sahu is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds
stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He is directed to
surrender before the trial Court concerned within three weeks
from today, failing which he shall be immediately taken into
custody by the trial Court and sent to jail to serve out remaining
part of sentences imposed upon him after adjustment of sentence
already undergone, if any.
16. Appellants No.2 to 6 namely Jagjivan Sahu, Horilal Sahu,
Thanesh Patel, Prakash Sahu and Gaukaran Sahu are
reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for a further
period of six months from today in view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita 2023). They shall also furnish an undertaking before the
trial Court concerned that in the event of filing of Special Leave
Petition against the instant judgment challenging their acquittal or
9
for grant of leave, then on receipt of notice thereof, they shall
appear before the Supreme Court.
17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be
transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned forthwith for
SYED
ROSHAN necessary information and compliance.
ZAMIR ALI
Digitally Sd/-
signed by
SYED ROSHAN
(Ramesh Sinha)
ZAMIR ALI Chief Justice
nisha