Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Kol vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
1/9
2026:CGHC:14224
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 326 of 2017
Sandeep Kol S/o Rajkaran Kol, Aged About 24 Years R/o Majhigawa, Police
Station Madwas, District Sidhi, Madhya Pradesh
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station
Manendragarh, District Korea, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate through Legal Aid For State /Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, GA along with Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, PL (Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 25/03/2026
1. Today when the matter is called out for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants, I therefore requested for assistance from a counsel of the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri, Advocate has been nominated to assist the Court.
2. I have gone through the judgment under appeal and the depositions of witnesses and exhibits assisted both by Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Manikpuri through the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee and Digitally ASHUTOSH signed by MISHRA ASHUTOSH MISHRA 2/9 learned State counsel. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh {(2014) 14 SCC 222}, I do not consider it necessary to adjourn this case and issue fresh notice to the appellant and his interest has been duly taken care of by nominating another counsel from the High Court Legal Aid Services Committee.
3. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment dated 10/02/2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Baikunthpur, District Korea, C.G. in S.T. No.26/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 363 of IPC R.I. for 02 Years and fine of
Rs.500/- in default of payment of
fine to further undergo S.I. for 06
Months.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant had lodged an oral report in the Manendragarh police station that he lives in village Chainpur ward no. 6 and runs a grocery shop next to his house. The victim, his elder brother's daughter, was studying in class 10th in Manendragarh High School. On 16/02/2015 at 7.30 pm, his brother's daughter, the victim, went somewhere without informing anyone in the house. On 16/02/2015 at 2.30 am, he received a call on his sister-in-law's mobile No. 9754289648 from mobile number 9893792126, on which it was said that your daughter is with me. "Don't worry, I will drop your daughter off at Nagpur Square at 8:00 a.m." The complainant went to 3/9 Nagpur Square with his brother and sister-in-law at that very moment, but his niece was found nowhere. They searched for their niece in Chirmiri, Baikuthpur, Pratappur, and other places, but she could not be traced.
5. Based on the oral report, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the accused persons under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Exhibit P-6). A notice of registration was sent to the court. The spot map of the incident was prepared as Exhibit P-5. A site map was prepared by the Patwari as Exhibit P-3. A photocopy of the mutation register of the victim's primary school, Chainpur, was seized as per the seizure memo (Exhibit P-2C(3) and the truck bearing Registration No. CG 16A/2023, was seized as per the seizure memo (Exhibit P-4). Accused Mahasingh alias Vijay was arrested as per the arrest memo (Exhibit P-11) and accused Sandeep Kol was arrested as per the arrest memo (Exhibit P-12) on 24/02/2015. Witness statements were taken under Section 161 CrPC. The victim's statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The trial was conducted by the Magistrate First Class in Chirmiri. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
6. After examining the charge sheet and attached documents presented in the case, charges were framed against accused Mahasingh alias Vijay under sections 363, 366, 368, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and against accused Sandeep Kol under sections 363, 366-A, 368 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. On reading of the charges to 4/9 the accused, they denied the charges and claimed trial.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, in support of the case, the victim (PW-3), the victim's mother (PW-4), the victim's father (PW-5), Pannalal (PW-7), Ramashankar Patel (PW-8), Mrs. Deepika Kanwar, (PW-1), Shivmohan Dhusia, Patwari (PW-2), Satyendra Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector (PW-
6), Rakesh Yadav, Sub-Inspector (PW-9) witnesses have been examined and in support of the case, property seizure memo Exhibit P-1, photocopy of Dakhil Kharij Register Exhibit P-2C and Exhibit P-4, Sight Map Exhibit P-3, Spot Map Exhibit P-5. First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit P-6, Counter Nalisi Exhibit P-7, application for preparation of site plan Exhibit P-8, Notice for presentation of Dakhil Kharij Register Exhibit P-9, Recovery Panchnama Exhibit P-10, Arrest papers of the accused Exhibit P-11 and Exhibit P-12, Arrest information Exhibit P-13, Application for recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC Exhibit P-14 was submitted and the defence relied on the police statement of the victim Exhibit D-1.
8. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded wherein the the accused have declared themselves innocent and have not examined any witness as defence witness.
9. Learned trial Court after examining the material and evidence available convicted the accused persons. Hence this appeal.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction is wholly unsustainable in law and 5/9 on facts, as the prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent or legally admissible evidence against the present appellant. He would next contend that the entire prosecution case, as reflected from the FIR, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and deposition of witnesses, is directed solely against co-accused Mahasingh @ Vijay, and no specific role, overt act, or participation has been attributed to the appellant. He would next contend that the prosecutrix (PW-2), who is the star witness, has not implicated the appellant in any manner, nor has she stated about his presence at the place of occurrence. He would next contend that the other witnesses, namely PW-4 and PW- 5, are hearsay witnesses and do not support the prosecution case against the appellant, while even the Investigating Officer (PW-6) has failed to collect any incriminating material connecting the appellant with the alleged offence. He would next contend that there is no recovery, no independent witness, no electronic evidence, and no circumstantial chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, nor is there any material to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC. The case against the appellant is thus based on mere conjectures and suffers from material omissions, contradictions, and improvements, which go to the root of the matter. He would lastly contend that under the circumstances the instant appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted.
11. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference. 6/9
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence.
13. Upon meticulous scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the role attributed to the present appellant vis-a-vis the charges framed against him.
14. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR, statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and deposition of material witnesses, revolves primarily around the acts allegedly committed by co-accused Mahasingh @ Vijay. The entire narrative consistently attributes active involvement, inducement, and alleged misconduct to the said co-accused. However, insofar as the present appellant is concerned, the evidence on record is conspicuously silent regarding any direct or overt act attributable to him.
15. The prosecutrix (PW-2), being the star witness of the prosecution, has narrated the incident in detail. However she has not assigned any specific role to the present appellant. There is no allegation that the appellant enticed, accompanied, confined, or committed any act with her. Her testimony does not disclose the presence of the appellant at the time of the alleged incident. Even during cross-examination, nothing material has been elicited to connect the appellant with the offence. Thus, the testimony of PW-2 does not incriminate the appellant in any manner and, in fact, confines the allegations to co-accused Mahasingh @ Vijay.
16. PW-4 - Mother of the Prosecutrix has deposed regarding the missing of her daughter and subsequent search. Her statement is based on information received and not on personal knowledge. She has not 7/9 attributed any role to the appellant. Hence, her testimony is hearsay in nature and does not advance the prosecution case against the appellant.
17. PW-5 - Father of the Prosecutrix has stated about lodging of report and search efforts. His testimony is limited to procedural aspects. He has not named or implicated the appellant. No assertion is made that the appellant was seen with the prosecutrix. Therefore, his evidence does not establish any nexus between the appellant and the alleged offence.
18. PW-6 - Investigating Officer has proved the steps taken during investigation. No recovery has been made from the appellant. No identification or independent evidence has been collected against him. The investigation does not reveal any active role of the appellant. This clearly demonstrates that even the investigation failed to uncover any incriminating material against the appellant.
19. The remaining witnesses are formal in nature. They have merely proved documents such as FIR, seizure memos, and school records. None of them have spoken about the involvement of the appellant. Their evidence is purely formal and does not connect the appellant with the alleged offence.
20. From the above appreciation, it is evident that no specific allegation of any act has been made against the appellant. No witness has spoken about his presence or participation. The star witness herself does not support the case against him. Thus, there is a complete absence of direct evidence against the appellant.
21. The prosecution has also failed to produce any corroborative material 8/9 such as any independent witnesses establishing his presence or any circumstantial chain pointing towards guilt. In absence of such evidence, mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
22. From the entire material on record, the appellant is neither a principal offender, nor an abettor, nor a conspirator. There is no evidence of any common intention with co-accused Mahasingh @ Vijay. There is also no material to show that the appellant facilitated, aided, or had knowledge of the alleged acts.
23. From cumulative appreciation no witness has attributed any role to the appellant. Entire evidence is directed against co-accused Mahasingh @ Vijay. There is complete absence of proof of presence, participation, or nexus. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
24. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kali Ram vs. State of H.P. reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808 has reiterated the proposition laid down in the matter of Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2023) 5 SCC 350 and has held thus in para 27 :-
"27. It is important to note that the cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted."
25. In the present case, the evidence is insufficient and unreliable. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to benefit of 9/9 doubt.
26. This Court, therefore, holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any incriminating evidence against the appellant. The entire case is confined to co-accused Mahasingh @ Vijay. No legally admissible evidence connects the appellant with the commission of the alleged offence.
27. The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges.
28. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 06 months in view of Section 437A of CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
29. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/-
SD/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu