Jaipal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 747 Chatt

                                                                              NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                      CRA No. 202 of 2016

        Jaipal Yadav, S/o Shri Munuram Yadav, Aged about 23 Years, Occupation
        Labour, R/o Village Sukwas, P.S. Lailunga, Civil and Revenue District
        Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                      ---- Appellant

                                         Versus

        State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station
        Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                  ---- Respondent

For Appellant                     :            Mr. Anish Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent/State              :            Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Dy. A.G.



                   Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                                Judgment on Board
30/06/2021

1. By the impugned judgment dated 28.12.2015 passed in Sessions

Trial No. 73/2013 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,

Raigarh (C.G.), the Appellant has been convicted for the offence

punishable under Sections 364 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay

fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 31.12.2012 mother of the

victim girl Rukmani Yadav (PW-2) lodged a report in concerned Police

Station alleging therein that her minor daughters namely Bharti Yadav

and Gayatri Yadav were sleeping on cot in courtyard. When she heard cries of her daughter, she rushed to courtyard and saw that her

daughter Bharti Yadav was not present on cot and the Appellant was

trying to fleeing from the courtyard by holding her minor daughter

Bharti Yadav. On raising alarm by Rukmani Yadav, her brother-in-law,

neighbors as well as police persons came there and caught the

Appellant near a tree. On the basis of said report made by

complainant Rukmani Yadav, offence has been registered against the

Appellant. Later on statements of the complainant and other

witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Trial Court

has framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the

prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. No defense

witness has been examined by the Appellant. Statement of the

Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he

has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter.

3. After trial, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant

as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that without there being any

clinching and reliable evidence available on record, the Trial Court has

convicted the Appellant. Referring the statement of Rukmani Yadav

(PW-2), Vicky Yadav (PW-5) and Kumari Urmila (PW-6), it has been

argued by the Counsel that if the entire case of prosecution taken as it

is even then the matter relates to attempt of kidnapping, therefore,

conviction of the Appellant under Section 364 of the IPC is not

sustainable.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment and submits that the conviction of the Appellant is

just and proper and requires no interference.

6. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the record to assess the correctness of the impugned judgment of

conviction. I have also gone through the statements of the witnesses.

7. There is no dispute on the point that at the time of incident,

Bharti/victim was aged about 3 years. Rukmani Yadav (PW-2) mother

of the victim deposed that on 31.12.2012 at about 05:17 PM, when her

daughters namely Gayatri and Bharti were sleeping on cot in

courtyard, she heard cries of her daughter, she rushed to the courtyard

and saw her minor daughter Bharti was not present on cot and her

another daughter Gayatri was crying. When she screamed, Vicky

Yadav (PW-5), Kumari Urmila (PW-6) and other persons rushed

outside for finding her minor daughter, the Appellant Jaipal Yadav was

hiding behind Lantana tree (Putus tree) by holding the victim. Vicky

Yadav (PW-5) and Kumari Urmila (PW-6) also supported the statement

of Rukmani Yadav (PW-2) and stated that after hearing the screams of

Rukmani Yadav, they reached the place where the Appellant was

trying to escape by holding the victim, they caught the Appellant and

released the victim from his possession. The statements of all above

witnesses were not duly rebutted during their cross-examination.

Tokeshwar Yadav (PW-1) also supported the statement of Rukmani

Yadav (PW-2). From the unrebutted statements of the above

witnesses, it is well established that the Appellant had successfully

eloped the victim from the complainant's house and has been

apprehended near the Lantana Tree (Putus Tree). Since, the Appellant had successfully eloped the victim from the complainant's house and

has been apprehended near the Lantana Tree (Putus Tree), therefore,

I do not found any substance regarding the submission putforth by

learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was an attempt of

kidnapping.

8. Looking to the entire case of prosecution, finding of the Trial Court is

accordance with the evidence available on record. Thus, the Trial

Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

9. Consequently, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be

and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Vasant/shubham