[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Harishankar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:17068
The date when The date when The date when the
the judgment the judgment is judgment is uploaded on
is reserved pronounced the website
Operative Full
16.03.2026 15.04.2026 -- 15.04.2026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 16.03.2026
Judgment delivered on : 15.04.2026
CRA No. 874 of 2007
1 - Harishankar, S/o Banshidhar Chauhan, aged about 23 years, R/o
Village- Darri, Police Station- Dabhara, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.).
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Police Station- Dabhara, District-
Janjgir Champa (C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, P.L.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
CAV Judgment
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 11.09.2007 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sakti, District- Janjgir- Champa C.G., in
Sessions Case No. 232/2006 whereby the trial Court convicted
the appellant and sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 147 of IPC R.I. for 3 months
Under Section 457 read with R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine
Section 149 of IPC of Rs. 200/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo
additional R.I. for 6 months
Under Section 323 read with R.I. for 3 months
Section 149 of IPC
Under Section 365 read with R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine
Section 149 of IPC of Rs. 200/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo
additional R.I. for 6 months
Under Section 367 read with R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine
Section 149 of IPC of Rs. 200/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo
additional R.I. for 6 months
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Piluram
Chauhan, a resident of Village Churabhantha within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Dabhra, is engaged in agriculture. It is
alleged that on 18.08.2004, his house was subjected to theft and
one Ashok Chauhan was suspected in connection therewith.
Subsequently, the complainant's son, Hemant Chauhan, along
with co-villagers Shankarlal and Jawahar, went in search of Ashok
Chauhan, whereupon a dispute arose, which was later amicably
settled. This fact was duly informed to the complainant by his son
Hemant. Thereafter, it is alleged that Grahan Chauhan
encountered Ashok Chauhan in Village Porsapali and instigated a
dispute. Further, it is stated that Bedaram Chauhan, father of
Grahan Chauhan and a resident of Village Churabhantha,
summoned his son Kantilal to Korba in a Sumo vehicle, and also
called Sounilal along with his father-in-law Tiharu Ram from
Village Acharitpali.
On 26.08.2004 at about 9:30 PM, the accused persons,
namely Harishankar Chauhan, Bedaram Chauhan, Chandresh,
Diwakar Sahu, Kantilal, Sounilal, Grahan Chauhan and Tiharu
Ram, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the
house of the complainant after breaking open the door and
assaulted Hemant Chauhan. It is further alleged that they forcibly
abducted Hemant Chauhan and took him away in a Sumo vehicle.
It is also stated that Shankarlal and his wife, Budeshwari Bai, had
already been forcibly seated in the said vehicle and all three
persons were taken away to an unknown place. The complainant
has expressed apprehension that the abducted persons, namely
Hemant Chauhan, Shankarlal and Budeshwari Bai were subjected
to assault and possibly murdered and their bodies disposed of at
an undisclosed location. The incident occurred during the course
of the assault and forcible abduction from the complainant's
residence. Immediately thereafter, the complainant lodged a
report at Police Station Dabhra at about 1:00 AM, which was
registered by the Station House Officer, A.K. Tiwari and
investigation was commenced. Upon completion of investigation,
a charge sheet was filed before the Court of the Commissioner at
Sakti, from where the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions at Bilaspur. Subsequently, the Sessions case has been
transferred to this Court for proper adjudication in accordance with
law. Learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellant
under Sections 147, 323, 457, 365, 367 read with Section 149 of
IPC, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to substantiate the charges against the
accused/appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 18
witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein all
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the
prosecution evidence were put to him. The accused/appellant
denied the same in toto, pleaded innocence and asserted that he
has been falsely implicated in the present case. In support of his
defence, the accused/appellant examined Grahanlal as Defence
Witness No. 1 (D.W.-1) and further examined himself as Defence
Witness No. 2 (D.W.-2).
4. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the entire oral as well
as documentary evidence available on record, found the
prosecution case to be credible and trustworthy. Accordingly, vide
judgment dated 11.09.2007, the trial Court convicted and
sentenced the accused/appellant as detailed in paragraph 1 of the
said judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction, sentence and findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court are contrary to law, facts and evidence on
record and the sentence imposed is unduly harsh and
unsustainable in law. Learned Trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the evidence on record and the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The statements of the prosecution witnesses
do not inspire confidence and fail to support the prosecution case;
hence, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The prosecution has
failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences, including abduction and kidnapping, against the
appellant. The version of the complainant is not corroborated by
any independent or reliable evidence, rendering it untrustworthy
and unsafe for conviction. He further submits that exist material
contradictions, omissions and improvements in the testimonies of
the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, which go to the
root of the case and demolish the prosecution story. Therefore,
the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the
appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon'ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 14.10.2014
passed in Criminal Appeal No. D-470-DB of 2014 in the matter
of Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others.
6. On the other hand, learned State submits that the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court is well-reasoned, lawful and based on proper appreciation
of evidence on record. The prosecution has successfully proved
the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
essential ingredients of the alleged offences, including abduction
and kidnapping stand duly established. Hence, the conviction calls
for no interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
8. It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that charges
were framed against the appellant under Sections 147, 323, 457,
365 and 367 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Upon appreciation
of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record,
the learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the said
offences and accordingly convicted and sentenced him.
9. Piluram Chouhan (P.W.-1) deposed that on the date of the
incident, i.e., 27.08.2004, all the accused persons initially went to
the house of Shankar Chauhan, where they assaulted Shankar
Chauhan and his wife Bundeshwari and forcibly took them out of
the house, making them sit in a jeep. Thereafter, the accused
came to the house of the witness in the said jeep. Upon hearing
the commotion, Hemant Chauhan came out from the shed, at
which point accused Grahanlal, Savanilal, Vedram, Krantilal and
Tiharuram began assaulting him with sticks and hands.
Simultaneously, Harishankar, Diwakar and Dinesh arrived from
the street side, forcefully pushed open the door and broke the
chains. Thereafter, all the accused persons collectively assaulted
Hemant Chauhan in the shed of the witness's house, forcibly took
him away, made him sit in the jeep and abducted him. The witness
further stated that after the incident, he lodged a report at Police
Station Dabhra, which is marked as Ex.P/1.
10. Hemant Kumar (P.W.-2) deposed that one day prior to the
incident, i.e., on 26.08.2004, a quarrel had taken place between
him and the accused persons. On the following day, the accused
arrived in a jeep, went to the house of his maternal uncle, Shankar
Chauhan, and after assaulting him and his wife, forcibly made
them sit in the jeep. Thereafter, the accused came to his house,
abused him, dragged him out while assaulting him and compelled
him to sit in the vehicle. He further stated that the accused
persons took him to Bhupdevpur, where they continued to abuse,
threaten and assault him. He also alleged that at Bhupdevpur
Police Station, the accused got him and Shankarlal beaten by a
police officer. Thereafter, the accused again made him sit in the
vehicle and took him to village Churaghata.
In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that
Harishankar and Grahanlal had also been assaulted and that a
report in that regard was lodged at Police Station Dabhra. He
further stated that a compromise had been agreed upon between
the parties. The witness expressed his lack of knowledge
regarding any report lodged at Bhupdevpur Police Station. He
also denied the suggestion that on 26.08.2004, he, along with
Shankar, Jeev Rakhan (Kotwar), Bundeshwari Bai and the
accused persons, had gone to Bhupdevpur Police Station in a
jeep for the purpose of effecting a compromise.
In para 8 of his cross-examination, the witness admitted that
constables of Police Station Bhupdevpur assaulted him with
hands and fists. He further stated that at the time of recording his
police statement, he had disclosed that the constables of
Bhupdevpur Police Station had beaten him and due to such
assault, he had sustained injuries. He added that if this fact was
not mentioned in his statement (Ex.D/1), he was unaware of the
reason for such omission.
In para 10, the witness stated that he went to Bhupdevpur
Police Station and informed a police constable that the accused
persons had kidnapped him, assaulted him severely, threatened
him, and forcibly made him sit in the jeep. He further stated that
the said constable did not pay any heed to their complaint and
sent them back along with the accused persons.
In para 12 of his cross-examination, the witness stated that
the accused persons made him sit in the jeep and at that time,
Shankarlal and his wife were also present there.
In para 15, he stated that, " यह कहना गलत है कि मैं अपनी स्वेच्छा से
अभियुक्तगण के जीप में बैठकर भूपदेवपुर गया था। यह बात सही है कि भूपदेवपुर में
थाना प्रभारी नही मिलने के कारण स्वेच्छापूर्वक अभियुक्तगण के साथ वापस आ गया
था और अपना घर चला गया था।"
In para 16, he admitted that when he went to Bhupdevpur
with the accused, he did not talk to his father.
11. Smt. Bundeshwari Bai (P.W.-3), whose name has been
incorrectly mentioned in the deposition sheet as Duleshwari Bai,
stated that she identified accused Tiharu in accordance with the
Identification Memo (Ex.P/4).
In para 4 of her cross-examination, the witness stated that
when she came to her husband's house from her parental home,
she came to know that Harishankar and Grihanlal had lodged a
report regarding assault against her husband and Hemant at
Police Stations Dabhra and Bhupdevpur.
In para 9, she stated that on the night of the incident, when
they were returning from Churaghat to Bhupdevpur in a jeep,
Jeevrakhan (Kotwar) was also travelling with them in the same
vehicle. She further deposed that after reaching Bhupdevpur, she
along with Hemant, Shankar and the accused persons
approached a police constable. However, she denied the
suggestion that they had gone to the police station for the purpose
of compromising the matter.
In para 12, she stated that they had reached Bhupdevpur
Police Station, but since no Inspector was present, a constable
made inquiries from them and thereafter sent them back, following
which all of them returned in the same vehicle.
12. In the matter of Jasbir (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh held that, "Having heard learned counsel
for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgment as well as
the statement (Annexure A-1) of complainant Jasbir Singh made
before the trial Court, while stepping into the witness box as PW1,
this Court is of the considered view that the offences under
Sections 364 and 367 IPC were not made out as the quarrel took
place in the chowk in front of Peeranwali. While the quarrel was
going on, the parties went inside the house of accused Rachhpal
Singh, which was at a distance of 20 feet from Peeranwali. As
regards the offence under Section 325 IPC, it would be worthwhile
to note that the doctor, who had medico-legally examined the
complainant and declared the injuries to be grievous was not
examined by the prosecution. Further, the use of the fire arm is
also not established as none had suffered any injury as a result of
alleged firing of the same."
13. Section 365 IPC provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any
person with the intent to secretly and wrongfully confine such
person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
14. Section 367 IPC provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any
person in order that such person may be subjected to grievous
hurt, slavery, or any form of exploitation, or knowing it to be likely
that such person will be so subjected, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
15. Jawaharlal (P.W.-5), Smt. Arti Chouhan (P.W.-12) and Rohit
Chouhan (P.W.-13) have deposed that upon hearing noise, they
saw the accused persons taking Hemant, Shankar and his wife in
a jeep. However, in their cross-examination, all these witnesses
admitted that the said persons returned on the same night in the
same jeep.
16. It has come on record from the statements of all the witnesses
that a counter-case was also registered against the complainant
party. The complainant and other witnesses have admitted that
the incident involving assault on accused Harishankar and
Grahanlal was subsequently compromised between the parties.
17. The complainant, Pilu Ram Chouhan (P.W.-1), alleged that the
accused persons kidnapped Hemant Chouhan, Shankarlal and
Bundeshwari Bai. However, he admitted in his cross-examination
that they were taken to the police station along with the accused
persons and thereafter all of them returned together in the same
jeep.
18. Gourelal Giri (P.W.-9), who medically examined the injured, found
only simple injuries on the body of Shankarlal and Hemant
Chouhan.
19. From the overall evidence, it is apparent that a quarrel had taken
place between both parties and FIRs were lodged by each side
against the other. It is further evident that there are material
omissions and contradictions between the police statements and
the court depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Such
inconsistencies render the testimony of the complainant and other
witnesses unreliable. The learned Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate these admissions and contradictions, thereby arriving
at erroneous findings which are unsustainable in law.
20. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses are
found to be exaggerated. Notably, Hemant Chouhan, Shankar Lal
and Bundeshwari Bai have admitted that they had gone to the
police station along with the accused persons and returned on the
same night after finding that the Inspector was not present. This
circumstance substantially weakens the prosecution case and
negates the allegation of kidnapping or abduction.
21. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants
beyond reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients of the alleged
offences are not made out.
22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the
appellant is entitled to acquittal of all the charges.
23. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, the appellant is
reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provisions of Section
437-A of Cr.P.C. (481 of the B.N.S.S.), the appellant is directed to
forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45
prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court
concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months
along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special
Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave,
the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
24. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent
back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and
necessary action.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE
Ruchi
RUCHI YADAV RUCHI YADAV
