[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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