The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has acquitted a man convicted of wrongfully confining a kidnapped person, holding that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had explicit knowledge of the kidnapping. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru allowed the appeal filed by Pankaj Ram, setting aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, which had sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the crucial element of mens rea, or criminal intent, as there was no evidence to show that the appellant was aware that the prosecutrix had been kidnapped before she was brought to his residence.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a report lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-10) at the Jashpur Police Station. She stated that on the evening of April 20, 2015, after attending a ‘Chhatti’ ceremony, she was intercepted by a Juvenile in Conflict with Law (JCL). The JCL forcibly dragged her to a spot beneath a mango tree and committed rape. Following the assault, he took her to the residence of his friend, the appellant Pankaj Ram, where she was confined overnight.
The next morning, the prosecutrix found the door locked from the outside. Around 10:30 AM, the JCL and the appellant returned but fled after seeing her father approaching. Later, at approximately 12:30 PM, her family members arrived, rescued her, and took her to the police station.
Initially, the prosecutrix did not disclose the full incident out of fear and was handed over to Childline, Jashpur. She later narrated the events, leading to the registration of Crime No. 108/15 against the JCL under Sections 342 and 376 of the IPC and provisions of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, it was discovered that the JCL had concealed the prosecutrix at the appellant’s residence. Consequently, Pankaj Ram was arrested and charged under Section 368 IPC for wrongfully confining a kidnapped person.
The appellant pleaded not guilty, claiming he was falsely implicated. The trial court, after examining 18 prosecution witnesses, found him guilty and sentenced him, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that his client was falsely implicated and that the primary allegations were against the JCL. It was argued that the appellant “had no knowledge that the prosecutrix had been brought to his residence following an alleged kidnapping.” The defense also pointed out that the prosecutrix was in a love affair with the JCL, a circumstance suggesting the appellant could not have known she was there against her will. The counsel further highlighted “material contradictions and inconsistencies” in the witness statements.
Conversely, the learned State counsel supported the trial court’s judgment, submitting that the prosecution had established the appellant’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt through cogent and reliable evidence” and that his actions attracted liability under Section 368 IPC.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, in his judgment, framed the central question for determination: “whether the prosecution has successfully established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant, with conscious knowledge of the prosecutrix having been kidnapped, wrongfully concealed or confined her within his premises.”
The Court first delineated the scope of Section 368 IPC, which states: “Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished…”
The judgment meticulously analyzed the testimonies of key witnesses:
- The Prosecutrix (PW-10): While she testified that the JCL took her to the appellant’s residence and that the appellant later provided the key for her rescue, her evidence was weakened during cross-examination. She admitted she could not personally identify the appellant as the person who confined her and acknowledged a prior acquaintance with the JCL, which she had not disclosed to her mother.
- Family Members (PW-4, PW-5, PW-12): The prosecutrix’s aunt (PW-4), mother (PW-5), and father (PW-12) corroborated that she was recovered from the appellant’s house. However, they consistently stated that it was the JCL who disclosed her location. The Court noted, “PW4 explicitly clarified that she mentioned the appellant’s name solely as the custodian of the key, as informed by the JCL.” Crucially, none of these witnesses could point to any conduct by the appellant that demonstrated his knowledge of the kidnapping. Furthermore, the mother (PW-5) admitted in her cross-examination that the key was collected from the house of one Sandeep, not from the “exclusive possession of the appellant.”
The Court found that the evidence clearly pointed to the JCL as the main perpetrator. It observed, “The appellant’s alleged involvement was only giving the key of the room. There is no direct evidence showing that the appellant knew about the crime while it was happening.” The judgment emphasized the lack of proof of intent, stating, “There is nothing on record, including the statement of the prosecutrix, to show that the JCL ever informed the appellant about the fact regarding the prosecutrix being kidnapped and brought to his house.”
To fortify its reasoning, the High Court relied on two Supreme Court precedents:
- Saroj Kumar v. State of U.P. (1973): The Court reiterated the three essential ingredients for an offence under Section 368: (1) The person has been kidnapped; (2) The accused knew the person had been kidnapped; and (3) The accused, having such knowledge, wrongfully conceals or confines the person.
- Om Prakash v. State of Haryana (2011): The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s observation that the prosecution must produce evidence showing that the “factum of kidnapping as well as intent to commit a rape was known to the appellant,” and that the “possibility of the appellant being informed by Jai Prakash [the accused in that case] that she had come of her own will… does not appear to be unreasonable.”
Applying these principles, Justice Guru concluded that both the act and the intention must be proven. “Simply doing something like giving access to a room, without knowing about the illegal detention, does not meet this legal requirement,” the judgment stated.
Decision
Finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s knowledge or criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment dated February 9, 2016, from the trial court was quashed, and the appellant, Pankaj Ram, was acquitted of the charge under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code.
