The Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted three individuals—Mohd. Siraz, Sarita David, and Vipasha David—convicted by the Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 370 for human trafficking. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the required ingredients of the offences, particularly the element of exploitation under Section 370 IPC.
The judgment was delivered by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru while deciding Criminal Appeal Nos. 2176 of 2024 and 90 of 2025, which arose from the common judgment and sentence dated 27.11.2024 in Special Case (NIA) No. 55/2024.
Background
The prosecution’s case was that on 29.11.2022, the minor victim (PW-1) was taken from her home by accused Vipasha David and Mohd. Siraz on the pretext of celebrating a birthday. Later, it was alleged that she was given a drink laced with intoxicants by accused Sarita David and Vipasha David, after which she felt dizzy and was taken to a room where an unknown person raped her. The victim returned home on 01.12.2022 and disclosed the incident to her parents.
Based on this complaint, a case was registered under Sections 363, 366A, 328, 342, and 370 read with Section 34 of IPC, and also under Section 376-DA of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the accused. After trial, the Special Judge acquitted Mohd. Siraz of rape charges under Section 376-DA IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act but convicted all three accused under the remaining IPC provisions.
Arguments
Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ajay Chandra (for CRA 2176/2024) and Mr. Pallav Mishra (for CRA 90/2025), argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident and that she had willingly accompanied the co-accused without inducement or abduction. It was further contended that there was no evidence of human trafficking or exploitation and that the conviction was based solely on the statements of interested witnesses.
In response, the State counsel Mr. Malay Jain argued that the victim was a minor, as supported by the school admission register (Ex. P-19C), which recorded her date of birth as 08.04.2009. It was contended that the victim was wrongfully confined, given an intoxicant, and subjected to sexual exploitation by an unknown person.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the legal ingredients of each charge:
- Section 363 IPC (Kidnapping): The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was enticed or induced to leave the lawful guardianship of her parents. Referring to S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras [AIR 1965 SC 942], the Bench held, “There is no inducement to the victim by the appellants to leave the lawful guardianship of her parents,” and thus, the act did not amount to “taking” under Section 361 IPC.
- Section 366A IPC (Procuration of minor girl): The Court noted, “The victim girl was simply accompanied the accused without being enticed or influenced. Mere accompanying a person without being induced does not constitute an offence under Section 366 of the IPC.” The essential ingredients of inducement and intent to seduce or force into illicit intercourse were not proven.
- Section 328 IPC (Administering intoxicant): The Court held that the prosecution had not submitted the FSL report, there was no recovery of intoxicating substance, and the medical report did not confirm administration of any drug. The Court concluded that “the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants under Section 328/34 of the IPC.”
- Section 342 IPC (Wrongful confinement): The Bench found no evidence that the victim was restrained or prevented from leaving. “The victim was freely moving in the Activa of accused Mohd. Siraz…there is no evidence that the victim was in wrongful confinement.”
- Section 370 IPC (Human trafficking): Citing Explanation 1 of Section 370 IPC, the Court held that exploitation—defined as including sexual or physical exploitation, slavery, etc.—must be clearly established. The Court stated, “From the evidence, we do not find any material which would suggest that the victim was exploited. None of the witnesses stated about exploitation.” It held that mere suspicion or absence of cogent evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 370.
Decision
Allowing both appeals, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. It held:
“The criminal appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2024…is hereby set aside. The accused/appellants are acquitted of the said charges levelled against them.”
The Court directed that the appellants, who were in jail since 25.03.2019, be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Further, in compliance with Section 437-A CrPC, they were ordered to furnish personal bonds of ₹25,000 each with two sureties to ensure appearance in case of further proceedings.
