Voluntary Departure of Prosecutrix and Hostile Testimony Negate Charges of Abduction and Enticement Under IPC.

The State of Chhattisgarh appealed the acquittal of respondents Umashankar, Laxmi Prasad (since deceased), and Peelaram (alias Bhagla Sahu) by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on April 26, 2013

The prosecution alleged that on July 13, 2012, the accused enticed and abducted a minor girl (the prosecutrix) from her home, eventually boarding her onto a train to Delhi

Charges were framed under Sections 363, 366, and 366-A of the IPC, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

During the trial, the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her father (PW-3) provided testimonies that shifted the narrative from abduction to voluntary departure

1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondents despite the materials available on record

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the primary witnesses turn hostile and support the defense’s version of voluntary conduct

The court primarily applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC, as elucidated in Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, which establishes that a double presumption of innocence exists in favor of the accused and appellate courts must be slow to reverse such orders unless there is a thorough scrutiny of legal parameters

It further relied on the guidelines in Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011), which mandate that if the trial court’s view is "legally plausible," a mere possibility of a contrary view does not justify reversal

The High Court scrutinized the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2), noting she turned hostile and testified that she left her home and traveled to Delhi with Peelaram of her "own free will"

She clarified that she voluntarily used Umashankar’s van to reach the railway station

The Court further observed that the father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) admitted during cross-examination that his daughter had informed her sister of her departure and had gone voluntarily with the accused

Applying the Jafarudheen and Mallappa precedents, the Court found that since the key witnesses did not support the prosecution's case of "enticement" or "abduction," the trial court’s finding of innocence was a plausible and possible view based on a comprehensive appreciation of oral evidence

The Court affirmed that the voluntary nature of the prosecutrix's actions negated the charges under Sections 363, 366, and 366-A of the IPC and the SC/ST Act

The acquittal of the respondents was upheld