PARASKUMAR NANUBHAI KOLI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgement and order dated 3.3.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Special Atrocity Case No. 7 of 2010. Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2012 is filed by the original accused under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ("Cr. P.C." for short) against his conviction. By the aforesaid judgement, the trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment to fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 30 days. Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2012 is filed by the State under Section 377 of the Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the sentence and against acquittal qua other accused, namely, Nanubhai Bhagabhai Koli.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that on 6.6.2010 the appellant -original accused with the help of other accused persons abducted the victim girl by giving false promise of marriage and kept her at the place of other accused, where the accused used to commit rape upon the victim girl without her consent and will, as a result of which she was defiled. The accused committed rape on the victim on several occasions and for such act, the other accused have helped him. Thereby, the accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366 r.w.s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -original accused Mr. Amin has mainly contended that this is a case where both the victim and the appellant -accused were in deep love and in view of the evidence of the father of the victim, it is very clear that this is a case where they have refused to have an arranged marriage. He further stated that the prosecutrix and the appellant got married at a temple in Ahmedabad. Therefore, he contended that the case does not amount to rape. He has further contended that the prosecutrix has left her parental house on her own. He further submitted that as per School Leaving Certificate, age of the victim was 16 years.