THE STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIDHYASAGAR SUDISHBHAI CHAMAR
LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-252
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 13,2016

The State of Gujarat Appellant
VERSUS
Vidhyasagar Sudishbhai Chamar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (3rd Fast Track Court), Kheda, at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in Sessions Case No.131/2006 by which the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC").
(2.) The gist of the prosecution story is that on 11.01.2006, when the complainant viz. Mayaben Surendrabhai Pashavan went to market for purchasing vegetables and the father and son of the complainant were on colour work, the respondent accused after giving promise to the victim for marriage ran away with her. The complainant also searched but he could not find out the victim. The complainant informed her husband on his mobile phone regarding the same. The father of the victim also made efforts to search the victim, but she could not be found out. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 13.01.2006, the accused and the victim resided at the house of relative at Surat. Accordingly, the complaint came to be registered for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. [2.1] That the aforesaid FIR was investigated by one Prabhatbhai Ramabhai Desai, CPI, Matar Police Station. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses including the statement of one Kanjibhai Madhavbhai Desai in whose room at GIDC Colony, Vatva, both, the victim as well as the accused were staying on rent. The Investigating Officer also collected the medical evidence including the age certificate of the victim. After the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against the accused in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Sessions Court, Kheda, which was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (3rd Fast Track Court), Kheda, at Nadiad, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.131/2006. [2.2] The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, he came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences. The learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused at Exh.5, for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. [2.3] To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses. JUDGEMENT_252_LAWS(GJH)1_2016.jpg Through the aforesaid witnesses the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences. JUDGEMENT_252_LAWS(GJH)1_20161.jpg [2.4] That after closing purshis submitted by the prosecution, further statement of the accused came to be recorded under section 313 of the CrPC and the accused denied having committed any offence. That at the end of the trial, by impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused. Hence, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
(3.) Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the original accused. [3.1] It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that at the time of incident the victim was minor and therefore, even if it is believed that it was a case of consent by the victim/prosecutrix, in that case also, the consent of a minor is irrelevant. [3.2] It is further submitted that the learned trial Court materially erred in holding that at the time of incident the victim was aged approximately 20 years. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with respect to the age is contrary to the evidence on record more particularly the birth certificate produced at Exh.27 and the deposition of PW11 Hasmukhbhai Patel, an Officer from the Municipal Borough, Vallabh Vidyanagar, who was examined at Exh.33. [3.3] It is further submitted by Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the victim ran away with the respondent accused with consent. [3.4] It is further submitted by Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has also erred in holding that there was love affair between the victim and the respondent accused. It is further submitted by Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent accused committed the rape on her. [3.5] It is further submitted that even the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated the medical evidence and ought to have held that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and wish and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in disbelieving the prosecution evidence, oral as well as documentary, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present Criminal Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.