STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIPULBHAI TRIKAMBHAI BHOI
LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-263
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on January 13,2016

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
VERSUS
Vipulbhai Trikambhai Bhoi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.R.SHAH,J. - (1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.11.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in Sessions Case No.54/2007 by which the learned trial Court has acquitted the original accused for the offences punishable under sections 376, 313, 406, 506(2) and 114 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 prosecution case is that the complainant ­ prosecutrix Anuben had friendship with accused No.1 which was converted into love. It is further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 and victim used to meet each other regularly. That on 16.12.2006, accused No.1 made telephonic call on mobile of the prosecutrix and called her at Railway Station at 8.00 a.m. in the morning where accused received her and they went to Rajdeep Guest House and accused No.1 had booked Room No.102. It is further the prosecution case that thereafter accused made fascinating promise to the prosecutrix and accused No.1 forcefully committed rape on the prosecutrix for three times. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 05.01.2007, prosecutrix came to know that she was pregnant. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was given some pills and the pregnancy was terminated. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix returned to her home where she informed about the same to her parents. It is further case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix and her family member went to the house of the accused No.1 for talking about the marriage of the prosecutrix and the accused No.1 but accused Nos.2 and 3 got angry with accused No.1 and threatened to kill if the prosecutrix come earlier at the house of the accused persons. It is thus the case of the prosecution that prosecutrix was raped by the accused No.1 and was threatened by accused Nos.2 and 3 and it is under these circumstances the FIR being I CR No.51/2007 came to be registered with Anand Town Police Station, Anand. [2.1] That the investigation was carried out by the Police Officer of Anand Town Police Station. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer collected evidence against the accused, he prepared the panchnama of the place of incident. He also recovered the clothes of the victim and drawn the panchnama of recovery of clothes of the victim. He also recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses. He sent the prosecutrix / victim to the Anand Hospital for medical investigation. He collected other documentary evidences. On conclusion of the investigation the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against the accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand for the offences punishable under sections 376, 313, 406, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Anand, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.54/2007. [2.2] That the learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried by the learned trial Court for the aforesaid offences. [2.3] To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses. JUDGEMENT_263_LAWS(GJH)1_2016.jpg Through the aforesaid witnesses the prosecution brought on record the following documentary evidences. JUDGEMENT_263_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 and they stated that a false case is filed against them. That at the end of conclusion of the trial and on appreciation of evidence, 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 failed to appreciate the oral evidence of 6 witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution as well as 17 documentary evidences, which have been produced by the prosecution in support of its case in its true and proper perspective. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error on the record of the case by not properly appreciating these material available on the record of the case. [3.2] It is further submitted by Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court erred in holding that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons with the help of each other induced the victim to eat some pills due to which the pregnancy of the victim was terminated and thereby the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 313 of the IPC. [3.3] It is submitted by Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State that the learned trial Court has erred in observing that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 11.02.2007, accused persons were informed about the marriage with prosecutrix, accused persons driven out the prosecutrix and her parents by threatening them to kill if they come twice at their house for the same and thereby accused persons have committed an offence punishable under sections 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. [3.4] It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in disbelieving the deposition of the prosecutrix who was examined at Exh.32. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in not believing the deposition of the prosecutrix in which she has stated that she was induced by the accused who gave the promise that he will marry her and because of that she had sexual intercourse with the accused. [3.5] It is further submitted by Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State that the learned trial Court has materially erred in not appreciating the evidence of Dr. Anshul Shah and Dr. Arvind Dalwadi and has failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence on record of the case. It is submitted that if the deposition of the aforesaid two doctors and the medical evidence would have been considered properly and in right perspective, in that case it is very clear that the prosecutrix was pregnant. [3.6] It is further submitted by Shri K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State that therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court while acquitting the original accused are perverse and on misreading and/or not properly appreciating the evidence on record and thereby it has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Making above submissions, it is requested to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and convicting the original accused for the offences for which they were tried. ;


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