Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sheikh Sahidkhan Natthubhai on 7 August, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 890 of 2005
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHEIKH SAHIDKHAN NATTHUBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MC BAROT(144) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 07/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The State being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the sentence of 7 months and Rs.500/- fine and in default of payment of fine, one month imprisonment ordered in connection with the offence under Section 363 against the accused No.1 - Sheikh Sahidkhan Natthubhai has filed the present appeal under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The prayer for enhancement of the sentence for accused - Shaikh Sahidkhan Nathubhai is also made alongwith the three others who came to be acquitted. As per the jail remarks - Shaikh Sahidkhan Nathubhai, the convict accused has already undergone the sentence and was released on 25.02.2004.
Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
3. The facts of the matter in the nutshell are as under:
Daughter of Ahemadbhai Hasanbhai, aged about 17 years, studying in standard VIII, resident of village Dasaj of Unjha Taluka filed a complaint to the effect that on the date of incident i.e. 24.02.2004, at about 2:00 to 2:30 p.m., she was going to the dairy for getting the salary of the Milk. At that time, accused No.1, 2 and 3 suddenly came out of one white Marshall Jeep parked near the medical shop gagged her mouth and took her into the jeep. It was alleged that the accused No.1 threatened the complainant by showing knife that if she would shout, he would kill her. Further it was alleged that the driver of the Jeep i.e. accused No.4 drew the Jeep to Dungarpur (Rajasthan) as directed by accused No.1 where all the accused along with the complainant stayed in the house of one Adivasi.
4. It is also alleged that the accused compelled the complainant to sit outside the house during the whole night and thereafter accused No.3 and 4 brought the jeep back to Unava. It is further prosecution case that Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined on 25.02.2004, the relatives of the complainant came to know about the accused and the father of the complainant along with Jashirbhai, Pirubhai and Sidiquibhai reached and met complainant at Dungarpur. On seeing the complainant - accused No.1 and 2 ran away from the place thereafter the complaint was given to the police of Kidnapping.
5. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval submitted that the case becomes grievous since the accused 4 of them had taken the complainant girl aged about 17 years to Rajasthan and it was by gagging her mouth when she had no freedom to even shout for her own safety. Mr. Raval stated that the learned Judge has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its right prospective. When the ingredients u/s. 363 and 366 of the IPC were clearly proved and inspite of that the lesser punishment of only 7 months and fine of Rs. 500 was passed against accused No.1. Mr. Raval submitted that the punishment for section 363 of IPC would extend upto 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Mr. Raval submitted that 7 months imprisonment instead of 7 years would be a travesty of justice where the law Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined requires that appropriate sentencing should have been done by the trial Court to give a deterrent effect and to lay down a precedent where no other person would dare to kidnap or abduct minor girls.
6. The learned trial Court Judge while considering the evidence on record had examined the deposition of six witnesses and had also considered six documentary evidence. The age of the complainant girl could not be proved of 18 years however the learned Judge relied upon the School Leaving Certificate and the record of the school register which shows that she was aged about 17 years and 3 months. The date of offence is 24.02.2004. The age recorded u/s. 361 for kidnapping for lawful guardianship for a female is prohibited for less than 18 years.
7. The learned Judge has noted that since the girl was below the age there would not be any question of any consent and she was with the parents and the incident of removing her from the lawful guardianship had been proved. The fact had been brought on record that there was love relation between the victim girl and Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined the accused No.1. The learned Judge has taken into consideration this aspect and has also noted that accused No.1 and his further statement has stated that he was in love relation with the victim girl for about 4 years and the victim is to write him letters and she on her own wish and volition has joined him at Dungarpur and they had gone uptill Himmatnagar in jeep and thereafter by bus and on the next day, the family members of both the parties had brought them back. The learned Judge was of the opinion that even the fact of love relation could be believed but nothing has come on record or proved that they have entered into physical relationship. No evidence has come on record that the accused had allured the victim girl for any intention of inducing her to compel for marriage and further it has not been proved that she was detained forcefully for about 24 hours. The only fact which comes on the record is that the victim girl was taken out from the lawful guardianship of the parents. The relation between the victim and the accused, if at all taken into consideration and even the age, then the sentence of 7 months and fine of Rs. 500 days would be appropriate. Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined
8. In the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal & Another in Criminal Appeal No.959 of 2018, while deciding the leniency, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court imposed a sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of Soman vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382 and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-
"10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed, Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness.
11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :
"27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales - most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor."
12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined [(2012) 2 SCC 648] wherein it is observed thus:
"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."
13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.
14. In the matter at hand, it is proved that the victim has sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body, i.e. the head, which was fractured. The doctor has opined that the injury Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined was life threatening. Hence, in our considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement."
9. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1955 (2) SCR 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has concluded that the question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the detriment of the accused person except for very strong reasons, which must be disclosed on the fact of judgment. It was further held that in a matter of enhancement, there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment.
10. The explanation on record as appreciated, shows that the accused had no malafide intention of alluring the victim girl or abusing her. Both were in love relation. The age of the girl being minor had been a barrier otherwise the facts suggest her volition to be in the company of the accused. These circumstances had been noted by the trial Court in sentencing the accused. Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025 undefined In view of the same, this Court does not find any merits in the appeal of the State for enhancing the sentence. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
(GITA GOPI,J) MAYA Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:43:30 IST 2025