Gujarat High Court
Arunaben Manishankar Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1714
of 2025
=================================================
ARUNABEN MANISHANKAR PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 12.05.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, whereby, the respondent No. 2 who is the sole accused in the said case, was acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 354, Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined 506(2) and 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 - State.
3. We have called for the R&P and we have gone through the appeal grounds and the copy of the judgment of the trial Court which is impugned in this appeal and the R&P and the evidence on record, carefully.
4. This appeal is preferred by the victim. According to her version, she is an employee working as an Anganwadi Worker in an Anganwadi Center. On 03.10.2017, while she was on duty working in the Anganwadi Center at about 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon that the accused came to the office and when she was in the office that he has sexually assaulted her by putting his hand in her blouse and inserted his finger into her vagina and when she raised shouts that the accused threatened to kill her and also threatened that he will not allow her to do her job and thereafter, he fled away from the office.
Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
It is stated that immediately she informed about the incident to her colleague by name Bhavnaben over telephone and thereafter, she has lodged the report with the police. But the police did not take any action though promised to take action. So, she approached the DSP and he assured to take action and as there was no action, that after waiting for some time, she lodged the report with the police again on 25.10.2017 and the said report was registered as a case for the aforesaid offences and it was investigated. Thereafter, the police laid the Charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence. 4.1 In the trial Court, after the accused made his appearance, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506(2) and 376(2)(b) of the IPC were framed against the accused. The same were explained to him and he denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.
4.2 In the trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-6 witnesses and got marked eight documents to substantiate its case against the accused.
Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined 4.3 The accused also examined defence witnesses as DW-1 to
DW-4 and he also got marked four documents in support of his case. 4.4 At the culmination of trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court did not find the accused guilty for the aforesaid charges and acquitted him of all the charges by the impugned judgment.
5. According to the version of the prosecutrix, the offence took place during the day time at 1:30 p.m. and that too, in her office in the Anganwadi Center. Though, it is stated that she was alone in the office at that time, the same is not believable. She admitted in her cross-examination that it was a working day. So, when it is a public office and when it is a working day, it cannot be said that she was alone when the alleged offence took place. Further, admittedly the accused is not her office colleague or working in the said office. So, he is a stranger to the employees of the said office. It is unbelievable to say that he entered the office on a working day during working hours and committed the offence of sexual assault against the Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined prosecutrix in the office.
5.1 Though, it is stated by the prosecutrix that immediately after the incident she has informed about the same to PW-4 who is her office colleague over phone, PW-4 did not support the said version and she denied the same. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that she has informed about the occurrence of the incident immediately to any of her superior officers or to her office colleagues. If really any such incident which is serious in nature has taken place in making a sexual assault against a woman employee in the office during office hours, the immediate response or natural conduct of any woman employee would be to report about the incident to the superior officers in the office or to her office colleagues. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that she has informed about the same to her superior officers or to her office colleagues. So, this makes her version not only doubtful but proves it to be false.
5.2 In her cross-examination, she stated that when the accused has
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
kept his hand in her blouse and inserted his finger in her vagina that she was wearing a Saree and blouse on that day and again she has prevaricated from the said statement and stated that she was in her uniform. So, it clearly shows that her evidence that the accused came to the office and sexually assaulted her by putting his hand in her blouse and inserting finger in her vagina, is absolutely false. She admitted in her cross-examination that her clothes were not torn and she did not sustain any injury in the said incident. If really, a stranger enters the office and puts his hand in her blouse and inserts his finger in her vagina by force, definitely, there would be some resistance on the part of the de facto complainant and in the said process, there would be some rupture and possibility of tearing clothes etc. Nothing of like nature happened as admitted by her. If really she has raised shouts when accused assaulted her, her office colleagues and others in the surroundings would gather there and apprehend the accused. It is in the evidence that the said office is surrounded by other public offices. So, her office is in a public place. She admitted that there is a temple adjacent to her office and there are shops and residential houses adjacent to her office. So, Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined definitely, people would have gathered if she raised shouts at that time. So, when her evidence is subjected to probability test, her evidence fails to stand to the said test.
5.3 Another important anomaly in the case to be noticed is that the incident took place on 03.10.2017 and the FIR was lodged by her on 25.10.2017 with an inordinate delay of 22 days. The explanation offered by her is not found to be satisfactory. It is stated that as the police did not take action even though assured to take action, that she approached the DSP who also assured to take action and she waited for some time and thereafter, lodged the report. But, nothing is emanating from the record to show that the delay has taken place due to the said reason. Therefore, this unreasonable and abnormal delay in lodging the FIR makes her version highly suspect and false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the accused pleaded that there is a motive for her to implicate him in a false case. We are not inclined to go deep into the said aspect as the very substratum of the case of the prosecutrix is not found to be true from the above discussion and Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined the evidence on record. There are several omissions in the FIR. She admitted that she did not state in the FIR that the accused used to often come to her office and that he is used to threaten her. 5.4 PW-1 and PW-2 are only the Panch witnesses of Scene of Offence Observation Report, PW-4 is the colleague, who turned hostile, PW-5 is the ASI who recorded the Statement and the PW-6 is the IO. No witness from the office whose presence would be natural and probable at the time of incident was examined in this case. So, non-examination of material witness from the office is fatal to the case of the prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming for withholding the material evidence of the office employees. So, adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is to be drawn and the inference is that, if they are examined, their evidence would be unfavourable to the case of the prosecution. 5.5 Therefore, the trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, has rightly recorded a finding of acquittal Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined in favour of the accused. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. After considering the said evidence and on reappraisal of the same, we find several infirmities in the evidence of the prosecutrix whose sole testimony is available in this case, which makes her testimony wholly unreliable. When her evidence suffers from several legal infirmities, it is unsafe to place reliance on her testimony without corroboration to her testimony from other independent source relating to the material particulars of the case. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no interference in this appeal. No valid ground is made out even to admit the appeal for hearing. After perusing the R&P and the evidence, the appeal grounds and the copy of the impugned judgment of the trial Court, we are of the considered view that the appeal is liable to be rejected summarily under Section 425 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
6. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. R&P be returned to the trial Court, forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ] [ D. M. Vyas, J. ] hiren/3tss29725 Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by HIREN MER(HC00351) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:35:53 IST 2025