Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rekha @ Kajal Dipika Udesang Rajput on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 72 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
REKHA @ KAJAL DIPIKA UDESANG RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11/10/2012 passed in Sessions Case No.142 of 2008 on the file of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 370, 371, 417, 418, 419 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the offences Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. As per the complaint of the complainant Shaileshbhai Rupabhai Makwana, on 08/10/2006 or prior to that, the present respondents along with absconding accused Babubhai Kashiram and Urmilaben Ghanshyambhai hatched conspiracy with each other and thereby induced and enticed away accused no.1 and kept with them as slave. It is further the case of the prosecution that respondents accused by taking the complainant Shaileshbhai in confidence and identifying accused no.1 as Rekhaben, made marriage of them by accepting Rs.75,000/- and after a period of 19 days, she was brought back. Thereafter, while complainant has gone to bring his wife Rekhaben, she was not sent along with the complainant under one or another reason and identifying accused no.1 as Kajalben, made marriage of accused no.1 with one Sunilbahi. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that the accused persons by identifying accused no.1 in different names and by getting her married are doing the business of prostitution. Thus, all the accused persons, with the help of each other, by hatching conspiracy, have cheated Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined the complainant and, therefore, the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 370, 371, 417, 418, 419, 420 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the offences punishable under Sections 4,5 and 9 of the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act was lodged and the same was registered as I-C.R.No.37 of 2007. It was investigated and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vallabhipur for the aforesaid offences against the accused which was numbered as Criminal Case No.134 of 2007. As the case was exclusively triable by the learned sessions division, the same was made over to the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar.
3. In the trial court, the charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the accused. Charges were read over to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. As one of the accused i.e. accused no.7 namely Ghanshyambhai Bapulal Rana has died on 24/04/2008, the case against the said accused abated.
4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined examined PW-1 to PW-13 witnesses and got marked 17 exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded with regard to incriminating circumstances made in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they have denied it and not lead any evidence in defense. Further, accused no.1 stated that she was legally wedded with the complainant and the due to mental and physical harassment of the complainant, they got divorced orally as well as on stamp paper of R.20/- and thereafter she got married with Sunilbhai and she has not committed any offence as alleged.
6. At the end of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for the aforesaid offences and acquitted them of the said charges.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal. Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined
8. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant-State. Despite service of notice, respondents did not turn up for hearing, for the reasons best known to them. As it is an old appeal of the year 2013, listed under the caption "critically old matters" for final hearing, we are not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, we have decided to go through the record and dispose of the appeal on merits and the material available on record.
9. We have heard learned APP at length on facts and on provisions of law. Learned APP submitted the facts of the charges levelled against the respondents accused and referred the oral and documentary evidence produced during the trial and vehemently argued that accused no.1 namely Rekhaben @ Kajalben got married with the complainant. It is further submitted that other co-accused kidnapped accused no.1 Rekhaben @ Kajalben and got married with the complainant and snatched Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, accused no.1 ran away from the house of the complainant and accused no.1 re-married with PW-9 Sunilbhai Nagindas Kothari. It is Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined further submitted that other co-accused dragged accused no.1 in business of prostitution. Learned APP submitted at length the facts and ingredients of the charges levelled against the respondents-accused and vehemently argued that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence and required to interfere in the impugned judgment.
10. We have deeply scrutinized the prosecution evidence, impugned judgment and considered the arguments of learned APP.
11. It appears from the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the prosecution has failed to prove the important facts that the other co-accused dragged accused no.1 in the business of prostitution and also not proved the facts that the co-accused depends on the activity of the prostitution. The Investigating Officer admitted the facts that the accused are not caught red handed and no any raid was conducted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Here, it is required to reproduce the provision of Section 14(iii) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 which reads as under:
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined "14. Offences to be cognizable. - Notwithstanding anything contained in [the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 92 of 1974)], any offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be cognizable offence within the meaning of that Code:
(iii) any police officer not below the rank of [sub-
inspector] specially authorized by the special police officer may, if he has reason to believe that on account of delay involved in obtaining the order of the special police officer, any valuable evidence relating to any offence under this Act is likely to be destroyed or concealed, or the person who has committed or is suspected to have committed the offence is likely to escape, or if the name and address of such a person is unknown or there is reason to suspect that a false name or address has been given, arrest the person concerned without such order, but in such a case he shall report, as soon as may be, to the special police officer the arrest and the circumstances in which the arrest was made."
12. From plain reading of the above provisions, it appears that the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the facts that the Investigating Officer is appointed as a Special Police Officer to investigate the offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
13. It appears from the record that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of alleged offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and no iota of evidence Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined produced on record and also not produced the evidence to prove the fact that accused no.1 is slave and not produced any evidence to prove the charges about the sale, purchase, export, import or transportation of the slaves.
14. It appears from the record that A-1 is legally wedded with the complainant. The complainant admitted the fact that A-1 left the house with two pairs of clothes, anklet and chain. In further statement of A-1, explanation about dissolution of first marriage with the complainant and thereafter marriage was solemnized with PW-9, Sunilbahi Nagindas Kothari on 07/02/2007 is made out.
15. It is required to be noted that during the recording of the further statement/explanation of A-1 under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure, she has clearly stated the fact of her divorce with the complainant.
16. Considering overall evidence as aforesaid, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the respondents-accused. Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025 undefined
17. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper appreciation of the same, the trial court arrived at a right conclusion and acquitted the accused. Upon re-appraisal of the said evidence, we are also of the view that no case is made out for any of the charges against the accused. So the impugned judgment of the trial court cannot be disturbed and it warrants any interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails and liable to be dismissed.
18. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the acquittal of the trial court. Bail bond of the accused, if any, shall stand discharged.
19. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J) (D. M. VYAS, J) ILA Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by PATEL ILA KANTIBHAI(HC00194) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 08 22:49:34 IST 2025