Minaben D/O. Pirabhai Hemrajbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5444 Guj

     R/CR.A/2253/2022                       ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2253 of 2022
======================================
    MINABEN D/O. PIRABHAI HEMRAJBHAI CHAUHAN (DALIT)
                          Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
======================================
Appearance:
MR.KISHORE PRAJAPATI(6305) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. SHIVANGI M RANA(7053) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MS CHETNA M. SHAH, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
No. 1
======================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
       and
       HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
                Date : 12/07/2023
                   ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)

1. This appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") is filed

by the first-informant - victim challenging the judgment and

order of acquittal rendered by Additional Sessions Judge,

Tharad - Banaskantha dated 01.07.2022 passed in Sessions

Case No. 21 of 2020, whereby the respondent No. 2 - accused

came to be acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections

376(m), 201 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellant - first-informant filed an FIR on 01.03.2020

that, on 23.02.2020 at about 2 p.m., the respondent - accused

R/CR.A/2253/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023

entered her house and at the point of knife, committed an

offence of rape over her, threatening of dire consequences as

also killing her parents. Since she was scared with the

behaviour of the accused at knife-point and the respondent -

accused was third-generation cousin, she could not muster

courage to immediately file the FIR, and therefore, it came to

be filed after about 6-7 days. Pursuant to the FIR filed, an

investigation was carried out and since sufficient material was

collected during the course of investigation, the police

authorities filed the charge-sheet and ultimately, a Sessions

Case, as aforesaid, came to be registered against the

respondent - accused .

3. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution

examined nearly 12 witnesses, including the first informant -

victim, produced and proved approximately 22 documents on

record of the case. However, on analysis of the evidence led

before the Court and examining the documents, the learned

Judge acquitted the accused.

3.1 On examining the judgment and hearing the learned

advocate for the appellant, we felt need of the Record and

Proceedings, which was called for vide order dated 18.04.2023

and it is before the Court today.

       R/CR.A/2253/2022                        ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023




3.2       We have heard the learned advocate Mr. Kishore

Prajapati for the appellant, learned advocate Ms. Shivangi M.

Rana for the respondent - accused as also learned APP Ms. C.M.

Shah for the State, and we have perused the Record and

Proceedings in detail. Ms CM Shah, learned APP, submitted that

State has taken decision not to challenge the order of acquittal

recorded by the learned Judge.

3.3 Mr. Kishore Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant,

drawing attention of the Court to the deposition of the victim

submitted that since she has supported the case of prosecution

and narrated in detail the incident as occurred, which is

supported by medical evidence, the learned Judge could not

have acquitted the accused.

3.4 He has further submitted that, for filing complaint late by

about 6-7 days, a probable explanation is offered, and

therefore, case of the prosecution could not have been rejected

by the learned Judge for acquitting the accused. Therefore, he

has submitted that this appeal be admitted.

3.5 Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP, submitted that since State

has taken conscious decision not to prefer an appeal against

the impugned judgment and order pursuant to a written

R/CR.A/2253/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023

instruction with her, she requested the Court to pass

appropriate order.

3.6 Ms. Shivangi M. Rana, learned advocate for the

respondent - accused, vehemently opposes to admit the appeal

and requests the Court to dismiss it.

4. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective

parties as also considering the evidence led before the Court

while perusing the Record and Proceedings of the case, it is

clear that the accused of the offence is none else but a close

third-generation cousin and there exists dispute with regard to

property in between the two families, and before accepting or

rejecting the evidence led before the Court, close scrutiny of

evidence is required.

4.1 While perusing the deposition of the first-informant

herself, though she has deposed to before the Court that, at the

point of knife, the accused has committed an offence of rape on

the date of incident at 2:00 p.m. However, as she was scared of

the accused and he threatened her of killing her parents, she

did not disclose it to the Police or anyone else. As such during

the course of investigation, no knife, at the point of which

alleged offence is committed, either discovered or recovered

R/CR.A/2253/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023

from accused or anyone else alleged to have been used at the

time of commission of the offence.

4.2 Over and above that, filing of an FIR was a conscious

decision after all relatives were informed about the incident and

settlement was not possible, it was determined to file an FIR. At

the same time, as coming out from the deposition as also from

the judgment that the victim admitted strained relations

between two families i.e. family of the accused as also the

victim, in respect of property and right of way in the field for

which frequent quarrels had taken place. Not only that, as per

the deposition of the victim, the alleged offence took place on

the date of incident at about 10 a.m., which is contrary to her

FIR in which it is stated that incident occurred at 2:00 p.m.

while she was alone in the house. Not only there is a major

discrepancy with regard to the time of the incident, she

appears to have not raised any shout if at all incident occurred

during the day time, maybe she was afraid of accused when he

entered the house with knife, but no witness staying nearby is

examined by the prosecution to support her version, at least of

the accused, entering into her house at about 10 a.m. or even

at 2:00 p.m. with knife.

       R/CR.A/2253/2022                                ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023




4.3      There is again major discrepancy with regard to history

given before the Doctor by the victim as also in the deposition

before the Court. In her deposition, she appears to have

referred about incident of rape committed by the accused once,

whereas in a history before the Doctor, she stated about rape

being committed twice within a span of 15 minutes. Even if it is

presumed to be an exaggeration, considering the strained

relations between the two families and more particularly, knife

having not been either recovered or discovered, belying the

story of prosecution that accused committed an offence of rape

at knife-point is in material contradiction with the medical

evidence. As also that except the date of incident, she has no

history of even physical relation with anyone else, whereas

medical evidence reflects the contrary.

4.4 Even explanation offered for filing FIR late is also found to

be not believable on the ground that if at all the offence is

committed at the point of knife, it should have been recovered

or discovered, which is missing in this case, establishing or

rather creating doubt about use or holding of knife by the

accused while committing an offence. If at all offence is

committed at a particular time, there cannot be inconsistent

time of offence in between the deposition and the

R/CR.A/2253/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023

contemporaneous record like First Information Report

registered by the first-informant herself.

4.5 Though the statement recorded under Section 164 of the

"Code" of the victim is produced and proved by victim herself,

having signed the same and identified her signature, unless

what is narrated in the statement is not deposed to before the

Court and it doesn't corroborate the deposition, it is of no use.

However, in the cross-examination, when it is established that

since years, there is a dispute between two families and despite

the attempts being made by village people, the relations

between the two have not improved, it creates doubt in respect

of the offence and the manner in which it is committed, as

deposed to by the witnesses.

4.6 The victim is major at the time of incident, coupled with

the fact that even if the history given by the accused himself

before the Court to be treated as an admission, there is no

admission at all with regard to the offence of rape as on the

date pleaded by the prosecution. If at all it is to be treated as

an admission of physical relation with consent of each other,

that too, once prior to one month of the incident. Therefore,

even that factor also does not help the prosecution to prove the

case against the accused. Though relation might appear to be

R/CR.A/2253/2022 ORDER DATED: 12/07/2023

an immoral one, between distant relatives or third-generation

cousin, who is also married, unless and until it becomes an

offence, the accused cannot be convicted.

5. However, going through the judgment in detail,

considering the depositions of each witnesses before the Court,

we find no error in the reasons assigned by the learned Judge

holding that prosecution has failed to prove the case against

the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

6. We are conscious of the fact that even if two views are

possible on re-appreciation of evidence, the appellate Court

cannot substitute its own views to that of the view recorded by

the learned Judge, and therefore, we find no reason to interfere

with well reasoned order of acquittal passed by the learned

Judge, that too, when conscious decision is taken by the State

not to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and

order. Hence, we dismiss the appeal.

Record & Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court

immediately.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)

(M. K. THAKKER, J.) Raj