Gujarat High Court
Prosecutrix vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2024
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/105/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 105 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PROSECUTRIX
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR M M SHAIKIH(11314) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR UVESH M SHAIKH(11313) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL K. VYAS
Date : 16/04/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 372of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.PC") against the judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/105/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
and order of acquittal dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court No. 19, Ahmedabad City, District
Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 226 of 2022, wherein and whereby
the trial Court has acquitted respondent - accused after examining
the oral as well as documentary evidence, by giving him benefit of
doubt. As per the charge at Exh.4, the offence is punishable under
Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
"the IPC").
2. Learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja appearing for the appellant -
original complainant i.e. who is the prosecutrix has submitted that in
fact the trial court fell in error while giving benefit of doubt to the
respondent -accused. It is submitted that the trial Court has not
appreciated the evidence in its true perspective and fell in error in
acquitting the respondent -accused from the offence, for which he
was charged.
3. Learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja appearing for the appellant -
original complainant has submitted that the respondent -accused
developed the physical relationship by misleading prosecutrix on
the pretext of false promise of marriage. She has referred to the
evidence of the victim PW -1 at Exh.7. She has submitted that
initially the prosecutrix has also given a written complaint before
the Police on 08.12.2021, however nothing was done and hence, an
FIR was registered by herself on 12.02.2022. She has submitted that
there is ample evidence which would show that the respondent
accused had misdirected her and poised her for developing physical
relationship. Thus, it is urged that the present appeal may be
allowed and the respondent -accused be convicted for the offence
for which he was charged.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/105/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shaikh appearing for the
respondent No.2- original accused has submitted that the present
appeal does not require any interference, since the trial court has
precisely acquitted that respondent -accused from the offence for
which he was charged. He has submitted that this case is of no
evidence and in fact the prosecution has miserably failed to bring
home the charge.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Shaikh has submitted that the
prosecutrix has registered an FIR on the very same day, when the
accused got married and though she had given the complaint on
08.12.2021, nothing was done and ultimately, when the accused got
married, she approached the Police and filed a complaint on
12.02.2022. He has referred to the contents of the complaint and
has submitted that in fact the complaint shows that the physical
relationship was consensual and there is no evidence that the
accused had ever promised her to marry and therefore, the present
appeal may be rejected.
6. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent No.1 - State
has also adopted the arguments of the learned advocate for the
respondent No.2 and has submitted that the trial court fell in error
in acquitting the accused by giving him benefit of doubt.
7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties. We have also examined the evidence which is on
record. It is case of the appellant - prosecutrix that the respondent -
accused has developed physical relationship with her on the pretext
of getting married with her, however, thereafter resiled from his
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/105/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
statement and instead married with someone else. It is alleged that
on the ground of false promise of marriage and after developing
love affair and friendship, the respondent -accused had misdirected
her into developing such physical relationship. The record shows
that initially the prosecutrix has given a written complaint on
08.12.2021, before the Police alleging that the accused had
developed physical relationship by misdirecting her on the pretext
of marrying her.
8. It appears that thereafter the prosecutrix did not do anything,
ultimately on 12.02.2022, she filed a complaint before the
Krishnanagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City, making such
allegations. There is no explanation for the delay from 08.12.2021
to 12.02.2022. We have also examined the evidence of the
prosecutrix, who has been examined at PW -1 at Exh.7. Her
evidence reveals that physical relationship with the respondent -
accused was consensual and she has narrated that she was having
love affair with the respondent-accused and used to meet him
occasionally for more than one and half to two years. In her
evidence, before the Court, she stated that the accused had given
her promise to marry her, however, he resiled from his statement.
Thus, her evidence reveals that the relationship which she had
developed with the accused was consensual and only allegation is
that on the pretext of getting married with her, accused has
misdirected her to develop physical relationship.
9. On scaling of the entire evidence, we are unable to find any
shred of evidence, which would indicate that the respondent -
accused had promised the prosecutrix that he would be marrying
her. Even the history recorded before the Doctor PW -3 at Exh.10,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/105/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/04/2024
undefined
who has physically examined the accused has recorded the history
that he has developed physical relationship with the prosecutrix.
However, there is no mention with regard to the promise of
marriage by him. The prosecutrix is major and she was very well
aware about the consequences. It appears that bald allegations
have been made by her relating to the fake promise allegedly given
by the present respondent -accused.
10. We do not find any reason to interfere with the acquittal
recorded by the trial Court. It is settled law that in case, trial Court
has committed gross error and perversity, then the High Court can
exercise its discretion in interfering with the acquittal recorded by
the trial Court. Since devoid of merit, the appeal fails and the same
is rejected accordingly.
R & P be returned to the concerned Trial Court.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(VIMAL K. VYAS, J)
prk
