Gujarat High Court
Anitaben Ashokbhai Valvi vs State Of Gujarat on 30 April, 2025
Author: Samir J. Dave
Bench: A.Y. Kogje, Samir J. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2793 of 2024
==========================================================
ANITABEN ASHOKBHAI VALVI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DWIJEN JOSHI(8518) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DHAIRYA J PATEL(10110) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2,3,4,5,6,7
MS MONALI H. BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 30/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE)
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara in
Sessions Case No.10 of 2021 dated 13.10.2023 whereby, the
respondents, original accused, have been acquitted of the
charge under sections 498(a), 323, 504, 506(2), 313 and 114 of
the I.P.C. and sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Medical
Practitioners Act, 1956.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that on 10.09.2020 the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
respondents, original accused, picked up a quarrel with the
original complainant - victim, who happens to be the wife of
original accused No.1, respondent No.1 herein and meted out
mental as well as physical torture on her and threatened her
of being driven out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the
accused took the complainant-victim to original accused No.6,
who was not a registered medical practitioner but a quack
doctor and got her pregnancy aborted. A complaint in
connection with the above incident was registered against the
accused before Nijar Police Station vide C.R. No.
11824007200358 of 2020. As sufficient evidence was found
against the accused, they were arrested and at the end of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against them. As the
accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, trial was initiated.
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 (twelve)
witnesses and relied upon several documentary evidence.
However, at the end of trial, the Court below acquitted the
respondent-accused of all the charges by way of the impugned
judgment and order. Against the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal, the appellant-original complainant, victim, has
preferred the captioned appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Dwijen Joshi appearing for the
appellant-victim submitted that the Court below has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective
while passing the impugned judgment and order. It was
submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to suggest
that the respondent-accused, by misrepresenting the appellant-
victim that she would be provided with better medical
treatment, called respondent No.6 herein to treat her, who, in
fact, was not a registered medical practitioner but was a quack
doctor. Thereafter, in connivance with each other, the
respondent-accused got the pregnancy of the appellant-victim
aborted against her own knowledge and wish. Though there is
sufficient documentary as well as oral evidence on record to
establish the guilt of the respondent-accused, the Court below
acquitted them by granting benefit of doubt.
4.1 The attention of the Court was also drawn to the medical
evidence on record to suggest that the appellant-victim had
undergone abortion. It was submitted that when the medical
evidence on record suggested that abortion had taken place
and there is evidence to show that the appellant-victim was
mentally and physically harassed by the respondent-accused,
the Court below ought not to have acquitted the respondent-
accused of the charge. Hence, the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned advocate Mr. D.J. Patel appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
respondent-accused submitted that there is no evidence on
record to suggest that the appellant-victim was administered
any medicines by respondent No.6 at the behest of respondent
Nos.1 to 5-accused. Merely on the ground that respondent
No.6 is not a registered medical practitioner, the respondents-
accused could not be held guilty for the alleged offence,
particularly, when the FIR in connection with the alleged
offence has been filed belatedly and no satisfactory explanation
has been provided explaining the delay. It was further
submitted that as per the deposition of the father of the
appellant-victim, the appellant-victim was residing with him
during the period between 30.03.2020 to 10.09.2020 and
therefore, the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. It
was, accordingly, urged that the Court below has rightly
acquitted the respondent-accused of all the charges.
6. Heard learned advocates on both the sides and perused
the material on record. The father of the appellant-victim,
Ravindrabhai Kandiyabhai Naik, has been examined as PW-1
Exhibit-29. In his deposition, this witness has stated that his
daughter, i.e. the appellant-victim, was carrying pregnancy of
about three to four months at the time when the alleged
offence was committed and that her husband and in-laws were
meting out mental and physical cruelty on her and also got
her treated by respondent No.6, who was a quack doctor, with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
the intention to get the pregnancy aborted.
6.1 However, in his cross-examination, this witness has
admitted that the appellant-victim was residing along with him
and his wife, i.e. at her parental house, during the period
between 30.03.2020 to 10.09.2020. The impugned FIR was
filed on 10.09.2020 and thus, as per the evidence led by the
father of the appellant-victim, she was at her parental home
when the impugned FIR came to be filed and that too after a
period of almost six months from the date of commission of
alleged offence. No explanation has been offered by the
prosecution for the said delay of almost six months in filing
the FIR. A victim of a heinous crime of forceful and / or
deceitful abortion would file a complaint at the earliest
available opportunity and would not sit along for a long period
of almost six months, more particularly, when the victim is
residing at her parental home. In the present case, the filing of
FIR after a long delay of almost six months goes into the root
of the matter and renders the entire prosecution story doubtful.
6.2 Further, this witness (PW-1) has also deposed that
original accused No.1-husband, in-laws and other family
members used to torture the appellant-victim both mentally
and physically. It is also alleged that the respondent-accused
got the appellant-victim treated by respondent No.6-quack
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
doctor under the pretext of gaining healthy pregnancy and
thereby, got some medicines administered intravenously.
However, there is nothing on record to substantiate any of the
above claims.
8. The appellant-victim has been examined vide Exhibit-34
and she has narrated facts similar to what has been alleged in
the FIR filed by her. From the evidence of the appellant-
victim, it has come out that it in March 2020 she had
informed about her pregnancy to her parents for the very first
time. As discussed herein-above, from the evidence of her
father (PW-1), it is established that the appellant-victim was
residing at her parental house since 30.03.2020 and till the FIR
came to be filed on 10.09.2020. If that be so, then the say of
the appellant-victim that she was administered injections and
intravenous liquids by respondent No.6 every fifteen day
during such period in connivance with other accused and that
too at her matrimonial home falls flat on the ground. Hence,
the story put-forth by the appellant-victim that her pregnancy
was forcibly and deceitfully aborted by the respondents on
15.07.2020 becomes non-trustworthy.
9. Moreover, when it has come on record that the
appellant-victim was residing at her parental house since
March 2020, then the prosecution case of getting her treated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
by respondent No.6-quack doctor at her matrimonial house and
thereby, getting the pregnancy aborted at such place also
becomes untrue and unbelievable. It has come on record that
some matrimonial dispute in the form of application seeking
maintenance was pending between the parties before the
appropriate Court at the relevant time and thus, it cannot be
ruled out that the criminal law was put into motion in order
to derive undue advantage in the pending court proceedings.
10. Insofar as the medical evidence on record is concerned, it
is true that pregnancy of the appellant-victim had been
aborted. The medical evidence on record in the form of
deposition of the Doctor concerned suggests that there could be
different causes for abortion and no specific opinion has been
given for the cause of abortion. In fact, there is nothing to
suggest that the abortion was caused on account of the
administration of any injection or intravenous liquid, as has
been alleged by the prosecution. Thus, the medical evidence
on record also does not support the prosecution case.
11. Further, when the case of the prosecution is not based on
any surgical intervention attributed to respondent No.6, it was
expected of the prosecution, when it was to make out a case
of section 313 of IPC, that forced abortion had been done on
account of the medicines that were administered; however, a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
perusal of Exhibit-48 would disclose this was a case of
miscarriage.
12. The principles which would govern and regulate the
hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained
by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of
Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the
Apex Court has laid down the following principles;
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view,
the following general principles regarding powers of the
appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an
order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-
appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and an appellate Court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
[3] Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient
grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not
intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes
of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the Court to review the
evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
[4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal there is double presumption
in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal,
the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
Court.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial Court."
12.1 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising
appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.
13. In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr.,
(2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court reiterated the powers of
the High Court in such cases. In Paragraph-16 of the said
decision, the Court observed as under;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that
while exercising the powers in appeal against the order
of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily
interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach
of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality
and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by
any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to
be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views
are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view
which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court
below. However, the appellate Court has a power to
review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and
the Court has committed a manifest error of law and
ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast
upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-
appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the
basis of material placed on record to find out whether
any of the accused is connected with the commission of
the crime he is charged with."
14. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court
in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh &
Ors, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by
LRs Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589.
Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an
order of acquittal, are well settled.
15. In view of the above discussion and keeping in mind the
law governing appeals arising out of a judgment and order of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2793/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
acquittal, this Court finds no substance in the present appeal.
We are in complete agreement with the reasoning given by
and the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Court in
the impugned judgment and order and hence, find no reasons
to entertain the appeal.
16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned
forthwith.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(SAMIR J. DAVE, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
