Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Sheikh Sahidkhan Natthubhai on 7 August, 2025

Author: Gita Gopi

Bench: Gita Gopi

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/890/2005                                  ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

                                                                                                              undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 890 of 2005

                      ==========================================================
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                          Versus
                                           SHEIKH SAHIDKHAN NATTHUBHAI & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR. ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR MC BAROT(144) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                                                          Date : 07/08/2025

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. The State being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the

sentence of 7 months and Rs.500/- fine and in default of

payment of fine, one month imprisonment ordered in

connection with the offence under Section 363 against

the accused No.1 - Sheikh Sahidkhan Natthubhai has

filed the present appeal under section 377 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The prayer for enhancement of the sentence for

accused - Shaikh Sahidkhan Nathubhai is also made

alongwith the three others who came to be acquitted. As

per the jail remarks - Shaikh Sahidkhan Nathubhai, the

convict accused has already undergone the sentence and

was released on 25.02.2004.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

3. The facts of the matter in the nutshell are as

under:

Daughter of Ahemadbhai Hasanbhai, aged about 17

years, studying in standard VIII, resident of village

Dasaj of Unjha Taluka filed a complaint to the effect

that on the date of incident i.e. 24.02.2004, at about

2:00 to 2:30 p.m., she was going to the dairy for getting

the salary of the Milk. At that time, accused No.1, 2

and 3 suddenly came out of one white Marshall Jeep

parked near the medical shop gagged her mouth and

took her into the jeep. It was alleged that the accused

No.1 threatened the complainant by showing knife that if

she would shout, he would kill her. Further it was

alleged that the driver of the Jeep i.e. accused No.4

drew the Jeep to Dungarpur (Rajasthan) as directed by

accused No.1 where all the accused along with the

complainant stayed in the house of one Adivasi.

4. It is also alleged that the accused compelled the

complainant to sit outside the house during the whole

night and thereafter accused No.3 and 4 brought the

jeep back to Unava. It is further prosecution case that

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

on 25.02.2004, the relatives of the complainant came to

know about the accused and the father of the

complainant along with Jashirbhai, Pirubhai and

Sidiquibhai reached and met complainant at Dungarpur.

On seeing the complainant - accused No.1 and 2 ran

away from the place thereafter the complaint was given

to the police of Kidnapping.

5. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval submitted that the

case becomes grievous since the accused 4 of them had

taken the complainant girl aged about 17 years to

Rajasthan and it was by gagging her mouth when she

had no freedom to even shout for her own safety. Mr.

Raval stated that the learned Judge has not appreciated

the oral and documentary evidence in its right

prospective. When the ingredients u/s. 363 and 366 of

the IPC were clearly proved and inspite of that the

lesser punishment of only 7 months and fine of Rs. 500

was passed against accused No.1. Mr. Raval submitted

that the punishment for section 363 of IPC would extend

upto 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. Mr. Raval

submitted that 7 months imprisonment instead of 7

years would be a travesty of justice where the law

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

requires that appropriate sentencing should have been

done by the trial Court to give a deterrent effect and to

lay down a precedent where no other person would dare

to kidnap or abduct minor girls.

6. The learned trial Court Judge while considering the

evidence on record had examined the deposition of six

witnesses and had also considered six documentary

evidence. The age of the complainant girl could not be

proved of 18 years however the learned Judge relied

upon the School Leaving Certificate and the record of

the school register which shows that she was aged about

17 years and 3 months. The date of offence is

24.02.2004. The age recorded u/s. 361 for kidnapping for

lawful guardianship for a female is prohibited for less

than 18 years.

7. The learned Judge has noted that since the girl

was below the age there would not be any question of

any consent and she was with the parents and the

incident of removing her from the lawful guardianship

had been proved. The fact had been brought on record

that there was love relation between the victim girl and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

the accused No.1. The learned Judge has taken into

consideration this aspect and has also noted that accused

No.1 and his further statement has stated that he was

in love relation with the victim girl for about 4 years

and the victim is to write him letters and she on her

own wish and volition has joined him at Dungarpur and

they had gone uptill Himmatnagar in jeep and thereafter

by bus and on the next day, the family members of both

the parties had brought them back. The learned Judge

was of the opinion that even the fact of love relation

could be believed but nothing has come on record or

proved that they have entered into physical relationship.

No evidence has come on record that the accused had

allured the victim girl for any intention of inducing her

to compel for marriage and further it has not been

proved that she was detained forcefully for about 24

hours. The only fact which comes on the record is that

the victim girl was taken out from the lawful

guardianship of the parents. The relation between the

victim and the accused, if at all taken into consideration

and even the age, then the sentence of 7 months and

fine of Rs. 500 days would be appropriate.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

8. In the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal

& Another in Criminal Appeal No.959 of 2018, while deciding the leniency, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had observed that the High Court was too

lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only

which was the period already undergone by the

accused in confinement. Thereafter, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court imposed a sentence of six months

rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- for

the offence under Section 325 of IPC and in case of

default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered

to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3

months. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to

the case of Soman vs. State of Kerala, reported in

(2013) 11 SCC 382 and Alister Anthony Pareira v.

State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 2 SCC 648

and has made observations in Paragraphs 10, 11,

12, 13 and 14 as under :-

"10. Currently, India does not have structured sentencing guidelines that have been issued either by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the Courts have framed certain guidelines in the matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide discretion in awarding the sentence within the statutory limits. Since in many offences only the maximum punishment is prescribed and for some offences the minimum punishment is prescribed,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity. However, this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts will have to take into account certain principles while exercising their discretion in sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it is necessary to assess the seriousness of an offence in order to determine the commensurate punishment for the offender. The seriousness of an offence depends, apart from other things, also upon its harmfulness.

11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :

"27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing decisions on various different rationales - most prominent amongst which would be proportionality and deterrence. 27.2. The question of consequences of criminal action can be relevant from both a proportionality and deterrence standpoint 27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned, the sentence must be commensurate with the seriousness or gravity of the offence. 27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging seriousness of the offence is the consequences resulting from it.

27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may still be properly attributed to the offender if they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of illicit and underground manufacture of liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high that not only its manufacturer but the distributor and the retail vendor would know its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even though any harm to the consumer might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must attach if the consumer suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result of consuming the spurious liquor."

12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

[(2012) 2 SCC 648] wherein it is observed thus:

"84. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: the twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances."

13. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the sentence. The Court cannot afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts to private vengeance.

14. In the matter at hand, it is proved that the victim has sustained a grievous injury on a vital portion of the body, i.e. the head, which was fractured. The doctor has opined that the injury

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/890/2005 ORDER DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

was life threatening. Hence, in our considered opinion, the High Court was too lenient in imposing the sentence of six days only which was the period already undergone by the accused in confinement."

9. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in

1955 (2) SCR 583, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

concluded that the question of sentence is a matter

of discretion and it is well settled that when

discretion has been properly exercised along accepted

judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere

to the detriment of the accused person except for

very strong reasons, which must be disclosed on the

fact of judgment. It was further held that in a

matter of enhancement, there should not be

interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment.

10. The explanation on record as appreciated, shows