Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rameshbhai Bhimabhai Vala on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 688 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAMESHBHAI BHIMABHAI VALA & ORS.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR.J.K.PARMAR(587) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. During pendency of this appeal, the respondent no. 1 -
original accused No. 1 - Rameshbhai Bhimabhai Vala has expired
on 07.06.2020 and vide order dated 18.04.2023, the present appeal
qua the respondent no.1 stands disposed of as infructuous.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order passed by the learned 8th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions
Judge, Veraval (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court')
in Sessions Case No. 03 of 2014 on 26.02.2015, whereby, the
learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents - accused from
the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 114 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC').
2.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as 'the
accused' as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for
the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
3.1. Prafulbhai @ Jhinko Bhimabhai Devipujak was in
judicial custody in an offence registered with Keshod Police
Station I-C.R.No.136 of 2012 and on 18.10.2013, while the
complainant Bhavnaben, wife of Rameshbhai @ Bupatbhai
Solanki and her husband Rameshbhai @ Bupatbhai Solanki had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
gone for labour work, all the accused abducted the minor daughter
of the complainant with an intention of getting her married to
Prafulbhai Bhimabhai Devipujak. The complainant Bhavnaben,
wife of Rameshbhai @ Bupatbhai Solanki, filed a complaint at
Chorwad Police Station under sections 363, 366, 114 of the IPC,
which came to be registered at Chorwad Police Station, I-C.R.No.
34 of 2013.
3.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having
sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be
filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion
of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was
committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as
Sessions Case No. 03 of 2014.
3.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was
verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A
charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the
statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 6 to Exh. 8
respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on
record. The prosecution examined 04 witnesses and produced 15
documentary evidence in support of the case.
3.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP at Exh.41, the further statement of the accused under Section
313 of the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the
learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after
perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the
impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused for the
offence.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and
principles of natural justice. The learned Trial Court has erred in
evaluating the evidence on record of the case and without
appreciating the evidence in its real perspective. That there are
directed and indirect evidence connecting the respondents with
crime produced in this Court, in spite of the fact, the learned Trial
Court, without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence
on record of the case, straight way arrived at conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the evidence
of the complainant and other witnesses which has fully supported
the case of the prosecution. The learned Trial Court has passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal is without giving any
cogent and convincing reasons, illegal, invalid and improper, and
therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the
appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.J.K.Parmar for the
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused the impugned judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of
the prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant -
State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by
the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and
has successfully proved the case against the accused but the
learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted
the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles
of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned
Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case
and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. Learned APP
has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for
the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
7. Learned advocate Mr.J.K.Parmar for the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
No. 2 and 3 - original accused Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the
learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true
perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the
impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the
learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal.
8. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that
no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless
after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned
Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality or
perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the
Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the
Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of
acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of
innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of
acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution
i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is
in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court
has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court
should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate
Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only
when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is
clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to
conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
9. As per the settled principles of law in acquittal appeal,
the evidence of the prosecution on record is re-appreciated and
PW-1 Bhavnaben Rameshbhai, examined at Exh.18, is the
complainant, who has narrated the facts as stated by her in the
complaint produced at Exh.19. The complainant has stated that at
the time of the incident, she and her husband had gone for labour
work and when they returned home at around 7:00p.m., her
daughter was not at home and she asked her neighbour Nathiben,
who told her that her daughter did not come to her house. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
accused No.1 would come to her house and threaten to kidnap her
daughter and as she had a doubt on the accused No. 1, she filed
the complaint produced at Exh.19 at the Chorwad Police Station.
She went and inquired from the accused No.1, but he feigned
ignorance, and hence, the complaint was filed. Her daughter was
found after two days and she was sent to "Shishumangal", and
thereafter, they brought her home. In the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that she
was not at home at the time of the incident and when she returned
home in the evening, she found that her daughter was not at home
and filed the complaint as she had a doubt on the accused.
9.1. PW-2 Bhavikaben Rameshbhai @ Bhupatbhai
examined at Exh.20, is the victim, who has stated that the accused
had told her that she had to come to sign some papers to release
Praful Bhima and they had taken her to Keshod and then to
Gondal. Her parents had filed a complaint at Mangrol Police
Station and she was produced before the Mangrol Police and sent
to the "Shishumangal" where she resided at the "Shishumangal"
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
for one month, and thereafter, her parents came and brought her
home. Prior to the incident, Praful Bhima had enticed her to get
married to her and she had eloped with him and resided with him
at Gondal for eight months. In the cross-examination by the
learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there
was a gap of about 2½ years between both the incidents. The
witness has admitted that there are a number of shops at the place
of a residence and it is constantly teeming with vehicles.
9.2. PW-3 Jasabhai Bhagwanbhai Vala examined at Exh.22,
is the principal of "Shri Vinoba Vidya Mandir" who has produced
the certificate of "Shri Vinoba Vidya Mandir" Seemar at Exh.23.
The certificate states that the date of birth, as per the school
records of the victim, is 01.06.1997. During the cross-examination
by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that
the certificate has been issued on the basis of the School Leaving
Certificate given to the school and there was no birth certificate in
the school records. He has not submitted any form filled up by the
parents in the school.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
9.3. PW-4, Rameshbhai Bachubhai Solanki, examined at
Exh.24, is the father of the victim, but he has not supported the
case of the prosecution. The witness has been declared hostile, and
in the cross-examination, he has admitted that on the date of the
incident, his daughter was more than 18 years, and on the date of
the incident, she had a quarrel with her mother, and without
informing anyone, she had gone to her uncle's house.
9.4. The panchnama of the place of offence is produced at
Exh.27, the arrest panchnama of the accused are produced at
Exh.28 and Exh.29, extract of the register of the arrest of accused
of Keshod Police Station is produced at Exh.34 and the copy of
the FIR of Keshod Police Station I-C.R.No. 66 of the 2014 under
Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC is produced at Exh.36.
10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution, the minor
daughter of the complainant Bhavnaben Rameshbhai was
abducted by all the accused so that she could get married to one
Prafulbhai Bhimabhai, who was in judicial custody in an offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
registered at Keshod Police Station, but no such evidence has
emerged on record. If the deposition of PW-2, the victim, is
perused, she does not name the accused and does not specify what
act they had committed, when was she abducted and the time
when they had abducted her. It is pertinent to note that Prafulbhai
Bhimabhai is not an accused and the complaint filed at Exh.19 by
the complainant is a typed complaint dated 19.10.2013 and is filed
against 5 persons, but the chargesheet has been filed against 3
persons. PW-3 Jashabhai Bhagwanbhai Vala has produced the
certificate regarding the date of birth of the victim, but the same
has not been proved as the date of birth has been mentioned in
the basis of the School Leaving Certificate given by the parents of
the students earlier and no such certificate has come on record.
The Investigating Officer has not been examined, and hence, it has
not come on record as to whether any investigation for the date of
birth of the victim was done by the Investigating Officer.
Moreover, PW-4 Rameshbhai Bachubhai Solanki, the father of the
victim, has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
categorically stated that on the date of the incident, his daughter
was more than 18 years old and she had a quarrel with her mother
in the morning, and hence, she had left the house of her own free
will and had gone to her uncle's house. In the deposition of PW-1
Bhavnaben Rameshbhai it has also emerged on record that they
had a dispute with the accused earlier as the accused No.1 would
threaten her that he would abduct her daughter and he would
telephone her, but no such details or no mobile numbers or the
date and time when the threats were given has come on record.
The entire evidence on record has been appreciated in detail by the
learned Trial Court.
11. In view of the above, the learned trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there
does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/688/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and
proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the
learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with
the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the
present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is
dismissed.
12. The judgment and the order passed by the learned 8th
(Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Sessions Case No.
03 of 2014 on 26.02.2015, Ahmedabad is hereby confirmed.
13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
