Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandraprakash Bhagvatiprasad on 24 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 916 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
===============================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
===============================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHANDRAPRAKASH BHAGVATIPRASAD
===============================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot
(hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Trial Court') in Sessions
Case No. 14 of 2008 dated 16.03.2012, whereby, the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the respondent - accused from the offences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). The respondent is hereinafter
referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the rank and file in the
original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. On 01.11,2007 before 14:30hours, the accused abducted
the minor daughter of the complainant and enticed her on the
phone to get married and abducted her from the custody of the
complainant, who was her father and took her to village Pindrai,
Taluka Dhimarkheda, District Katani, State of Madhya Pradesh, in
the Jabalpur bus and kept the victim illegally at his place till
24.11.2007. The complainant filed the complaint before the
Gandhigram Police Station under sections 363 and 366 of the IPC,
which came to be registered at Gandhigram Police Station
I-.C.R.No. 415 of 2007.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be
filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions therefore, after
completion of 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. 14 of 2008.
2.3. 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
to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A
charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.6 and the
statement of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused
denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the
prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 6
witnesses and has produced 11 documentary evidence in support
of the case.
2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP at Exh.55, the further statement of the accused under Section
313 of the Code were recorded. After hearing the arguments of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
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, has acquitted the accused for the
offence.
3. 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
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 was fully supported
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
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.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant -
State. Though served, the respondent no. 1 has not appear either in
person or has not engaged a lawyer. Perused the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
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.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present
case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the
Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against
acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power
exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one
significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered
with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is
based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It
will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind
that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and
the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it
decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the
decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied)
........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following
general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing
with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;]
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of ac-
quittal 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 cir-
cumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes',
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an ap-
pellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phrase-
ologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language'
to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to in-
terfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
Court to review the evidence and to come to its own con-
clusion.
(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 avail-
able 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 acquit-
tal, the presumption of his innocence is further rein-
forced, 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.
7. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
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
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.
8. PW-1 Bhimabhai Vibhabhai at Exh.25 and the witness
is the complainant, who has stated that on 01.11.2007, he was at his
shop in the afternoon and he went home and found that his minor
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
daughter aged 16 years and 10 months was not present. His other
children were present and on inquiring from them, he was told
that she had gone for tuitions. That on the next day, he informed
the police and inquired at the house of Gangdasbhai and
Gangdasbhai told him on the mobile that Deepakbhai had called
from Madhya Pradesh and the phones were made to Shersinh,
who was working as a security person at 'Dhanraj Complex'. On
inquiry, he was told that Chandraprakash was asking him as to
whether the photographs of him and the victim had come in the
newspapers. The complaint was filed on 16.11.2007 against the
accused, which is produced at Exh.26. In the cross-examination,
the witness has admitted that he does not know with whom his
daughter had eloped and he did not have any conversation with
Deepakbhai about the person with whom his daughter had
eloped. He came to know from Shersinh, the security person that
his daughter had gone with the accused and the birth of his
daughter was registered at Rajkot Municipal Corporation. That
when his daughter had returned, he was handed over her custody
and she was married in their community.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
8.1. The victim i.e. the minor daughter of the complainant,
has been examined as PW-3 at Exh.35 and she has stated that she
knew the accused and was talking to him and he had taken her to
some place, but she does not know the name of the place. That she
returned to Rajkot and informed the police. During the cross-
examination, the victim has admitted that she is at her father's
place since she returned to Rajkot and while she was at the
accused place at his home town, she used to talk to her parents on
the mobile phone and they were aware that she was at Madhya
Pradesh. That after the incident, she is married in her community
and has one daughter.
8.2. PW-2 Rakeshbhai Maganbhai Khunt examined at
Exh.27 is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama produced at
Exh.28, but the witness has not supported the case of the
prosecution and has been declared hostile.
8.3. PW-4 Dr. Hansaben Laljibhai Kachhadiya examined at
Exh.37 is the Medical Officer, who has conducted the medical
examination of the victim and the witness has stated that on
25.11.2007, the victim was brought to her for medical examination
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
at about 3.30pm and in the history, the victim had stated that she
was in love with the accused for the past 3½ months and of her
own free will, she had gone to Jabalpur with the accused on
01.11.2007 and stayed with him. On 19.11.2007, of her own free
will, she had got married in the Court at Katani District, and
thereafter, on 20.11.2007, with her consent, she had physical
relations with the accused. The witness has narrated in detail that
she had examined the victim and has produced the medical
certificate of the victim at Exh.39. During the cross-examination,
the witness has admitted that no Ossification Test was done and
there were no marks of injury on the private parts of the victim.
The witness has stated that in the police yadi, there was no
mention about any age-related test to be conducted and the victim
was physically fully developed.
8.4. PW5 Gangdasbhai Popatbhai Jograna examined at
Exh.41 has stated that the complainant, Bhimbbhai Vibhabhai
Jograna had told him on the phone that his daughter has gone
away and they looked for the daughter and he is known to the
accused. The complainant had told him that his daughter had gone
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
towards Madhya Pradesh and they had informed the Gandhigram
Police Station later on. In the cross examination, the witness has
stated that the victim had gone off from her home and as she was
not found, the complaint had been filed.
8.5. PW-6 Mithabhai Kalidas Parmar examined at Exh.43 is
the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure
undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross-examination,
the witness has stated that the victim had filed an affidavit at the
time of her marriage at Katani District in Madhya Pradesh and had
shown her age to be 19 years, but he had not recorded the
statement of the advocate or the notary, before whom, the affidavit
was sworn. That no Ossification Test was done and he did not
recover the birth certificate of the victim, but has produced the
School Leaving Certificate of the victim at Exh.45.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, there is no evidence regarding the age of the victim
on record and the evidence that has emerged is that when the
complainant came to know from Shersinh, who was working as a
security person at 'Dhanraj Complex' that his daughter and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
accused had gone towards Madhya Pradesh, but the said Shersinh
has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. In the
evidence, particularly in the history given before the Medical
Officer, it has come on record that the victim had gone willingly
with the accused and even in her statement before the
investigating officer, she has stated that she was in love with the
accused and had gone with him of her own free will. The affidavit
of marriage, which was sworn by the victim at the time of her
marriage with the accused at Katni District, has not come on
record, but in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it has come
on record that at that time, she had stated her age to be 19 years. In
the entire evidence, there is no iota of evidence that the accused
had, in any way, enticed the victim or had taken her to Madhya
Pradesh and the learned Trial Court has discussed all the evidence
in detail.
10. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/916/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
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
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.
11. The judgment and the order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2008
dated 16.03.2012 is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S.KAZI.....
