Gujarat High Court
Arunaben Manishankar Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1714
of 2025
=================================================
ARUNABEN MANISHANKAR PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 29/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY)
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 12.05.2025
passed in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli, whereby, the respondent No. 2
who is the sole accused in the said case, was acquitted of the charges
levelled against him for the offences punishable under Sections 354,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
506(2) and 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 - State.
3. We have called for the R&P and we have gone through the
appeal grounds and the copy of the judgment of the trial Court which
is impugned in this appeal and the R&P and the evidence on record,
carefully.
4. This appeal is preferred by the victim. According to her
version, she is an employee working as an Anganwadi Worker in an
Anganwadi Center. On 03.10.2017, while she was on duty working
in the Anganwadi Center at about 1:30 p.m. in the afternoon that the
accused came to the office and when she was in the office that he
has sexually assaulted her by putting his hand in her blouse and
inserted his finger into her vagina and when she raised shouts that
the accused threatened to kill her and also threatened that he will not
allow her to do her job and thereafter, he fled away from the office.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
It is stated that immediately she informed about the incident to her
colleague by name Bhavnaben over telephone and thereafter, she has
lodged the report with the police. But the police did not take any
action though promised to take action. So, she approached the DSP
and he assured to take action and as there was no action, that after
waiting for some time, she lodged the report with the police again on
25.10.2017 and the said report was registered as a case for the
aforesaid offences and it was investigated. Thereafter, the police
laid the Charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.
4.1 In the trial Court, after the accused made his appearance,
charges for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506(2) and
376(2)(b) of the IPC were framed against the accused. The same
were explained to him and he denied the said charges and claimed to
be tried.
4.2 In the trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-6
witnesses and got marked eight documents to substantiate its case
against the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
4.3 The accused also examined defence witnesses as DW-1 to
DW-4 and he also got marked four documents in support of his case.
4.4 At the culmination of trial, after considering the evidence on
record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court did not find
the accused guilty for the aforesaid charges and acquitted him of all
the charges by the impugned judgment.
5. According to the version of the prosecutrix, the offence took
place during the day time at 1:30 p.m. and that too, in her office in
the Anganwadi Center. Though, it is stated that she was alone in the
office at that time, the same is not believable. She admitted in her
cross-examination that it was a working day. So, when it is a public
office and when it is a working day, it cannot be said that she was
alone when the alleged offence took place. Further, admittedly the
accused is not her office colleague or working in the said office. So,
he is a stranger to the employees of the said office. It is unbelievable
to say that he entered the office on a working day during working
hours and committed the offence of sexual assault against the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
prosecutrix in the office.
5.1 Though, it is stated by the prosecutrix that immediately after
the incident she has informed about the same to PW-4 who is her
office colleague over phone, PW-4 did not support the said version
and she denied the same. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove
that she has informed about the occurrence of the incident
immediately to any of her superior officers or to her office
colleagues. If really any such incident which is serious in nature has
taken place in making a sexual assault against a woman employee in
the office during office hours, the immediate response or natural
conduct of any woman employee would be to report about the
incident to the superior officers in the office or to her office
colleagues. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that she has
informed about the same to her superior officers or to her office
colleagues. So, this makes her version not only doubtful but proves
it to be false.
5.2 In her cross-examination, she stated that when the accused has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
kept his hand in her blouse and inserted his finger in her vagina that
she was wearing a Saree and blouse on that day and again she has
prevaricated from the said statement and stated that she was in her
uniform. So, it clearly shows that her evidence that the accused
came to the office and sexually assaulted her by putting his hand in
her blouse and inserting finger in her vagina, is absolutely false. She
admitted in her cross-examination that her clothes were not torn and
she did not sustain any injury in the said incident. If really, a
stranger enters the office and puts his hand in her blouse and inserts
his finger in her vagina by force, definitely, there would be some
resistance on the part of the de facto complainant and in the said
process, there would be some rupture and possibility of tearing
clothes etc. Nothing of like nature happened as admitted by her. If
really she has raised shouts when accused assaulted her, her office
colleagues and others in the surroundings would gather there and
apprehend the accused. It is in the evidence that the said office is
surrounded by other public offices. So, her office is in a public
place. She admitted that there is a temple adjacent to her office and
there are shops and residential houses adjacent to her office. So,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
definitely, people would have gathered if she raised shouts at that
time. So, when her evidence is subjected to probability test, her
evidence fails to stand to the said test.
5.3 Another important anomaly in the case to be noticed is that the
incident took place on 03.10.2017 and the FIR was lodged by her on
25.10.2017 with an inordinate delay of 22 days. The explanation
offered by her is not found to be satisfactory. It is stated that as the
police did not take action even though assured to take action, that
she approached the DSP who also assured to take action and she
waited for some time and thereafter, lodged the report. But, nothing
is emanating from the record to show that the delay has taken place
due to the said reason. Therefore, this unreasonable and abnormal
delay in lodging the FIR makes her version highly suspect and false
implication of the accused cannot be ruled out in the given facts and
circumstances of the case. Further, the accused pleaded that there is
a motive for her to implicate him in a false case. We are not inclined
to go deep into the said aspect as the very substratum of the case of
the prosecutrix is not found to be true from the above discussion and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
the evidence on record. There are several omissions in the FIR. She
admitted that she did not state in the FIR that the accused used to
often come to her office and that he is used to threaten her.
5.4 PW-1 and PW-2 are only the Panch witnesses of Scene of
Offence Observation Report, PW-4 is the colleague, who turned
hostile, PW-5 is the ASI who recorded the Statement and the PW-6
is the IO. No witness from the office whose presence would be
natural and probable at the time of incident was examined in this
case. So, non-examination of material witness from the office is
fatal to the case of the prosecution. No explanation is forthcoming
for withholding the material evidence of the office employees. So,
adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is
to be drawn and the inference is that, if they are examined, their
evidence would be unfavourable to the case of the prosecution.
5.5 Therefore, the trial Court, after considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, has rightly recorded a finding of acquittal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
in favour of the accused. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity
in the impugned judgment of acquittal. After considering the said
evidence and on reappraisal of the same, we find several infirmities
in the evidence of the prosecutrix whose sole testimony is available
in this case, which makes her testimony wholly unreliable. When
her evidence suffers from several legal infirmities, it is unsafe to
place reliance on her testimony without corroboration to her
testimony from other independent source relating to the material
particulars of the case. Therefore, the impugned judgment of
acquittal is perfectly sustainable under law and it calls for no
interference in this appeal. No valid ground is made out even to
admit the appeal for hearing. After perusing the R&P and the
evidence, the appeal grounds and the copy of the impugned
judgment of the trial Court, we are of the considered view that the
appeal is liable to be rejected summarily under Section 425 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1714/2025 ORDER DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
6. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. R&P
be returned to the trial Court, forthwith.
[ Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. ]
[ D. M. Vyas, J. ]
hiren/3tss29725
