Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rekha @ Kajal Dipika Udesang Rajput on 2 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 72 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
REKHA @ KAJAL DIPIKA UDESANG RAJPUT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,8
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 02/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS)
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 11/10/2012
passed in Sessions Case No.142 of 2008 on the file of the
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar whereby the
respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges for the
offences punishable under Sections 366, 370, 371, 417, 418,
419 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the offences
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act, 1956.
2. As per the complaint of the complainant Shaileshbhai
Rupabhai Makwana, on 08/10/2006 or prior to that, the
present respondents along with absconding accused Babubhai
Kashiram and Urmilaben Ghanshyambhai hatched conspiracy
with each other and thereby induced and enticed away
accused no.1 and kept with them as slave. It is further the
case of the prosecution that respondents accused by taking
the complainant Shaileshbhai in confidence and identifying
accused no.1 as Rekhaben, made marriage of them by
accepting Rs.75,000/- and after a period of 19 days, she was
brought back. Thereafter, while complainant has gone to
bring his wife Rekhaben, she was not sent along with the
complainant under one or another reason and identifying
accused no.1 as Kajalben, made marriage of accused no.1
with one Sunilbahi. Thereafter, the complainant came to
know that the accused persons by identifying accused no.1 in
different names and by getting her married are doing the
business of prostitution. Thus, all the accused persons, with
the help of each other, by hatching conspiracy, have cheated
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the complainant and, therefore, the complaint for the offences
punishable under Sections 366, 370, 371, 417, 418, 419, 420
and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and the offences
punishable under Sections 4,5 and 9 of the Immoral
Trafficking (Prevention) Act was lodged and the same was
registered as I-C.R.No.37 of 2007. It was investigated and on
completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before
the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vallabhipur for
the aforesaid offences against the accused which was
numbered as Criminal Case No.134 of 2007. As the case was
exclusively triable by the learned sessions division, the same
was made over to the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhavnagar.
3. In the trial court, the charges for the aforesaid offences
were framed against the accused. Charges were read over to
the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to
be tried. As one of the accused i.e. accused no.7 namely
Ghanshyambhai Bapulal Rana has died on 24/04/2008, the
case against the said accused abated.
4. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
examined PW-1 to PW-13 witnesses and got marked 17
exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, further
statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
was recorded with regard to incriminating circumstances
made in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they
have denied it and not lead any evidence in defense. Further,
accused no.1 stated that she was legally wedded with the
complainant and the due to mental and physical harassment
of the complainant, they got divorced orally as well as on
stamp paper of R.20/- and thereafter she got married with
Sunilbhai and she has not committed any offence as alleged.
6. At the end of the trial, after considering the evidence on
record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found
the accused not guilty for the aforesaid offences and
acquitted them of the said charges.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the
State has preferred the present appeal challenging the
legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
8. When the appeal came up for hearing, we have heard
learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant-State.
Despite service of notice, respondents did not turn up for
hearing, for the reasons best known to them. As it is an old
appeal of the year 2013, listed under the caption "critically
old matters" for final hearing, we are not inclined to adjourn
the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, we have decided to go
through the record and dispose of the appeal on merits and
the material available on record.
9. We have heard learned APP at length on facts and on
provisions of law. Learned APP submitted the facts of the
charges levelled against the respondents accused and
referred the oral and documentary evidence produced during
the trial and vehemently argued that accused no.1 namely
Rekhaben @ Kajalben got married with the complainant. It is
further submitted that other co-accused kidnapped accused
no.1 Rekhaben @ Kajalben and got married with the
complainant and snatched Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter, accused
no.1 ran away from the house of the complainant and accused
no.1 re-married with PW-9 Sunilbhai Nagindas Kothari. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
further submitted that other co-accused dragged accused no.1
in business of prostitution. Learned APP submitted at length
the facts and ingredients of the charges levelled against the
respondents-accused and vehemently argued that the learned
trial court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence and
required to interfere in the impugned judgment.
10. We have deeply scrutinized the prosecution evidence,
impugned judgment and considered the arguments of learned
APP.
11. It appears from the ocular evidence of the prosecution
witnesses that the prosecution has failed to prove the
important facts that the other co-accused dragged accused
no.1 in the business of prostitution and also not proved the
facts that the co-accused depends on the activity of the
prostitution. The Investigating Officer admitted the facts that
the accused are not caught red handed and no any raid was
conducted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Here, it is required to reproduce the provision of Section
14(iii) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 which reads
as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
"14. Offences to be cognizable. - Notwithstanding
anything contained in [the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 92 of 1974)], any offence punishable under this Act
shall be deemed to be cognizable offence within the
meaning of that Code:
(iii) any police officer not below the rank of [sub-
inspector] specially authorized by the special
police officer may, if he has reason to believe that
on account of delay involved in obtaining the order
of the special police officer, any valuable evidence
relating to any offence under this Act is likely to be
destroyed or concealed, or the person who has
committed or is suspected to have committed the
offence is likely to escape, or if the name and
address of such a person is unknown or there is
reason to suspect that a false name or address has
been given, arrest the person concerned without
such order, but in such a case he shall report, as
soon as may be, to the special police officer the
arrest and the circumstances in which the arrest
was made."
12. From plain reading of the above provisions, it appears
that the prosecution has not produced any documentary
evidence to prove the facts that the Investigating Officer is
appointed as a Special Police Officer to investigate the
offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
13. It appears from the record that the prosecution has
failed to prove the ingredients of alleged offences under
Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and no iota of evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
produced on record and also not produced the evidence to
prove the fact that accused no.1 is slave and not produced any
evidence to prove the charges about the sale, purchase,
export, import or transportation of the slaves.
14. It appears from the record that A-1 is legally wedded
with the complainant. The complainant admitted the fact that
A-1 left the house with two pairs of clothes, anklet and chain.
In further statement of A-1, explanation about dissolution of
first marriage with the complainant and thereafter marriage
was solemnized with PW-9, Sunilbahi Nagindas Kothari on
07/02/2007 is made out.
15. It is required to be noted that during the recording of
the further statement/explanation of A-1 under Section 313 of
the Criminal Procedure, she has clearly stated the fact of her
divorce with the complainant.
16. Considering overall evidence as aforesaid, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations
levelled against the respondents-accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/72/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
17. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, the trial court arrived at a right
conclusion and acquitted the accused. Upon re-appraisal of
the said evidence, we are also of the view that no case is made
out for any of the charges against the accused. So the
impugned judgment of the trial court cannot be disturbed and
it warrants any interference in this appeal. So, the appeal fails
and liable to be dismissed.
18. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment of the acquittal of the trial court. Bail bond of the
accused, if any, shall stand discharged.
19. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the
concerned court.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
