Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Savitaben W/O Babulal Madhavlal Patel on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAVITABEN W/O BABULAL MADHAVLAL PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHIT N PATEL(6045) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Appellate Court") in Criminal
Appeal No. 10/2010 on 19.10.2010, whereby, the learned
Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and order of
conviction passed by the learned Second Additional Senior
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabarkatha
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
at Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial
Court") in Criminal Case No. 2004 of 2003 on 30.12.2009.
1.1 The respondents were charged for the offence under
Sections 406, 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 120B, 494, 506(2) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and at the end of the trial, the
learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from
the offence under Sections 406, 416, 494 and 506(2) of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was pleased to convict the
accused for the offence under Section 420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence both the accused to
rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-
each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for 30 days for
the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine
of Rs. 500/- each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for
a period of seven days for the offence under Section 120B of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the
accused" in the rank and file as they stood in the original
case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 The complainant - Rajendrakumar Durgashankar
Joshi was aged 38 years and was physically challenged and
had difficulties for finding a marriage partner and had tried
on a number of occasions to get married and had come in
contact with the accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had
introduced the accused no. 2 as the President of Priyanka
Marriage Bureau and both the accused entered into a
criminal conspiracy and got the complainant married on
01.07.2002 to one Savitaben who a married woman and had
taken an amount of Rs. 45,000/- from the complainant for
the marriage. The accused in criminal conspiracy with each
other had cheated the complainant and hence, the
complainant filed a private complaint against six persons
before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Himmatnagar which came to be registered as Criminal
Inquiry No. 13 of the 2003. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate was pleased to pass an order under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sent the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
complaint for investigation to the Gambhoi Police Station
and at the end of the investigation a charge sheet came to
be filed against both the accused and three absconding
accused whose names were shown in column no. 2 of the
charge sheet which came to be registered as Criminal Case
No. 2004 of 2003.
2.2 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 at Exh. 34 was framed against the
accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at
Exhs. 35 and 36 wherein, the accused denied the contents
of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was
taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 8
documentary evidences on record in support of their case
and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the
closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
recorded. After the arguments of the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused
were heard, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit
the accused from the offence under Sections 406, 416, 494
and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was pleased to
convict the accused for the offence under Section 420 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence both the
accused to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of
Rs. 1000/- each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for
30 days for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and rigorous imprisonment of three
months and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven days for the offence
under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement
and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court,
the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 before the
Sessions Court Sabarkatha at Himmatnagar and after the
arguments of the parties were heard, the learned Session
Judge, Sabarkatha at Himmatnagar was pleased to allow
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
the appeal and acquit the accused from the offences under
Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by
the impugned judgement and order dated 19.10.2010.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence on record
and the learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the
fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing
adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The
case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the
prosecution has successfully established the case against
the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is
unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of
the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the
respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence
the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
5. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant
State and learned advocate Mr. Rohit Patel for the
respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of
acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and submitted that the complainant and witnesses
have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The
impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP
has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and
find the respondent guilty for the offences.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Rohit Patel for the respondents
has submitted that the Appellate Court has in a well
reasoned judgement discussed the entire evidence and has
appreciated the same in proper perspective and has
acquitted the respondents as there was no evidence and the
prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused
before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court did
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
not appreciate the evidence properly and the judgement and
order of conviction came to be passed but the learned
Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence and no
interference is required and hence, the appeal of the
appellants must be rejected.
8. On perusal of the evidence on record, the prosecution
has examined PW1 - Rajendrakumar Durgashankar Joshi
at Exh. 45 and the witness is the complainant who has
stated that he was married to Sangeetaben on 01.07.2002
and at the time of marriage, Sangeetaben had told him that
she was unmarried but she developed some problem and
the complainant had taken her to Dr. Dinesh Prajapati at
Himmatnagar where it was found that a family planning
operation had been performed on her and when they asked
her, she told them that she was not a Brahmin but she was
an Adivasi married woman and her husband was Shankar
Sevji Pandit and she had one child aged four years old. She
also stated that her name was not Sangeeta Maganbhai
Rawal but Savita Nasia Chaudhary and she was a resident
of village Lang, Taluka Mandvi, District Surat. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
complainant has produced the affidavit of Savitaben Nasia
Chaudhary at Exh. 49 admitting all these facts and this
document has been exhibited but the contents of the
documents have not been proved as there is no iota of
evidence that any person by the name of Savitaben Nasia
Chaudhary is in existence. If the charge sheet is perused,
the name of Savitaben Nasia Chaudhary appears in column
no. 2 of the charge sheet as an absconding accused but
during investigation there is no evidence found that any
such person was existing. The complainant has produced
the a divorce deed at Exh. 48 and if the deed produced at
Exh. 48 is perused, it is the divorce deed executed between
the complainant Rajendrakumar Durgashankar Joshi and
Sangeetaben Maganbhai Rawal. There is no iota of evidence
as to who this Sangeetaben Maganbhai Rawal was and
there is no evidence about the identity of Sangeetaben
Maganbhai Rawal.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Manjulaben
Durgashankar Joshi at Exh. 54 and the witness is the
mother of the complainant who has narrated the same facts
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
as stated in the complaint but in the cross examination has
admitted that they did not verify about the person to whom
the complainant had got married and nobody went to the
marriage bureau at Ahmedabad. That in the stamp paper,
an amount of Rs. 35,000/- is written and the marriage had
taken place in a very simple manner on 01.07.2002.
8.2 PW3 - Yashwantkumar Durgashankar Joshi examined
at Exh. 55 is the brother of the complainant and he has
signed the agreement which is produced at Exh. 47. The
witness has stated all the same facts as the complaint but
in his evidence, there is no evidence on record to show that
the accused were in fact involved in the marriage or that
the accused no. 2 was the President of Priyanka Marriage
Bureau.
8.3 PW4 - Kanubhai Girdharlal Rawal examined at Exh.
58 was known to the complainant and he too has
supported the facts as stated in the complaint but there is
no evidence on record that the accused were involved in
any way in the marriage.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
8.4 PW5 - Vamanbhai Shivkumar Dixit examined at Exh.
59 was the photographer who had taken the photographs of
the marriage of the complainant and the photographs are
produced on record but there is no identity of the person
with whom the marriage had taken place on record.
8.5 PW6 - Hariprasad Sankleshwar examined at Exh. 65
is the priest who had performed the marriage and in the
cross examination he has admitted that he does not
remember whether the school leaving certificates of the
bridge and bridegroom were produced.
8.6 PW7 - Maheshkumar Shivkumar Dixit examined at
Exh. 67 has also supported the facts of the complaint and
has identified that the amount of Rs. 35,000/- was written
on the document produced at Exh. 47. The witness has
witnessed the document at Exh. 47 but there is no evidence
on record that the amount of Rs. 35,000/- was taken by
any of the accused.
8.7 PW8 - Dr. Dineshbhai Jyotaram Prajapati examined at
Exh. 72 is the Medical Officer who has has examined
Sangeetaben Rajendrakumar Joshi on 06.02.2002 and had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
given the prescription which is produced at Exh. 73. The
witness has stated that when he had checked the patient, it
was found that a laparoscopy operation was performed on
her and he had treated the said Sangeetaben
Rajendrakumar Joshi.
8.8 PW9 - Kubsinh Phulsinh Zala examined at Exh. 75 is
the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet
against the accused after due investigation.
9. As per the case of the prosecution the complainant
who was 38 year old unmarried person was enthusiastic
about getting married and had met the accused no. 1 and
through her the accused no. 2 who was the President of
Priyanka Marriage Bureau. The documentary evidence on
record is the marriage registration of the complainant at
Exh. 46, an agreement at Exh. 47, the divorce deed at Exh.
48, affidavit of Savitaben Nasia Chaudhary at Exh. 49,
photographs at Exhs. 60, 61 and 62, the prescription of
Pooja Hospital at Exh. 73 and the order for investigation at
Exh. 76. The prosecution has not produced any
documentary evidence to show that any 'Priyanka Marriage
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
Bureau' was in existence and that the accused no. 2 was
the President or Managing Trustee of 'Priyanka Marriage
Bureau'. The complainant has thereafter stated that the
accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 45,000/- from
him and he had paid the amount and a deed to that effect
was executed which is produced at Exh. 47. If the
document produced at Exh. 47 is perused, it is a document
executed between Yashwantbhai Durgashankar Joshi and
Vinodbhai Maganbhai Rawal. The document states that the
marriage would be performed as per the Hindu marriage
rites between Rajendrakumar Durgashankar Joshi - the
brother of the first party Yashwantbhai Durgashankar
Joshi and Sangitaben Maganbhai Rawal - the sister of the
second party Vinodbhai Maganbhai Rawal on 01.07.2002
and an amount of Rs. 35,000/- had to be given to the
second party. This document does not mention the names
of the accused and is not signed by any of the accused or
the complainant. Hence, there is no evidence on record
regarding the amount of Rs. 45,000/- being taken by the
accused from the complainant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
9.1 On appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution it is on record that the complainant had filed a
private complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate against six accused and after due investigation
the charge sheet came to be filed against the present two
accused and three of the accused were shown as
absconding in the charge sheet. As per the complaint the
accused met the complainant on 28.06.2002 and the
marriage was fixed on 01.07.2002. On 06.09.2002, the
complainant took his wife i.e. the person with whom he had
entered into marriage on 01.07.2002 to PW8 - Dr. Dinesh
Jyotaram Prajapati as she was not well and he came to
know that he was cheated and thereafter, a divorce deed
produced at Exh. 48 was executed on 09.09.2002. The
complaint has been filed by the complainant on 18.02.2003
and there is a delay in filing the complaint which has not
been explained by the complainant. There is no iota of
evidence that the accused no. 2 was running any marriage
bureau and there is no evidence on record that the accused
had accepted the amount of Rs. 45,000/- from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
complainant. On minute appreciation of the entire
evidence, there is no evidence that the marriage had taken
place at the behest of the accused and no evidence of the
first marriage of the absconding accused Savitaben and as
to whether the person with whom the complainant had
entered into marriage was actually the said absconding
accused.
10. The learned Appellate 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 Appellate Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Appellate Court was
completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges
leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned
Appellate Court are absolutely just and proper and no
illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned
Appellate Court and this Court is in complete agreement
with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant
order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
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 impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at
Himmatnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 on
19.10.2010, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
