Gujarat High Court
Ranjitsinh Rajendrasinh Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2095/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2095 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RANJITSINH RAJENDRASINH CHAUHAN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UMARFARUK M KHARADI(8155) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Mr. Kharadi relying upon the judgment
of Shriram Urav v. State of Chhattisgarh in Criminal
Appeal no.41 of 2021 and the affidavit of the victim-Nita
wife of Ranjitsinh Rajendrasinh Chauhan and daughter of
Kanjibhai Joitabhai Prajapati, aged 38 years, has
submitted that the appellant and the victim are in
matrimonial relation. They have already married and out of
cohabitation, they have two children, the elder son aged 22
and daughter is aged 19 years. Mr. Kharadi has placed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2095/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
reliance on the school leaving certificate of both the
children.
2. The affidavit of the victim is supported by Aadhar Card in
which her name is shown as Chauhan Nitaba and as wife
of Ranjitsinh and residing at Virpur, Sabarkantha,
Himmatnagar, Gujarat.
3. The facts of the case suggest that the complaint was filed
by the father. The victim had stated before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar on 20.8.2004 that
on knowing that her parents had filed a complaint, she and
the appellant both appeared before the Himmatnagar Town
Police Station. She had stated that she on her own volition
had joined the appellant and after four months, they have
appeared before the police. She stated that she had
married the appellant by customery way. Both were
arrested. She was not willing to go and stay with the
parents and therefore, was sent to Nari Sanrakshan Gruh.
During that period, she had given birth to the elder son.
She had stated before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
that she wanted to stay with her husband. She has
referred to the appeal filed by the husband. Yesterday i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2095/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
on 23.6.2025, the victim lady had appeared with her
daughter and the appellant and had affirmed that whatever
she has stated in the affidavit is true and they are happily
married. The complaint came to be filed since the parents
were against the marriage.
4. Mr. Raval, learned APP has submitted that though the
settlement has been arrived and though the appellant and
the victim are staying together with the family, the offence
is required to be punished and thus, submitted that the
judgment of the learned Trial Court is required to be
affirmed.
5. In the case of K. Dhandapani v. State By the Inspector of
Police, 2022 (0) JX (SC) 522, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had referred to the provisions of the POCSO Act and taking
into consideration the subsequent event of happy marriage
life and having two children and in light of the
circumstances, the conviction and sentence was set aside
without establishing the legal precedent.
6. In the case of Shriram Urav (supra), the conviction was
under Sections 366, 376 of the IPC. The victim was 15
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2095/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
years of age and keeping in mind that the appellant -
accused subsequently married with the prosecutrix and
they have four children out of the wedlock, under the
peculiar facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court exercised the jurisdiction and quashed the
conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.
7. Here too, the whole case suggest that the prosecutrix was
willing person to stay with the appellant from the very
beginning. The age of the prosecutrix at the relevant point
of time was 16 years and 5 months. She after eloping with
the appellant on her own free will had never joined the
parents, rather she preferred to stay in Nari Sanrakshan
Gruh and as per her say, she had married the appellant
and during her stay at Nari Sanrakshan Gruh, she gave
birth to the first child. This Court has verified from the
daughter too that all of them are staying happily with the
family and residing together.
8. Taking into consideration the fact and the circumstances,
this Court is of the opinion that if the appellant is made to
suffer the sentence, then it would disturb the future of the
family and the children, where from the very beginning, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2095/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
case is of the consent and further the act as stated is of
22.11.2002 is prior to coming into force of POCSO Act and
when both the children are progressing in their own field
for the betterment of their life and the happiness of the
family, the judgment dated 25.9.2003 passed by the Fast
Track Court, Himmatnagar in Sessions Case no.70 of 2003
for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and
376 of the IPC is quashed and set aside. The appellant is
acquitted from all the charges. The appeal is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
