Gujarat High Court
Anand Chhanabhai Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 935 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
ANAND CHHANABHAI THAKOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HD CHUDASAMA(234) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JM BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHANKUMAR RAVAL, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 16.4.2004 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court,
Ahmedabad in Sessions Case no.45 of 2003 by the
appellant - accused, aged about 21 years. The sentence
under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is
three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default of payment of fine, two months simple
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
imprisonment, for the offence punishable under Section
366 of the IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three
months simple imprisonment and for the offence
punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, seven years
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of
payment of fine, three months simple imprisonment were
imposed.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Chudasama for the appellant has
submitted that it was totally a case of love affair. The
learned Judge has noted the age of the victim as 16 years.
The incident was of 14.10.2002, where it was alleged that
the appellant had abducted the victim. Mr. Chudasama
has submitted that the photographs show that there was
no force exerted by the appellant who was aged about 21
years. It was a consensual relation and the prosecutrix on
her own had eloped with the accused and such an
observation is also being made by the learned Judge that
the relation was consensual in nature.
3. Mr. Rohankumar Raval, learned APP has submitted that
though there has been settlement between the parties, but
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the offence has been committed, which has resulted into
conviction and sentence and hence, states that no
concession can be granted on the settlement between the
parties.
4. The victim girl had come before this Court on 25.6.2025 to
state that she has already married and settle with her
husband and she is having two children. She stated that
just because the parents were against her marriage, trial
was conducted and stated that thereafter, now after a
period of 23 years, she does not want any further
proceedings of the matter which would effect her own
matrimonial life. This Court therefore had asked the
prosecutrix to put the said fact on affidavit. Hence, today,
learned advocate Mr. Buddhbhatti has produced an
affidavit of the victim lady which is affirmed before the
notary on 25.6.2025. Considering the age of the appellant
as well as the victim girl at the time of offence and the
relation was consensual in nature and when both the
parties have settled in their matrimonial life, the request is
required to be considered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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 v. State of Chhattisgarh in
Criminal Appeal no.41 of 2021, the conviction was under
Sections 366, 376 of the IPC. The victim was 15 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. In the present matter, the prosecutrix on her own volition
has urged the Court to set aside the conviction and
sentence, which has been passed against the appellant.
She has reaffirmed in the affidavit that it was a love affair
and she was 16 years old at the time of the FIR and she
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/935/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
does not want to pursue with the matter.
8. The learned Trial Court had considered the consensual
relations between the parties. The age of the victim was
noted as 16 years. It is also further to place on record that
incident is of 14.10.2002 prior to coming into force of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
when both the parties have settled in their life with their
own matrimonial relation, this Court considers that the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence is required
to be set aside.
9. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 16.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case
no.45 of 2003 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
