Gujarat High Court
Pratap @ Parbat Punja Bahdarkakoli vs State Of Gujarat on 30 June, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1861 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
PRATAP @ PARBAT PUNJA BAHDARKAKOLI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL N VAKIL(3556) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 30/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 374 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
"Cr.P.C.") is given to the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 13.10.2006 passed by the learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Sessions Case No.25 of
2006. The learned trial Court Judge convicted the accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 363 of IPC sentencing
him to two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine
and in default of payment of fine further one year rigorous
imprisonment and for the offence under Section 366 of IPC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in
default of payment of fine further three months rigorous
imprisonment. Both the punishments were ordered to run
concurrently.
2. The facts of the case, as could be drawn from the
judgment is that on 07.02.2006, P.S.I. - Virambhai C.Parmar
(P.W.11), Chorwad Police Station received a complaint by
Ramiben W/o. Ramabhai Devsi, resident of Khorasa (Gir) that
her minor daughter was kidnapped by the accused from the
lawful guardianship without any consent of the parents. The
FIR came to be registered as I-Cr.No.0007/2006. The incident
of kidnapping as alleged was dated 04.02.2006, the date of
birth was noted as 27.12.1990, hence accordingly, the age of
the victim girl on the date of the incident would be 15 years 1
month 8 days.
2.1 The case of the prosecution was that accused had an
intention to marry the victim, hence, on 04.02.2006, at about
8.00 at night when the victim girl was going to the pharmacist
to purchase medicine, the accused along with assistance of his
friend covered her face with Lungi, made her sit on the
motorcycle and took her to Khorasa to Indroe village, and had
made her to stay at a relative's house. On the next day, from
Veraval, he brought her to Ahmedabad and from Ahmedabad
he took the victim girl to Surat. The prosecution states that it
was against the will of the girl and was forcibly kidnapped
with an intention to marry, while the victim girl was not
interested in the marriage.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval N.Vakil for the appellant
submitted that the evidence has been recorded after a long
period, thus, the victim girl has not supported the case, while
she has stated before the police immediately when both of
them had presented themselves to the police, she was not
forced by the accused.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vakil submitted that there was no
case of any love affair, in fact, the victim girl was engaged to
be married with one Ramesh Bachu, as it was a forcible
engagement, therefore, she herself had taken the assistance
of the accused, who was a neighbour, where before the
accused she had stated that if she would be forcibly married
to Ramesh Bachu, she would commit suicide.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr. Vakil referring to the evidence of
P.S.I. (P.W.11) submitted that the P.S.I. had received the
complaint and had noted the statement of the victim herself
on 09.02.2006, as the victim girl and the accused both of them
had presented themselves and by recording the panchnama at
Exh.16 and 17, it was found that there was no case of any
rape and thereafter she was handed over to her father.
Advocate Mr. Vakil submitted that from the statement of the
victim, it got disclosed that she was engaged to be married to
Ramesh Bachu and as she was not willing to marry so she on
her own volition left the house. Advocate Mr. Vakil stated that
she had also informed before the police that she and accused
both had decided to get married. She has also stated before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
the police that since she was not ready to get married to the
person, Ramesh Bachu so, the parents rebuked her and she
was under depression and therefore, she started thinking of
committing suicide.
3.3 Learned advocate Mr. Vakil submitted that the P.S.I. has
also stated that the victim has given a statement before him
that on Wednesday at 2.30 to 3.00, she was alone at home, the
parents had gone out for work, at that time, the accused had
informed her to keep peace and not to commit suicide.
3.4 Advocate Mr. Vakil submitted that in fact, the accused
had protected the victim girl and had saved her from
committing suicide, he had no intention of inducing her to
compel for marriage. If that had been so, he would have
entered into physical relation. The evidence of victim itself
shows that the accused neither entered into any physical
relation nor he had committed any act, which would be
considered as outraging the modesty of the woman.
3.5 Learned advocate Mr. Vakil submitted that since after a
long time, the victim had turned a statement before the Court
and she has also stated that there was no love relation
between herself and the accused, and the evidence would
clarify that there was no intention of the accused to compel
her for marriage.
4. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt referring to
the statement of the victim girl stated that the evidence,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
which comes on record during the trial is required to be
noted. She has clarified that it was not the case that she was
not interested in her engagement with Ramesh Bachu. She
had denied of informing the accused that she was forcibly
engaged to be married and therefore, she had run away. Ms.
Bhatt stated that the act of the accused itself suggests that he
had forcibly taken the victim girl from the lawful guardianship
of the parents without any permission, as stated that, he had
covered her face with Lungi and his friend named Lakho was
along with the accused.
5. On perusal of the evidence it appears that contradiction
of the statements have been brought on record. The P.S.I. -
Virambhai C.Parmar (P.W.11) at Exh.31, had taken the
complant and had recorded the statement of the victim and
the accused, drawn the panchnama of the physical condition
of both the accused and the victim girl, and on recording the
statement of the victim, he did not find any case of rape and
thereafter, the custody of the girl was handed over to the
father.
5.1 The P.S.I. has stated about the statement of the
complainant as well as victim, which was recorded by him and
it was found from the statement of the victim and as recorded,
she was forced to be married to one Ramesh Bachu and she
was not willing to marry him and therefore, on her own left
the house. It also comes on record that she has confided to the
accused of her unwillingness to marry Ramesh Bachu and she
had also stated about her state of mind and that had caused
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
her to have the thoughts of suicide. The evidence, as recorded
by the P.S.I. also suggests that it was the accused, who had
pacified and assured her to see that she does not commit
suicide.
5.2 The evidence of the victim that she was forcibly taken
from the house, which she had not stated before the P.S.I.
immediately on producing herself before the police, and
further she stated that the accused had covered her face with
Lungi and thereafter she was taken on a vehicle with the
assistance of one Lakho of Januda village, does not get a
corroboration from the evidence of the mother, where the
mother states that one Bhupat Gokur had seen the victim girl
on the motorcycle going with the accused. If had the face of
the victim girl covered by the accused, then Bhupat Gokur
would not have identified her as the daughter of the
complainant.
5.3 The statement of the mother was also recorded by the
P.S.I. and before him, the mother had stated about asking
from the daughter the cause of leaving the house, she had
informed that she was not ready to marry Ramesh Bachu, with
whom she was engaged to be married and therefore, she had
run away with the accused. She had also informed the mother
that the accused had neither treated badly nor harassed her
physically. Therefore, the mother after making her understand
and assuring her that she would be made to marry wherever
she wants to, and on that condition she became ready to join
the parents.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
6. It appears from both the statement, which was given
before the police by the victim and mother, has not supported
the same in the chief-examination. The facts suggest that
marriage with Ramesh Bachu has not taken place. There is no
case of any force, though the victim girl had stated of accused
taking her on a motorcycle by covering her face with Lungi
does not get support from the evidence of the mother, who
was informed by one Bhupat Gokur of seeing the girl on
motorcycle. If Bhupat Gokur could identify the girl, the very
fact is clear that her face was not covered. The immediate act
of the accused with the victim girl also gets clear that he has
not misused the liberty, he has not committed any forcible act
on the victim girl. The evidence of the P.S.I., who was the first
person to meet the accused and the victim girl, is required to
be believed, which clarifies that she on her her own free will
has joined the accused, rather the facts of the case suggest
that she had taken the help of accused and the accused to
ensure that the victim girl may not commit suicide, he had
probably taken her into a protective wings to see that the
victim girl does not take her life.
7. The learned trial Court Judge has not taken this fact into
consideration of the evidence of P.S.I., who has verified from
the victim girl as well as the complainant mother and those
facts have become clear that the victim girl had gone on her
own free will. There is no case of kidnapping from the lawful
guardianship and the act of the accused itself clarifies that
such kidnapping was not with an intent to compel her to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1861/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2025
undefined
marry the accused against her will. There is no any case of
any force or seduction for illicit intercourse. The prosecution
has failed to prove that the accused abducted the woman with
an intent to compel her to marry against her will or to force or
to seduce her to illicit intercourse.
8. It appears that the complainant and the victim girl have
not supported their own statements before the P.S.I. to see
that her dignity remains intact, as her engagement with
Ramesh Bachu did not get finalized into marriage. Before the
police, she had very categorically stated that since she was
forced to be married with Ramesh Bachu, therefore, packing
her clothes she left the house and on the way she had seen the
accused and on her own volition she sat on the motorcycle.
The conviction and sentence, as ordered against the accused
is harsh and contrary to the evidence on record. No case is
made out under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC for conviction
and sentence.
9. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
13.10.3006 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Veraval in Sessions Case No.25 of 2006 is set aside.
The accused stands acquitted. Registry is directed to send the
Record and Proceedings back to the Trial Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/12
