Gujarat High Court
Raval Pinalben Bharatbhai vs Jitendrakumar @ Jitubhai @ Kalabhai ... on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/903/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 903 of 2025
==========================================================
RAVAL PINALBEN BHARATBHAI
Versus
JITENDRAKUMAR @ JITUBHAI @ KALABHAI RAVAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.JAY S SHAH(7244) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal
dated 17/02/2025 passed in Sessions Case No.83 of 2023
came up before us today for admission.
2. We have hared learned counsel for the appellant at
length. We have perused the grounds of appeal and the copy
of the judgment of the trial court and the material available on
record furnished in the paper-book by the learned counsel for
the appellant.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/903/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
3. The victim is a major and aged about 22 years and she is
a grown up woman. She is also a married woman. The first
respondent who is the sole accused in the said case is her
relative. He is the husband of the younger sister of her
mother and he is aged about 39 years. As per the allegations
ascribed in the FIR, the accused committed rape on her twice
earlier and thereafter after she was married and when all the
family members went to Mount Abu that they all have taken
alcohol drink and when her husband was unconscious and in
intoxicated state that the accused came to her room and had
forcible sexual intercourse with her. The said incident took
place on 04/02/2023. It is stated that when they were
indulged in sexual intercourse in the said room that her
husband suddenly came into consciousness and has seen both
of them i.e. the prosecutrix and the accused indulging in
sexual intercourse. Thereafter, after three months i.e. on
26/05/2023, the FIR came to be lodged.
4. During the course of investigation, the statement of the
prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C') before the learned
Magistrate at the instance of the Investigating Officer. In her
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/903/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
statement given before the learned Magistrate under Section
164 Cr.P.C she has categorically stated that she had a love
affair with the accused for the last six years prior to the date
of recording the said statement.
5. At the culmination of the trial, while appreciating the
evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found that the
prosecutrix is a major aged about 22 years and she is a
married woman and her evidence given in the court that the
accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her is not correct
as she admitted in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement that she
had a love affair with the accused for the last six years and as
such the trial court held that if at all there is any such sexual
intercourse between both of them that it is a case of consent
and that the sexual intercourse took place with her consent
and there is no offence of rape committed on her. Therefore,
the trial court recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the
accused.
6. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record
and particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix and her
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and the medical evidence on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/903/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
record. Upon re-appraisal of the said evidence on record, we
absolutely do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the finding
of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Admittedly the
prosecutrix is a major and a grown up woman of 22 years.
The accused is a married man aged about 39 years. He is
none other than the husband of the younger sister of the
mother of the prosecutrix. She maintained an affair with him.
When earlier there was a sexual intercourse between both of
them twice, she did not inform about the incident to any one
stating that the accused has committed rape on her.
Thereafter she was married. Even after her marriage again
she indulged in sexual intercourse with the accused when
they all went to Mount Abu when her husband was in an
unconscious state on account of taking alcohol drink. When
her husband got consciousness and he found both of them
indulging in sexual intercourse, their illegal affair was
divulged to the husband and his family members. Thereafter
the husband has discarded the prosecutrix. After the husband
discarded her, the evidence of the prosecutrix show that at
the instance of her father that she lodged the FIR by force.
These facts clearly show that the prosecutrix had an illegal
affair with a married person who is in prohibited relationship
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/903/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
with her being the husband of the younger sister of her
mother. It clearly shows that the prosecutrix has indulged in
the acts of promiscuity. So, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said under any stretch
of reasoning that an offence of rape was committed on her or
there was any sexual intercourse committed forcibly on her.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended
before us that when the prosecutrix is in the fiduciary
relationship with the accused if there is any sexual
intercourse between both of them that it still amounts to
commission of offence of rape punishable under Section
376(C) of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The said
contention is misconceived and it is absolutely devoid of any
merit. She is not in the custody of the accused and the
accused has no control over her so as to say that there was
any fiduciary relation between them. As noticed supra, she
was living with her parents before her marriage and she was
in their custody and control and thereafter she was in the
custody of her husband and she was in his control. So, when
the accused had no relation of any trust where he is legally
bound to act in the best interest of the prosecutrix, it cannot
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/903/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
be said that there is any fiduciary relationship between both
of them as contended by learned counsel for the appellant.
Therefore, no case under Section 376(C) of the IPC is also
made out from the facts of the case as contended.
8. As the impugned judgment of acquittal of the trial court
is perfectly sustainable under law, it warrants no interference
in this appeal. We absolutely do not find any valid legal
ground even to admit the appeal for hearing. The facts of the
case show that the prosecutrix has launched the prosecution
against the accused by grossly abusing the process of law.
Therefore the appeal is dismissed summarily under Section
425 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
