Gujarat High Court
Rabari Vishnubhai Karshanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 4 September, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1007/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1007 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
RABARI VISHNUBHAI KARSHANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SONAL D VYAS(999) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN KUMAR RAVAL APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Learned advocate Ms. Sonal D.Vyas for the
appellant submitted that the appeal has been
filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to
challenge the judgment of conviction dated
31.01.2008 under Section 363 of I.P.C., which was
passed against only one accused out of nine, who
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1007/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
all faced the trial under Sections 363, 366 and
365 read with Section 114 of I.P.C.
1.1 The sentence against the present appellant
- Rabari Vishnubhai Karshanbhai was of three
years simple imprisonment and Rs.1500/- fine and
in default of payment of fine to suffer further
three months simple imprisonment.
2. Learned advocate Ms. Vyas submitted that the
learned Judge while passing the order itself has
noted that the accused had married the victim and
out of the wedlock, they are having a child. Ms.
Vyas submitted that it was not a case of rape and
all the family members were acquitted. Further
stated that the age of the victim girl could not
be proved at the time of offence, alleged to be
on 02.08.2006 and the judgment of the learned
Judge was on 31.01.2008, and prior to that the
accused and the victim girl had performed the
marriage on 27.01.2007, and at present they are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1007/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
having two children aged about 18 years and 10
years.
2.1 Advocate Ms. Vyas has referred to the
affidavit of wife of the appellant, who was noted
to be victim at the relevant time. Ms. Vyas
submitted that the age of the victim at that time
could not be proved, however, it was urged that
at the time of the incident, the victim was aged
about 18 years.
3. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Kumar Raval submitted
that though the victim has filed affidavit, but
the offence is not compoundable and therefore,
submitted that the affidavit should not be
considered for acquittal of the accused.
4. Learned Judge has convicted the present
appellant under Section 363 of I.P.C. finding
that there was kidnapping of the victim girl.
However, the conviction did not follow for
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1007/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
Section 365 I.P.C. of any wrongful confinement.
The observation of the learned Judge noted the
date of birth and considered the victim girl
below 18 years. However, the fact, as could be
noted that the victim on her own volition had
joined the company of the accused, as noted in
the case of S. Varadrajan Vs. State of Madras,
AIR 1965 SC 942, wherein it is observed that,
where the facts indicate that a girl left her
father's protection, knowing and having capacity
to know the full import of what she was doing and
voluntarily joined the accused, the offence of
kidnapping cannot be said to have been made out.
5. The facts of the case suggest that other
eight accused were acquitted and the victim girl
on her own volition had joined the company of the
accused. The affidavit of the victim girl, which
is supported by copy of Aadhar Card, who is now
aged about 36 years, notes that they had legally
married on 27.01.2007, and out of the matrimonial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1007/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
relation are having two children.
6. In view of the proposition of law, as laid
down in the case of S. Varadrajan (supra), the
present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order
of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2008 is
set aside. The accused is acquitted. Bail bond
stands discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent
back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Pankaj/23
