Gujarat High Court
Nayanaben D/O. Sureshbhai Ramjibhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 4 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2221/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2221 of 2025
================================================================
NAYANABEN D/O. SURESHBHAI RAMJIBHAI GUJARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JK PARMAR(587) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VISHALSINH J PARMAR(12161) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI
MANAVENDRANATH ROY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH
ROY)
1. This appeal for admission is coming on for hearing before us today
against the judgment dated 05.05.2025 passed in Sessions Case No.18 of
2023 on the file of the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar
at Mahuva, whereby the second respondent, who is the sole accused in
the said case was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections
376(2)(n) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the
IPC").
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Parmar and leaned APP
Mr.Tirthraj Pandya for respondent no.1-State.
3. Perused the appeal grounds and the copy of the judgment of the
trial court and other material available on record furnished by the
appellant.
4. As per the facts of the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a major
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2221/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
and a fully grown up woman aged about 33 years at the relevant time
when the alleged incident took place on 17.03.2020. It is stated that the
prosecutrix got acquaintance with the accused and the accused promised
to marry her and they had a love affair with each other and on
17.03.2020, the prosecutrix herself went to the house of the accused on
the occasion of his birthday and at that time, he had forcible sexual
intercourse with her and thereafter, she accompanied him to various
places on five occasions and both of them had sexual intercourse with
each other and she become pregnant and her pregnancy was terminated. It
is further stated that subsequently the marriage of the prosecutrix was
fixed with another person and the engagement took place between both of
them and thereafter, again when the prosecutrix was with the accused that
the friend of a person by name Jayesh with whom her engagement took
place saw them together and he informed the same to Mr.Jayesh and
thereafter, he refused to marry her and he demanded to give back the
valuables given to her at the time of their engagement function. So, their
marriage proposal was cancelled. Thereafter, she lodged the FIR against
the accused.
5. After considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the
same, the trial court found the accused not guilty for the charges levelled
against him and thereby, acquitted him of the said charges by the
impugned judgment.
6. Admittedly, the prosecutrix is a major and a fully grown up woman
aged about 33 years when the first incident of sexual intercourse took
place on 17.03.2020. As per the prosecution version and also as per her
own version, she herself voluntarily went to the house of the accused on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2221/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
the occasion of his birthday on 17.03.2020. Although it is stated by her
that at that time the accused had forcible sexual intercourse on her, there
is no evidence to prove that he had forcible sexual intercourse on her on
that day. It appears that it is a consensual sexual intercourse that they both
had together. The fact that she subsequently accompanied him to various
places on seven occasions and indulged in sexual intercourse with him by
itself speaks volumes regarding her conduct in voluntarily indulging in
sexual intercourse with the accused, which clearly establishes that it is a
clear case of consensual sexual intercourse which she had with the
accused. Therefore, when a major woman with her consent and will had
sexual intercourse with the accused, it cannot be said that an offence of
rape was committed on her under any stretch of reasoning. In fact, when a
fully grown up woman had repeatedly indulged and participated in sexual
intercourse with a male person until she became a pregnant and
subsequently also it is settled law that such act of the prosecutrix clearly
amounts to an act of promiscuity. Therefore, no offence of rape under
Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC was made out from the facts of the case.
7. Further, the facts of the case show that her marriage was fixed with
another person by name Jayesh and their engagement also took place and
thereafter also she was found in the company of the accused, which was
witnessed by the friend of Mr.Jayesh, which resulted into cancellation of
their marriage proposal. So, her conduct clearly shows that she has
voluntarily with her own free will and consent had an affair with the
accused and participating in sexual intercourse with him. Her evidence
shows that when the accused discontinued his relationship with her that
she insisted him over phone and threatened him to continue their affair
with her and that the accused also lodged FIR against her in this regard.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2221/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
Therefore, all these facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that
there was only a consensual sexual intercourse between both of them and
it was not a case of rape at all.
8. Therefore, the trial court rightly on proper appreciation of evidence
on record recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The
said finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is based on proper
appreciation of evidence on record. We on reappraisal of the evidence do
not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Therefore,
the judgment of acquittal is sustainable under law and it calls for no
interference in this appeal.
9. The appellant failed to make out any valid legal ground warranting
interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal and absolutely no
ground is made out even to admit the appeal for hearing. So, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed summarily.
10. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed summarily under Section 425
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Sd/-
(CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J)
Sd/-
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ABHISHEK/3
