IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
Dashrathbhai Parubhai Bhabhor - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & others – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 1613 of 2017
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 366, 363, 376 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164, 374(2) –Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 4, 6, 17 – Offence of penetrative sexual assault – Offence of rape – women's or children's institution – Impugned judgment and order – Held, Court of opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to establish important aspect with regard to age of victim and same is required to be established beyond reasonable doubt, it is clear that no ingredient of Section 376 of the IPC is established or satisfied at all – Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court under Section 376 of PIC is not proved and hence, impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside – Court of opinion that it is crystal clear that offences under Section 363, 366 and 376 and Section 4 of POCSO Act are not being proved by prosecution and benefit of doubt is given to present appellant – Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.03.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Special (POCSO) Case No.27 of 2015, whereby the Trial Court has held the appellant – accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months, for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of two months, for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(h) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months and for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months. At the time of pronouncement of the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has not deposited the fine, but subsequently he has deposited the same before the concerned Trial Court.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 26.12.2014, the complainant Revabhai Bhojabhai Mohaniya resident of Village: Ambaliyavav, Taluka – City – District Panchmahal has registered an First Information Report against accused alleging inter alia that his daughter (victim) aged about 15 years 3 months and 14 days on the date of incident whose birth date is 28.08.1999 and studied upto 10th Standard. That on 11.12.2014 was suddenly disappeared from Village: Kakanpur where she resided with her sister-in-law and studying in M. V. Shah Girls High School and, thereafter, a phone call received by the complainant from his daughter-in-law that the victim went for study and, thereafter, she did not come back till 6.00 p.m. It is alleged that the complainant and his relative have started searching the victim and on the next day, he had inquired at the school where the victim was studying, but till the date of registration of the FIR, the victim was not traceable and, therefore also, they have tried to search the accused persons at their residence, but they have not found there. It is alleged that accordingly complaint being C.R.No.140/2014 came to be filed before Godhra City “A” Division Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 etc of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, the police started investigation and prepared panchnama of the scene of offence as well as recorded the statements of various witnesses and also got medical report of the accused as well as the victim and arrested the accused and seized muddamal articles and after completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions at Panchmahal at Godhra wherein it has been registered as Special (POCSO) Case No.27 of 2015.
4. The charge against the accused came to be framed by the learned Special Judge on 04.01.2016 vide Exhibit 6 for the aforesaid offences against the accused. On being explained it to him, the accused has denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty t
Ajitkumar Kumarsinh Bhagora Vs. State of Gujarat
Alamelu Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police
Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2008) 13 SCC 133
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat
Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit
Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha & Ors.
Dayaram & Ors. Vs. Dawalatshah & Anr.
Harpal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Kalpana Mehta and others Vs. Union of India and other
Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130
Madan Mohan Singh Vs. Rajni Kant
Mohd. Abdullah Azam Khan Vs. Nawab Kazim Ali Khan
Mohd. Ikram Hussain Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1625
Narendra Gulabpari Goswami Vs. State of Gujarat
Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1029
Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326
Ram Suresh Singh Vs. Prabhat Singh @Chhotu Singh & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 681
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi Vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra
Sakhi Ram Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, North Bihar, Muzzafarpur
Santenu Mitra Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1587
Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Radha Krishna Singh & Ors. AIR 1983 SC 684
The court upheld the conviction for rape of a minor based on credible testimony and corroborative evidence, emphasizing the admissibility of school records for age determination.
The sole testimony of a prosecutrix can suffice for conviction in rape cases if credible, while age determination must be supported by reliable evidence.
The victim's testimony, if found reliable, can form the sole basis for conviction under the POCSO Act, and legal presumption against the accused places the burden of rebuttal on the defense.
The court emphasized that mere admissibility of evidence does not establish its probative value, particularly when witness testimonies are inconsistent and influenced, raising reasonable doubt regard....
The prosecution must prove a victim's age beyond reasonable doubt, and consent negates charges of kidnapping and rape when the victim willingly engages in a relationship.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.