Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 1348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, M.R. MENGDEY, JJ.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
JAYDEVSINH BACHUBHA JADEJA – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1031 of 2005
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : RONAK B. RAVAL
Credible evidence and corroboration are essential to establish guilt in sexual assault cases; acquittals should not be overturned in the absence of irreparable errors by lower courts.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 506(2), 376(2)(g), read with Section 34 - Appeal against acquittal - The accused were acquitted by the Trial Court for offences of abduction and sexual assault due to lack of credible evidence, correspondence in testimonies, and the victim turning hostile - Insufficient corroborative evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the Trial Court rightly held that the prosecution's case was inadequately supported by reliable evidence. (Paras 4-11)
Facts of the case:
The victim, aged 15, alleged abduction and rape by the accused but the complainant, along with her family, turned hostile, failing to substantiate the charges. (Paras 1-12)
Findings of Court:
The acquittal was deemed appropriate due to the contradictions and lack of supporting testimonies from the victim and other witnesses, with all medical evaluations not corroborating the claims. (Paras 8-10)
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused and whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was justified. (Paras 2, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the acquittal, affirming the principle that an acquittal should not be disturbed unless the Trial Court's decision is perverse or illegal, which was not the case here. (Paras 10-12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and appeal context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments of the prosecution regarding evidentiary errors. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's recognition of hostile witnesses and evidence inconsistencies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court’s evaluation of evidence and affirmation of acquittal. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion of the appeal and dismissal. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. In the present appeal, presented under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) the State has assailed the judgment and order dated 14.03.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2004. The respondents-accused were tried and charge-sheeted by the Trial Court under Sections 363 , 366, 506(2), 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short “the IPC”) . The Trial Court, after appreciating the necessary evidences laid down by the prosecution and at the end of the trial vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2005 has acquitted the accused for the offences, for which, they were charged.
2. The facts, in short, giving rise to the present appeal, as per the case of the prosecution is that the victim as well as complainant - Ashaben Dhirubhai Jadav (PW-1), has filed a complaint being CR No. I-121 of 2004 before Surendranagar Police Station on 22.06.2004, for the alleged offence under Sections 363 , 366, 506(2), 376(2)(g) read with Section 34 of the IPC, stating that she is aged 15 years and doing household work. According to the complainant, it is the case of prosecution that she is residing at Lati Bazar, B/h. Raj Timber Market at Surendranagar along with her father and mother. Her father is a truck driver and her mother - Gauriben is doing labour work. It is further the case of prosecution that on 19.06.2004, at about 11.00 hours in the morning, she had gone to purchase cutlery and when she reached near Milan Talkies at about 11.30 hours, the respondents - accused came in a Maruti car bearing registration No. GJ-13-F-1069 and they offered lift to the complainant. It is further the case of prosecution that after giving lift to the complainant, they had taken the car towards Raj Hotel, through a cross-way, which is going towards Ratanpar, at that time, the victim had inquired from the accused that where they were taking her. At that time, accused - Jaydev and Rajubhai Bharwad, were sitting with her and they had threatened the victim to keep silent, otherwise she would be finished, therefore, she did not shout for help and the accused persons have taken victim at the guest house at Chotila, where all the accused persons have committed rape on her against her will. It is further the case of the prosecution that from Chotila, she was taken to the guest house at Morbi and there also, the accused persons have also committed rape on her against her will during night as well as at noon. It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter, the accused persons have taken her at Surendranagar and dropped at Surendranagar bus stand at about 1.00 a.m. at night, where also the accused threatened the victim not to disclose the fact before anybody otherwise she will be finished. Thereafter, a complaint being CR No. I - 121 of 2004 was lodged for the alleged offence under Sections 363 , 366, 376(2)(g) and 506(2) of the IPC before the Surendranagar Police Station against the respondents accused.
3. On registering the complaint, the police investigated the case and the Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence against the respondents-accused and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. Surendranagar, since the case was triable before learned Sessions Judge, the same was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. and numbered as Sessions Case No. 47 of 2004, wherein the respondents accused have not pleaded guilty for the charges leve
