Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1505
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Ajitsinh Dalpatsinh Zala & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 2167 of 2004
Decided on : 01-07-2025
For the Appellant : ABATED, MS SACHI MATHUR for MR VIKRAM J THAKOR
For the Respondent: MS MONALI BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Prosecution must prove abduction intent and actions under relevant IPC sections; inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses led to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 451, 366, 504, and 506(2) - Criminal Appeal - Conviction and sentence challenged for alleged offences of illegal entry, attempted kidnapping, and criminal intimidation - Trial Court convicted accused No. 2; acquitted both accused of offences under the Bombay Police Act - Conviction based on victim's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborating eyewitnesses - Against the backdrop of credibility issues, the trial court's judgment was not upheld. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Legal standards for abduction - To establish guilt under Section 366, prosecution must prove: (a) victim was induced or compelled to go from any place; (b) such inducement was deceitful; (c) abduction with intent for illicit intercourse must be demonstrated—failure here warranted acquittal. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
Accused No. 2 allegedly attempted to abduct a 21-year-old victim on 05.07.2002, prompting a complaint after the victim shouted. The complainant's inconsistent presence and lack of evidence from eyewitnesses created significant doubts about the allegations. (Paras 3-6, 12-13)
Findings of Court:
Inconsistent witness testimonies and lack of independent corroboration rendered the charges unproven. The trial judge failed to adequately analyze evidence, leading to a flawed conviction. Conviction quashed and appellant acquitted. (Paras 19-20)
Issues: Was there sufficient evidence to substantiate kidnapping and criminal intimidation as per IPC standards? Was the accused's intent and the circumstances satisfactorily proven? (Paras 5-8)
Ratio Decidendi: Failure of prosecution to establish the constitutive elements of the alleged offences under the IPC, particularly in light of inconsistencies and lack of credible witnesses, necessitated appellate intervention. The absence of independent evidence critically undermined the trial court's findings. (Paras 11, 18)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of convictions and charges (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments and inconsistencies in the complainant's case (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis and findings on evidence (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. conclusion and judgment outcome (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
GITA GOPI, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal challenges the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 7th Fast Track Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.107 of 2004 whereby :-
(a) Under Section 451 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC), the accused No.2 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo three months of simple imprisonment and payment of a fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo five days of simple imprisonment;
(b) Under Section 366 of IPC, the accused No.2 has been sentenced to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 10 days of simple imprisonment;
(c) Under Section 504 of the IPC, both the accused No.1 and 2 have been sentenced to undergo one month of simple imprisonment;
(d) Under Section 506(2) of the IPC, both the accused have been sentenced to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of 10 days, while, (e) Both the accused have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .
The sentence to run concurrently.
2. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant No.1-Ajitsinh Dalpatsinh Jhala died and by an order of this Court dated 29.03.2017, the Appeal stood abated qua the appellant No.1.
3. The charge below Exhibit 6 was framed against both the accused. As per the charge, on 05.07.2002, the accused No.2-Vikramsinh Ajitsinh Jhala had entered illegally into the compound of the house of the complainant’s brother at Bindunagar Society, Behind Ganjbazaar, Mehsana with an intent to kidnap the daughter (victim) of the complainant’s elder brother- Babulal Madhavlal Patel, caught the hands of the victim and forcibly picked her up, but while making such an attempt, the victim started shouting, her parents came there and since her parents had come there, accused No.2 ran away from the place of offence and thereby, it is alleged that offences were committed punishable under Sections 366 read with 451 of the IPC. Thereafter, the further charge is that on the same day, same time and same place after running away from the house of the complainant’s elder brother, and after going back into the house of accused situated in the society the accused No.2 came with a sword. The accused No.2 alongwith the accused No.1 came into the house of the complainant’s elder brother and using abusive language asked them to vacate the house within 24 hours, otherwise the daughter would be kidnapped and all of them would be killed. The charge was therefore, framed against both the accused under Sections. 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC. It is also alleged that there was a breach of the Arms prohibition notification and therefore, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT .
4. Learned advocate for the appellant herein Ms. Sachi Mathur has referred to the charge and has submitted that the charge against the accused does not clarify the offences. The parents of the victim though they were available at the time have not given any complaint. The presence of the complainant itself becomes doubtful and the inconsistent nature of charge also prima-facie clarifies of no such incident having taken place. Referring to the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) of both the accused, it is submitted that the complainant wanted to purchase the shop of the accused and since, the accused had denied to sell it, therefore to hara
