Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 22301
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, S.V. PINTO, JJ
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
JAMIYATKHAN MOHMEDKHAN BALOCH – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1450 of 2009
The acquittal of the respondents was upheld due to insufficient evidence proving their involvement in aiding the principal accused in the offences of abduction and rape.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 376, and 114 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(5) - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the respondents for abetment in the offences of abduction and rape, finding insufficient evidence to establish their involvement. (Paras 2, 8, 14)
(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution failed to prove the charge against the respondents, as the evidence did not substantiate their alleged role in aiding the principal accused. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The respondents were accused of aiding the principal accused in the abduction and sexual abuse of a minor victim, who had eloped with him. The trial court acquitted them due to lack of credible evidence.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conclusion was upheld, as the evidence did not convincingly establish the respondents' guilt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents aided and abetted the principal accused in the commission of the offences charged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the acquittal was justified due to the absence of credible evidence linking the respondents to the crime, emphasizing the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Here is the appeal by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 26.06.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity Court), Gandhinagar in Special (Atrocity) Case no. 8 of 2009, acquitting the respondents – original
| NEUTRAL CITATION |
| undefined |
accused nos.2 to 4 from the offences Sections 363 , 366 and 376 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘ IPC ’, for short) and Section 3(2)(5) the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘Atrocity Act’, for short), the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (old) (‘ Cr.P.C .’ for short).
3. This Court has heard Mr.L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for and on behalf of the appellant – State. Despite of service of notice, respondents original accused have chosen to remain absent.
4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present appeal are as under:
The respondents original accused nos.2 to 4 were charged and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 , 376 read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Atrocities Act. The principal accused Munavarkhan Sipai has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. So far as respondents accused are concerned, they were arraigned as accused because in the commission of offence of abduction, they had aided and abetted the principal accused. The victim
| NEUTRAL CITATION |
| undefined |
below 16 years of age fell in love with the principal accused Munavarkhan, who used to sit in the shop nearby the house of the victim at Gandhinagar. On 14.11.2008, the victim ran away with the principal accused and was remained in the company of the accused for about one month and ten days. On filing the complaint by the father, the police was in search of the victim, and accordingly, she was found by the police. It is alleged that the minor victim was lured by the principal accused and under the guise of promise to marry, she was sexually abused by him. So far as respondents accused are concerned, it is alleged that when victim left her house, accused Azruddin had accompanied the principal accused and traveled with them in auto rickshaw. So far as accused Haresh Dantani is concerned, it is alleged that he handed over the travel bag to the accused. On this premise, the respondents accused, on the charge of abetment in commission of the offence of abduction and rape were chargesheeted.
5. On the basis of material on record, the charge was framed against the respondents, to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and therefore, they came to be tried by the trial Court, accordingly.
6. In order to prove the case against the respondents, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 7
| NEUTRAL CITATION |
| undefined |
documents in support of its case as per the following table:
Oral evidence
| PW 1 – Exh. 13 | Dr. Bharatkumar Kalidas Solanki, medical ofÏcer |
| PW 2 – Exh. 21 | Shyamabhai Madhabhai Chavda, complainant |
| PW 3 – Exh. 25 | Jyotsnaben Shyamabhai Chavda, victim |
| PW 4 – Exh. 26 | Urmilaben Shyamabhai Chavda |
| PW 5 – Exh. 27 | Prahladbhai Khodabhai Parmar, panch witness |
| PW 6 – Exh. 29 | Kamleshbhai Lakshmanbhai Parmar, panch witness |
| PW 7 – Exh. 34 | Shaileshkumar Jagabhai Chavda |
| PW 8 – Exh. 35 | Nagarbhai Mohanbhai Chavda, panch witness |
| PW 9 – Exh. 38 | Jayeshbhai Shyamabhai Chavda |
| PW 10 – Exh. 39 | Jyotiben Chandulal Trivedi |
| PW 11 – Exh. 41 | Vasantbhai Laljibhai Jadav |
| PW 12 – Exh. 43 | Jashvantbhai Gangubhai Patel, head constable |
| PW 13 – Exh. 44 | Gunvantbhai Harkhabhai Algotar, Police inspector |
| PW 14 – Exh. 46 | Pravinkumar Ambalal Rathod, Police Station ofÏcer |
| PW 15 – Exh. | Bakulbhai Haribhai Gameti, investigating ofÏcer |
Documentary evidence
| Exh. 22 | Complaint |
| Exh. 45 | Wireless message |
| Exh. 23 | Photocopy of Caste certificate of complainant |
| Exh. 24 | Caste certificate |
