Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 7779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
DHAVALJI @ BHAILU S/O BIJALJI SARDARJI THAKOR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE) NO. 1 of 2025 | R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1402 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR NISHIT P. THAKKER, MS. MOUSAMI K VALA
For the Respondents: MR BIPIN BHATT, MR PRANAV DHAGAT, APP
The court suspended the applicant's sentence due to the victim's relationship with him and insufficient evidence from the complainant, emphasizing the need for discretion in light of the circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 430(1) - POCSO Act - Section 6 - Suspension of sentence sought by applicant convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act with R.I. for 20 years and a fine of Rs.50,000/- - Court finds substantial grounds for suspension based on victim's relationship with the applicant and previous acquittal - Conditions imposed for bail include no contact with the victim. (Paras 3-10)
(B) Appeal - Nature of relationships and the role of consent, including issues related to the victim's age and witness cooperation - The court emphasizes the victim's diminished interest in pursuing prosecution based on long-term relationship with the applicant. (Paras 5-9)
(C) Legal principles regarding habitual complainants and evidentiary weight - Court recognizes potential biases from family members in filing repeated FIRs against the applicant without sufficient grounds. (Paras 6-8)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court acknowledges both parties and proceeds with the hearing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant seeks suspension based on previous acquittal and relational context. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. context of relationship between applicant and victim influences case. (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments presented regarding fir motivations and victim's lack of interest. (Para 6) |
| 5. court reflects on the overall merits and context of the case. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 6. suspension of sentence granted with stipulations for bail. (Para 8) |
| 7. direct service granted as part of procedural conclusion. (Para 10) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of Rule on behalf of respective respondents. By consent, Rule is fixed forthwith.
2. We have heard Mr. Nishit Thakker, learned advocate with Ms. Mousami Vala, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Pranav Dhagat, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr. Bipin Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent no.2.
3. By way of this application under Section 430 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, applicant – Dhavalji @ Bhailu S/o. Bijalji Sardarji Thakor seeks suspension of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court concerned for the offence punishable under Section
6 of POCSO Act .
4. The present appeal and the application for suspension of sentence arise from the judgment dated 02.12.2024 and order of sentence passed in Special POCSO Case No.221 of 2020, whereby, the applicant herein was convicted and sentenced as under:
(i) Section 6 of POCSO Act : R.I. for 20 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof, further imprisonment for 1 year;
5. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present application are that, the applicant-accused is resident of Vadodara. The minor victim being a native of Ahmedabad, was in relationship with the applicant-accused. This is a story of interfaith relationship. Since June, 2019, the accused and victim were in live-in relationship and agreement thereof was also executed by the parties. However, due to the different caste, the mother of the victim lodged an FIR in June-2019 and in September, 2019, the applicant-accused was arrested. He was put on trial. The concerned sessions court in POCO Case No.234 of 2019, vide judgment dated 02.12.2024, acquitted the applicant-accused of all charges. Meanwhile, in the Month of February, 2020, the victim went to Vadodara at the house of the applicant and remained with him for about 7 months. The second FIR came to be registered on 20.02.2020 of the same incident and upon filing the chargesheet, the trial court found guilty the applicant for the offences as mentioned above.
6. Mr. Thakker, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant while praying for suspension of sentence contended that, the mother was habitual in filing such kind of FIR for the purpose of getting compensation and to harass the applicant because her daughter – the minor victim was not in control. That, the age has been suppressed and as such, the victim has not supported to the prosecution. In such circumstances, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the prayer may be considered.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Dhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent no.2. have supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction as passed by the trial Court and contended that, the victim was minor and her consent is no consent in eye of law. That, so far as the judgment of acquittal is concerned, the complainant has preferred an appeal before this High Court and same is pending. That, the findings of conviction are based on the evidence and as such, court has not committed any error while deciding the age well as complicity of the accused and thus, in absence of any exceptional circumstances, this Court may not entertain this application.
8. Issue arises as to whether the applicant has made out a case for
