IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2082 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ASHOK MANSUKHLAL BHATELIYA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 27/11/2025

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 dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, passed in Sessions Case No.74 of 2000, dated 21.02.2004, acquitting the respondent from the offence under Sections 376, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, the State has preferred instant appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

3. This Court has heard Ms.Chenta Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and Mr.M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate, for the respective parties.

4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years was abused sexually by the accused Ashok Mansukhlal and the accused Amina Sanghadh, was the instrumental in committing the offence by accused no.1. The victim was resident of Village Dwarka. The accused no.2 is related to the victim. According to the prosecution case, the victim used to visit the house of accused no.1 and she was forced to visit the house by A2, as a result, prior to the date of the FIR, she had maintained physical relationship with A1 and according to her allegation, she was forced to indulge into such kind of activities by A1. After passage of time, she got pregnant which led to filing of the FIR. The accused were arrested. So far as the age is concerned, the prosecution could not obtain the birth certificate or any other admissible evidence to prove the age. The medical evidence shows her age about 17 below 20. In such circumstances, after filing of the chargesheet, the accused were put on trial.

5. In the course of trial, the prosecution adduced the following oral as well as documentary evidence in support of its case:

Oral evidence -7

PW 1 – Exh.14	Dr. PRS
PW 2 – Exh.17	Dr. BC Jethava
PW 3 – Exh.28	Dr. IB Punatar
PW 4 – Exh.32	Dr. KA Khatri

PW 5 – Exh.36 H. Ishakbhai PW 6 – Exh.37 RJ Barot PW 7 – Exh.43 KM Varu Documentary evidence -23

Exh.20	Yadi to medical officer
Exh.29	Injury certificate
Exh.44	Yadi for blood samples of victim
Exh.30	Yadi to gynecology department
Exh.29	Certificate by Dr. IB Punatar
Exh.18	HD Terminology report of victim
Exh.23	Yadi for blood sample of victim
Exh.46	Yadi
Exh.21	Certificate by Dr. D Pakothari
Exh.45	Letter dated 07/08/99
Exh.16	Yadi by PO to Medical officer Dwarka
Exh.15	Certificate by medical officer
Exh.38	Panchnama of place of offence
Exh.39	Panchnama of blood sample of victim
Exh.40	Arrest Panchnama
Exh.41	Panchnama of blood sample
Exh.48	Copy of station diary entry
Exh.34	Case papers
Exh.22	Victim history papers
Exh.24	Certificate of blood sample of victim
Exh.25	Certificate of Ossification Test
Exh.26	Certificate of Ossification test
Exh.35	Report of ossification test regarding age of victim

6. On conclusion of oral evidence, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, they claimed their innocence.

7. The learned Sessions Judge after appreciating and examining the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted the accused herein for the offences with which they were charged, on the ground that, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document