IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1610 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

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

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Versus THAKOR SHAILESHKUMAR CHANDUJI ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR JK SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. MAHITOSH U SINGH(7015) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. MH SHEKHAWAT(7194) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.04.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 185 of 2003 whereby the respondent- accused has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The prosecution case is that on 07.07.2003 at about 5-00 p.m. the prosecutrix, a minor girl aged about 13 years (date of birth 01.06.1990), was throwing cow-dung near the road at village Anandpura, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana. At that time the respondent-accused, who is also from the same village, caught hold of her hand, forcibly put her in a jeep and took her away towards Dangarva. Some village boys and the father of the prosecutrix saw the incident and raised shouts. The mother of the prosecutrix (PW-1 Ramilaben) and others immediately searched for her but could not trace her. After 2-3 days the prosecutrix returned from her mama’s house. It is the further case of the prosecution that after taking her away the accused committed rape upon her at different places against her will and without her consent.

2.2. On these facts, a complaint was lodged at Kadi Police Station which was registered as C.R. No. I-108 of 2003. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi. Since the offence under Section 376 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Mehsana and was registered as Sessions Case No. 185 of 2003. After recording evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal by the State.

3. We have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Sessions Court. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined following witnesses. The details of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution are reproduced in tabular form as under:

~:: Oral Evidence ::~

~:: Documentary Evidence ::~

4. Learned APP has submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and evidence on record. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was a minor girl aged about 13 years on the date of incident and the accused knowing fully well that she was minor, enticed and kidnapped her with intent to have illicit intercourse and thereafter committed rape upon her. It is submitted that the evidence of the prosecutrix, even if she has turned hostile in the later part of her deposition, clearly establishes the act of kidnapping and rape in the initial part of her testimony. The medical evidence also shows recent sexual intercourse. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused.

5. On the other hand, the learned advocates appearing for the respondent-accused have supported the impugned judgment. It is sub