CR.A/754/2005 1/27 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 754 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ASHWIN RANCHHODBHAI SOLANKI - Appellant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR KP RAVAL ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH Date : 12/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Amreli dated 03.03.2005 rendered in Sessions Case CR.A/754/2005 2/27 JUDGMENT No.112 of 2004. 2.0 The appellant, herein, is original accused who was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 201 of the I.P.C.. He was, though, acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C., was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to undergo further imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to undergo further imprisonment for three months. He was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to undergo further imprisonment CR.A/754/2005 3/27 JUDGMENT for three months. 3.0 As per the charge Exhibit-2 framed against the appellant, the prosecution case was that on 03.08.2004, the appellant lured away the daughter of the complainant-Natvarbhai Balvantbhai Gosai namely Hiral aged below sixteen years, from the custody of her legal guardians, with the intention of committing sexual intercourse with her against her wish and will and thereby the appellant committed the offences as mentioned above. 4.0 The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, herein, lured away daughter of the complainant namely Hiral, aged below sixteen years, under the pretext of marrying her, from the custody of her legal guardians on 03.08.2004 from the Havelichowk area of Pratappara village. Hence, father of the victim Hiral filed a complaint against the appellant with Jesingpara Rural Police Station. In pursuance of that CR.A/754/2005 4/27 JUDGMENT investigation was carried out and on receipt of the information, the appellant was arrested. On the same day the appellant and the victim were sent for medical examination. After the investigation was over, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant before the trial Court. The appellant did not plead guilty. Hence, the trial Court after hearing all the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in Para-2 of the judgment. Hence, the present appeal. 5.0 Natvarbhai Balvantbhai Gosai-P.W.-1 was examined at Exhibit-7. He deposed that he is working in the Court and he has two sons and two daughters among them Hiral is the eldest. He further deposed that Hiral has studied up to 7th standard and at the time of commission of alleged offence, she was aged about fifteen and a half year. He deposed that on 03.08.2004, he returned home at about 6:30 p.m. and when he inquired about Hiral from his wife, his wife told him that Hiral had gone to the village along with one Amu- CR.A/754/2005 5/27 JUDGMENT the daughter of their neighbour at about 5:00 p.m.. But, when Hiral did not return by 7:30 p.m., he went towards Binaca Chowk of his village on his motor cycle and there he met Amu. Amu told him that while she and Hiral were making purchase from cutlery shop, one Ashwin Koli-who was residing in their neighbourhood, came there and called Hiral at some distance, and then, told something to Hiral. Thereafter, Hiral told Amu to wait for her for sometime, and then, she went away with the aforesaid Ashwin Koli towards Library Road. But, since Hiral did not return, she started to come back towards home. P.W.-1 then took the said Amu to his home and in front of his wife, Amu repeated the story which she had narrated to P.W.-1. P.W.-1 then called the father of the appellant-Ranchodbhai and told him that his son Ashwin had lured away his(P.W.-1's) daughter Hiral and asked him as to whether he knows anything about the same. But, said Ranchodbhai refused to have known anything. Then, P.W.-1 lodged the complaint with Jesingpara Rural Police Station. CR.A/754/2005 6/27 JUDGMENT 5.1 P.W.-1, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had given divorce to his first wife Gitaben and Hiral is daughter of his second wife Dakshaben. He admitted that Hiral was not born in his presence and that he is not aware as to whether the birth of Hiral was registered or not. He had married with Dakshaben before about thirteen years and at that time Hiral was studying in 1st standard. He refused to have close relations with the appellant before the commission of offence in question. He further stated that he had lodged the complaint as per the information given by Amuben. He stated that it is not true that at the time of admitting Hiral in school he had casually given date of birth of Hiral and stated that the date of birth of Hiral was given as mentioned in the certificate issued by Prabhatpara School. He further stated that he is not aware as to whether his daughter had an affair with the appellant or not. He stated that it is not true that in order to prevent her daughter from getting married with CR.A/754/2005 7/27 JUDGMENT the appellant, he had filed the complaint. He admitted that it is true that when he went to police station to lodge complaint, one Kishorbhai Devrajbhai Chauhan who is brother of one Bharathai Chauhan, Editor, Avadh Times had accompanied him. However, he stated that it is not true that at the instance of said Kishorbhai, P.S.I.-himself prepared the whole complaint. This witness specifically denied that it is not true that since he is not happy with the marriage of the appellant with his daughter, he was wrongly deposing against the appellant. He further denied that since the appellant had run away with his daughter he had filed a false complaint. 6.0 Vinaben Labhshankar Khambholia-P.W.2, who was working as Principal of Girls School, was examined at Exhibit-9. She deposed that she had issued School Leaving Certificate(Exhibit-10) of Hiral. She further deposed that Hiral was admitted in school on 26.08.1996 and clarified that the date of admission written as 26.08.2006 CR.A/754/2005 8/27 JUDGMENT is written by mistake. 6.1 P.W.-2, in her cross-examination, stated that Hiral left her(P.W.-2's) school on 16.06.1998. She specifically stated that she is not aware as to how the date of birth of Hiral came to be entered into register and certificate(Exhibit-10). 7.0 Mukeshbhai Shankarbhai-P.W.-3 who was friend of the appellant was examined at Exhibit- 11. He deposed that the appellant had told him about a girl, but, he is not aware about whom the appellant was talking and apart from that he does not know anything. This witness was, hence, declared hostile. 7.1 P.W.-3, in his cross-examination, stated that the appellant had once told him and one Dinesh Keshu Bariya that he wants to marry a girl namely Hiral and that he would run away with her to Dadur, village of Dinesh Keshu Bariya, as and CR.A/754/2005 9/27 JUDGMENT when opportunity comes. 8.0 Dakshaben Natvarbhai-P.W.4, mother of Hiral, was examined at Exhibit-12. She has deposed that on the date of offence, her husband had returned home at about 7:00 p.m. and when he inquired about Hiral, she had told him that Hiral had gone to the village. Then, her husband went in the village, in search of Hiral and when he came back, Amu-friend of her daughter Hiral was with him. Amu told her that she and Hiral were standing near cutlery shop, at that time, the appellant called Hiral. Thereafter, Hiral told her to wait for some time and she(Hiral) went away with the appellant, but, she did not come back. Then, her husband filed complaint. 8.1 P.W.-4, in her cross-examination, stated that it is true that her first marriage took place when she was about twenty years. She further stated that Hiral was born after about one year of her marriage. She stated that after Hiral attained age of five years, her father CR.A/754/2005 10/27 JUDGMENT admitted Hiral in 1st standard in a school at Prabhatpura i.e. before her second marriage. She admitted that she had married to Natvarbhai Balvantbhai before about fifteen to sixteen years. This witness specifically stated that it is not true that since she and her husband Natvarbhai were ill-treating Hiral, she(Hiral) had voluntarily gone with the appellant. 9.0 Amuben Bhalabhai-P.W.-5, a friend of Hiral, was examined at Exhibit-13. She deposed that before four or five months, she had gone to beauty parlour with Hiral and from there they went to purchase cutlery. The appellant came there and had some talk with Hiral. Then, Hiral told her(Amuben) that she would come back soon and then she walked away. She waited for Hiral up to about 9:00 clock and while she was going home, she met Natubhai-father of Hiral. She told him that Hiral had told her that she would come back in five minutes, but, has not returned so far. She identified the appellant before the Court. CR.A/754/2005 11/27 JUDGMENT 9.1 P.W.-5, in her cross-examination, stated that it is true that when Hiral told her that she would come back soon, she(Hiral) was very happy. She further stated that it is true that she had given her statement before the police, as per the instructions given by the father of Hiral. 10.0 Dr. Ashokbhai Gelabhai Bathwar-P.W.11 who carried out medical examination of the victim Hiral, was examined at Exhibit-23. He deposed that on 16.08.2004, victim Hiral was brought to him for her medical examination with the history of commission of rape on her by one Ashwin Ranchodbhai. He deposed that on examination, he found that secondary sex characters of Hiral were developed, there were no injury marks on her vagina, but, there was a mark of some white substance on her vagina, her hymen was ruptured, however, there were neither any signs of swelling nor any injury marks were found in her vagina. Apart from that there were no injury marks on any other parts of the body of Hiral. He deposed that CR.A/754/2005 12/27 JUDGMENT he had also taken several necessary samples of Hiral for analysis. He further deposed that if a person is habituated with intercourse, then, no injury marks would be found in her vagina after a period of about ten to fifteen days, however, in case of recent intercourse or rape it could be found. He further deposed that he had also examined the appellant on the very same day. He did not find any external injury mark on the body of the appellant. 10.1 P.W.-11, in his cross examination, stated that it is true that if sexual intercourse is committed with a woman against her wish and will, then, there will be injury marks on her body. He further stated that it is also true that in the case on hand, there were no signs of swelling in the hymen of Hiral which suggested that her hymen was not broken recently and that Hiral might be habituated with sexual intercourse. 11.0 The victim Hiralben Natubhai-P.W.-12 was examined at Exhibit-31. She deposed that she CR.A/754/2005 13/27 JUDGMENT knows the appellant. Before two or three years, the appellant had made telephone call at her residence and had told her that he loves her, but, she could not understand anything and she hanged the phone. The appellant had again called her twice after the aforesaid incident of telephone call and on both the occasions he had asked her as to whether she loves him or not. She further deposed that on the last occasion when the appellant telephoned her and asked as to whether she loves him or not, at that time, she had told him 'Yes'. On that occasion, the appellant gave his telephone number to her and she used to call him on that number. She deposed that, mostly, the appellant used to telephone her. She further deposed that on the date of offence, the appellant telephoned her and told her to meet him. Hence, she along with her friend Amu went to beauty parlour and from there she made telephone call on the phone of one Vahidbhai with whom the appellant was working, the appellant came on the phone and told her to come to Hari Road. She further deposed that since CR.A/754/2005 14/27 JUDGMENT she was not knowing where the Hari Road was, she took her friend Amu with her and there she met the appellant. The appellant took her to the garage of Vahidbhai and from there they went to bus stop in an auto-rickshaw. At bus stop, the appellant made her board the bus which was going to Dahod against her wish and from Dahod she was taken to Dadur where a friend of the appellant was residing. She deposed that they stayed at Dahod for about eight days and at Dadur for about ten days. At Dadur, they stayed at the house of the friend of the appellant who was residing there along with his mother. At Dadur, the appellant had tried to commit rape on her, but, she did not allow him to do so. However, at Dahod while she was sleeping, the appellant tied her hands and mouth and committed rape on her. She further deposed that the appellant committed rape on her for the first time at Dadur and last rape was committed at Dahod. She deposed that, after a period of thirteen to fourteen days, they came back to Amreli. The police took her to dispensary. She deposed that she had washed the CR.A/754/2005 15/27 JUDGMENT clothes i.e. a dress and a nicker which she had put on at the time of offence. 11.1 P.W.-12, in her cross-examination, stated that it is not true that she had married with the appellant. She further stated that she had not given the true information to the police, at the time of recording of her statement since she was threatened by the appellant. However, she admitted that she had not disclosed the aforesaid fact to the police or his parents. She further admitted that after the appellant was sent into the custody, she had not told her parents or police that she wanted to state true facts. She admitted that for the first time before the Court she had disclosed that the appellant had given her threat. She stated that it is true that she had mentioned in her statement before police that she did not want to go with her parents. She stated that it is true that she had stated in her statement before police that the appellant had took her to Kailashdham temple and there the CR.A/754/2005 16/27 JUDGMENT appellant sworn before god that he would live with her. She also admitted that she had stated in her statement before police that she and the appellant were living as husband and wife. She further stated that she is aware that if someone is taking away a lady against her wish and will, then, she would make hue and cry, but, she did not do the same since she was threatened by the appellant. She admitted that she knows the telephone number of her house as well as telephone number of office of her father. She further stated that during the period she and appellant remained together, the appellant used to go for labour work during day time and she used to prepare food and wash clothes of the appellant as if she was his wife. She further stated that during that time they had also gone to market to purchase a dress for her and she liked the dress purchased by the friend of the appellant. She further stated that she is literate and several times she thought of making telephone call or to write a letter to her parents, but, she neither made telephone call nor CR.A/754/2005 17/27 JUDGMENT wrote letter to her parents. She stated that when she used to call Ashwin, she had full trust in him. She loved the appellant and wanted to marry him, in future. She stated that on the date of offence, the appellant took her from Amreli to the garage of one Vahidbhai on a two wheeler and the road they had passed was full of people. They stayed there for about fifteen to thirty minutes, but, she did not say anything to anybody. From there, they went to bus-stop in an auto-rickshaw and there they waited for bus for considerable time and when bus came, the appellant made her board the bus, against her wish. She stated that it is not true that when the appellant was forcing her to board the bus, the bus-conductor asked the appellant as to why the appellant was forcing her to board the bus. She admitted that it is true that she had not mentioned in her statement before police about commission of rape on her at Dadur. She admitted that she had washed the clothes put on by her at the time of commission of offence. She further stated that it is true that for the first time CR.A/754/2005 18/27 JUDGMENT before the Court she mentioned that at Dahod and Dadur, rape was committed on her. 12.0 Bhupatbhai Kalubhai-P.W.-13 was examined at Exhibit-13. He deposed that on 03.08.2004, P.W.-1 came to police station for registering the complaint. He registered the complaint of P.W.- 13 as narrated by P.W.-1, and then, obtained his signature thereon. 12.1 P.W.-13, in his cross-examination, stated that it is not true that they had fabricated the story of commission of offence. 13.0 Ratansibhai Bhaijibhai-P.W.-14 was examined at Exhibit-35. He deposed that he had recorded the statements of Dakshaben Natvarbhai, Ranchodbhai Khodabhai, Nirmalaben Ranchodbhai etc. in connection with the offence in question. 13.1 P.W.-14, in his cross-examination, stated that it is not true that he had recorded the CR.A/754/2005 19/27 JUDGMENT statement of wife of the complainant in consonance with the complaint. 14.0 Kalusinh Bhagwansinh Rathod-P.W.-15 was examined at Exhibit-38. He deposed that Ratansinh Bariya, A.S.I., Amreli Police Station handed over the investigation to him in connection with the offence in question. He deposed that on 16.08.2004, the appellant surrendered before him along with the victim Hiral. Thereafter, he took into custody the clothes put on by the victim at the time of commission of offence, the vehicle used in the offence as well as the clothes put on by the appellant in the presence of panchas. He, then, sent both the appellant and victim for medical examination. 14.1 P.W.-15, in his cross-examination, denied that it is not true that he had not produced the report of the victim regarding age since according to the said report, the age of Hiral was between 18 to 20 years. He further stated CR.A/754/2005 20/27 JUDGMENT that they(the appellant and the victim) had voluntarily come before him. He further stated that before recording statement of Hiral, he had told her not to be afraid of anybody and that Hiral had given her statement in state of complete peace of mind and with full understanding. He stated that while recording statements it was revealed that they(the appellant and the victim) had got married. He stated that it is not true that he had spilt the semen of the appellant on the clothes after obtaining the same. This witness denied that, though, there were insufficient evidence against the appellant, he had filed the charge sheet. 15.0 Prosecution also examined several other witnesses, but, it would not be relevant to take note of their depositions in detail. 16.0 In the light of the above evidence, now, it has to be examined as to whether trial Court has committed an error in convicting the CR.A/754/2005 21/27 JUDGMENT appellant or not. 17.0 Heard, Mr. Dagli, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Raval, learned APP on behalf of respondent-State. 17.1 In the complaint filed by P.W.-1-father of the victim Hiral it was alleged that on 03.08.2004, the appellant, herein, lured away his minor daughter namely Hiral under the pretext of marrying her. The case put forward by the prosecution is supported by the evidence of P.W.- 5-Amuben. P.W.-5 deposed that on the date of alleged incident when she along with the victim Hiral was making purchase from cutlery shop, the appellant came there and called Hiral at a certain distance and told her something. Then, Hiral came near her(P.W.-5)and told her that she would come back soon, and then, Hiral went away with the appellant towards the Library road. This witness waited for Hiral for considerable time, but, Hiral did not come back and while she was going towards home, she met with the father of CR.A/754/2005 22/27 JUDGMENT Hiral and she narrated the whole incident to him. P.W.-5 was the last person who had seen the victim Hiral with the appellant. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved the aspect of 'last seen together'. The case of the prosecution is also supported by the evidence of P.W.-3 who in his cross-examination stated that the appellant had once told him that he likes one Hiral Bavaji and wants to marry her. This witness further stated that the appellant had also told him that he would run away with her(the victim Hiral) to the village of one Dinesh Keshu Bariya as and when opportunity comes. Hence, the case put forward by the prosecution stands proved. 17.2 At this stage it was argued by learned Advocate for the appellant that the victim Hiral had voluntarily gone with the appellant and as such there was no compulsion or coercion on her. So far as the said argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant is concerned, from the deposition of the victim Hiral, it clearly transpires that on the date of alleged CR.A/754/2005 23/27 JUDGMENT incident, the appellant made her to sit on a two- wheeler and took her to the garage of one Vahidbhai under the pretext of taking a small ride and from there he took Hiral to bus-stop. At bus-stop, the appellant forcefully made her board a bus which was going to Dahod. Hiral further deposed that while the appellant was pushing her to board the bus, she was crying since she did not want to board the bus. Hence, it stands proved that the appellant had exerted force on Hiral. So far as the aspect of the consent of Hiral is concerned, from the documentary evidence i.e. School Leaving Certificate of Hiral(Exhibit- 10) and Date of Birth Registration Certificate (Exhibit-32), it clearly transpires that the date of birth of Hiral is 18.02.1989 meaning thereby at the time of commission of offence, the age of Hiral was less than sixteen years i.e., about fifteen and half a year which clearly shows that the victim-Hiral was minor at the time of commission of offence, and hence, being a minor, the question of her giving consent does not arise since it is well settled principle