CR.A/677/1992 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 677 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus SHANKERBHAI KALUBHAI RAVAL - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR. MAULIK NANAVATI, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1, MS SADHANA SAGAR for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 11/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) CR.A/677/1992 2/4 JUDGMENT The present appeal has been filed under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act by the State of Gujarat against the order dated 8.6.1992 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1990 whereby the learned trial Judge has convicted the respondent accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and released the respondent accused on probation. 2. It is the case of prosecution that the accused abducted Mukti Gandubhai (PW 3) who was staying in his neighbourhood on 9.12.1989 in the afternoon when her family members had gone out by promising to marry her. Thereafter, the accused had taken Mukti towards Kutch-Mandvi and had stayed with her for 15 days. During this period the accused established sexual relationship with Mukti. It is further the prosecution case that victim Mukti was only 15 years of age at the time of incident and therefore any consent given by her for having intercourse is inconsequential. 3. Mukti who has been examined as a witness by the prosecution, has herself admitted that she was in love with the accused Shanker and had gone away with her on 25.12.1989. She has further stated that she had married Shankar prior to their leaving the house. She has also admitted that she stayed with Shankar for 15 days somewhere in Mandvi area. She has however denied having any physical relationship with Shankar. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution also does not indicate any injury on her genitals. However, Dr. Reeta Patel PW-1 who examined victim Mukti on 25.12.1989 has stated in her evidence that possibility of the girl having had CR.A/677/1992 3/4 JUDGMENT sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. In view of the admission made by Mukti of having gone with accused Shankar, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, relying on the testimony of victim Mukti that she did not have any sexual intercourse with accused, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. As regards sentence, the learned trial Judge released the accused on probation of Offenders Act, primarily for the reason that during the pendency of trial the accused had married victim Mukti. 4. We have heard Mr. Nanavati, learned Additiona Public Prosecutor for the State and Ms. Sadhana Sagar, advocate for the respondent-accused. 5. It has been fairly submitted by Mr. Nanavati, learned APP, that considering the fact that the accused has married victim Mukti and that the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code has not been challenged by the respondent accused and further that several years have passed since the incident of 1989, the State is not vehemently pressing the present appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the fact that the accused and the victim are now happily married and that almost 20 years have elapsed since the date of incident and also the fair stand taken by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we see no reason to interfere with the quantum of sentence imposed by the trial CR.A/677/1992 4/4 JUDGMENT Court. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the State is dismissed. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (S.R. BRAHMBHATT, J) (pkn)