CR.A/1927/2005 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1927 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. 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? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus ANOPSINH DHULSINH CHAUHAN - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPEN DESAI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SP MAJMUDAR for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 08/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.A/1927/2005 2/9 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Instant appeal is preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.03.2005 rendered by the learned District Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.163 of 2004, whereby the present respondent being accused of the Sessions Case came to be acquitted by the learned trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 312 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Leave to appeal granted. Appeal is admitted. Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned Advocate requested the Court to hear the appeal finally as the Record & Proceedings from the learned trial Court is available with us and that they would assist the Court with extra copies of the evidence and documents produced before the learned trial Court. Request is granted and the appeal is heard finally. 3. As per the prosecution case, complainant – Devikaben @ Devkiben Raval filed a complaint before Savli Police Station being C.R.No.I-70 of 2004 CR.A/1927/2005 3/9 JUDGMENT against the respondent herein – original accused for the offences under Sections 363, 376, 312 of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter-alia that on 04.06.2004 at about 1.30 hrs, the respondent accused Anopsinh Dhulsinh Chauhan had taken minor Devikaben in the sim of Village Mevli under the guise of giving more wages. It was further the case of the prosecution that at the relevant point of time victim – Devikaben was aged about 17 years and the respondent had committed rape on her without consent and thereby committed offences. It was further the case of the prosecution that the respondent accused was committing rape on her at regular interval of four to five days and lastly he committed rape on her on last Navratri and due to that she became pregnant. Therefore, the complainant informed the accused person on 01.06.2004 and he advised to take medicines and white peper and on 03.06.2004 at late night she got pain and after that she delivered dead child and thus it was alleged that the respondent has committed the offences under Sections 363, 376, 312 of the Indian Penal Code. CR.A/1927/2005 4/9 JUDGMENT 4. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and drawn necessary panchnama, recovered the clothes of victim and the accused, drawn discovery panchnama. Ultimately in pursuance to the said investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondent for the aforesaid offences in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Savli and as it was a case triable by the learned Sessions Judge, same was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. and it was numbered as Sessions Case No.163 of 2004. The respondent – accused pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. 5. The Prosecution examined as many as (9) nine witnesses and produced on record voluminous documentary evidence. After evidence of the prosecution was over, incriminating circumstances appearing against the respondent was brought to the notice of the accused and his defence was of total denial in the statement recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The CR.A/1927/2005 5/9 JUDGMENT learned trial Court thereafter heard the prosecution as well as defence and came to the conclusion of acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him and hence, this appeal. 6. Mr.Dipen Desai, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and Mr.S.P.Majmudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent were heard in detail in respect of this appeal. 7. We have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the trial court minutely and threadbare. We have considered the vital features of the matter and reasonable probability arising out of the circumstances of the case. We have taken into account the appreciation of the evidence undertaken by the trial court and reasons assigned for the acquittal. We have taken into consideration the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the respective parties in this matter. We have scanned carefully the evidence recorded during trial after re-appreciating it to access the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge for the acquittal. CR.A/1927/2005 6/9 JUDGMENT 8. Prosecution examined victim – original complainant – Devkiben – PW -1 at Exh.12, she has not supported the allegations in the complaint and the prosecution. She has specifically deposed that the accused has not committed any offence and she was not taken to any other place by the accused. She has categorically stated that the boy child delivered by her was of her husband. She has been declared as hostile. She was cross-examined by the prosecution. She was also cross-examined by the defence. She has stated that she does not know what was written in the complaint and she has only singed the complaint. She has admitted that boy delivered by her was of her husband and due to fear she has given the name of the accused falsely. 9. Prosecution examined PW-2, Gangaben Punjabhi Raval, mother of the victim – Devkiben at Exh.13. She also did not support the prosecution and she was declared hostile. She was cross-examined however, from the evidence, nothing has been found against the accused. She has specifically admitted that as there was dispute between the accused and younger brother CR.A/1927/2005 7/9 JUDGMENT of her husband, she has falsely implicated the accused and given the name of the accused. Similarly, witness examined at Exh.14 and 15 i.e. Sakuben Chauhan and Punjiben Chauhan were declared hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. On considering the evidence of Dr.Meenaben Robinsing Christian who was examined at Exh.16 and deposition of Dr.Neha Hitendra Sheth who was examined at Exh.20, nothing was found against the accused persons. Prosecution after examining one Pravinjit Gosai at Exh.26, recorded the complaint of Devkiben. Prosecution also examined Investigating Officer i.e. Hitendra Manilal at Exh-28. As none of the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, nothing was found against the respondent accused and the prosecution failed to prove charges against the respondent accused. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 and 312 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. We have gone through the evidence recorded CR.A/1927/2005 8/9 JUDGMENT in the papers produced by the prosecution. Complainant – Devkiben – victim herself did not support the prosecution. Mother of the victim – Gangaben also did not support the case of the prosecution. They have categorically stated that the accused was falsely implicated in the case. Victim herself has specifically stated that the accused has not done any wrong with her and not committed any offence. Looking to the evidence on record more particularly of victim herself and her mother, they did not support the case of the prosecution and the learned trial Court acquitted the accused. The conclusion arrived at by the trial Court could not be labelled as perverse, manifestly erroneous, palpably wrong or demonstrably unsustainable. 11. The scope of appeal against the acquittal is well defined by law. The orders against the acquittal cannot lightly be interfered unless it is found by the appellate court that the reasoning assigned by the trial court and conclusions arrived were so perverse that in any manner it cannot stand to reason. As discussed above, while assessing the CR.A/1927/2005 9/9 JUDGMENT reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge and evaluating the conclusions, it is found that the learned trial Judge has rightly taken the view to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against them as prosecution could not establish the case against the respondent. The judgment and order impugned in this appeal, therefore, requires no interference. Hence, this appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly it is dismissed. [J.R.Vora,J.] [M.R.Shah,J.] satish