Gujarat High Court
Bharwad Somabhai Rambhai vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 2026
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 388 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
BHARWAD SOMABHAI RAMBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ALPESHKUMAR M THAKOR(10931) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MRS REKHA H KAPADIA(2246) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHARGAV PANDYA APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 03/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is accused no.1 who came to be convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C') by a judgment dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Fourth Fast-Track Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.48 of 1998.
Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined
2. The trial was against six accused under Sections 363, 366, 342 and 376 of I.P.C as well as under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short, 'the B.P Act'). The offence was registered as 1st C.R No.69/97 at Bilkha Police Station.
3. Appellant as convicted accused no.1 challenged the judgment under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.PC'), 1973 on the ground that the learned trial Court Judge has committed an error in convicting the accused on unwarranted facts and circumstances. The prosecution has failed to prove that the victim girl was kidnapped and rape was committed on her in an 'ordi' situated in the field. Though the FIR came to be registered at Bilkha Police Station, police had not found any case for investigation and thereafter, a written complaint was given to D.S.P., Junagadh. Earlier, only a case of harassment was recorded before the Bilkha Police Station, and no explanation comes forward as to why at a later stage, a complaint of kidnapping and rape was improvised.
4. Learned Advocate Mrs. Rekha Kapadia for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court Judge had failed to observe and appreciate that the victim girl was in love relation Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined with accused no.1. The relation came to be known to the parents and, therefore, the complaint was filed. The prosecution could not prove as to why the complaint of harassment was later on considered as a case of kidnapping and rape.
4.1 Learned Advocate Mrs. Rekha Kapadia further stated that the age of the victim girl, as per the doctor, examined during the trial was 18 years and the document which has been produced as a birth certificate does not inspire confidence, since the document has been issued after the registration of the complaint. The complaint has been filed on 25.09.1997 and the issuance of the birth certificate Exh.50 is 02.10.1997. Advocate Mrs. Kapadia, thus, submitted that as per the evidence of the victim, she had studied in Bilkha High School and the mandatory requirement under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as well Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Rules 2007, the first document should be of the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board, if Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined available, and in absence thereof, the birth certificate given by the Panchayat can be relied upon. Advocate Mrs. Kapadia submitted that it has come on record that the victim girl wanted to marry accused no.1. They were also writing letters to each other. There are photographs of the victim with the accused and it was only under the pressure of the police that the complaint has been filed.
4.2 Learned Advocate Mrs. Rekha Kapadia submitted that when the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the age and no case of rape was believed by the trial Court, then there ought not to be any conviction under Section 363 of the I.P.C, where a case of kidnapping has to be proved under Section 361 of the I.P.C. Advocate Mrs. Kapadia further stated that the victim girl had gone to her friend's house and from there, allegedly she had joined the accused. The case against other accused have not been believed. There was no case of any forcible relation and thus stated that the judgment becomes erroneous in absence of necessary mandatory proof on record regarding the age of the victim girl.
Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined
5. Countering the arguments, learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya submitted that the prosecution has proved the date of birth of the victim girl as 05.08.1980 with place of birth as Bilkha from the birth certificate Exh.50 and the person who has issued the document has been examined as PW11 Amrutlal Vrujlal Manek, who has given the birth certificate in accordance to the details of the register. APP Mr. Pandya has also placed reliance on the evidence of the father of the victim girl to submit that the accused had kidnapped the victim girl under the age of 18, without any consent of the guardian and since she was taken away from the lawful guardianship, the conviction becomes legal in view of the provision of the law.
6. Having heard learned Advocate Mrs. Rekha Kapadia for the appellant-accused and learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the respondent, referred the record and the proceeding and documents on record. The complaint is dated 25.09.1997. The prosecution has placed on record Exh.50, which is the birth certificate, and accordingly the date of birth is 05.08.1980, the document has been issued after the complaint, on 02.10.1997. Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined
7. PW2 Dr. Tansukhbhai Govindbhai Solanki had deposed that on examination of the patient, he could conclude that the age of the victim girl was around 18 to 20 years. The document was also produced on record at Exh.26 by the same doctor, who had recorded in his certificate regarding the age of the victim girl as 17 to 18 years.
8. The father Kantilal Ramjibhai of the victim girl, who was examined as PW6, could not remember the birth date of the victim daughter and according to him, his daughter was studying in standard 10th of the high school. He stated that certain boys were harassing his daughter and therefore, he had filed a complaint at Bilkha Police Station and when no cognizance was taken of the complaint, he had moved D.S.P. Office, Junagadh to file his complaint. 8.1 According to the father, the accused were often harassing the daughter while on her way to school. He stated that his wife had informed him that when daughter was going to school on the road, accused no.1 and another accused, whose name he could not state in the evidence, had taken his daughter to the field which was at Visavadar road on a Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined motorcycle and that the daughter was forcibly confined there. The trial was against six of them and the father stated that those persons had clicked the photos of her daughter in the room and all had committed the offence of rape. Thereafter, he had given a complaint at Bilkha Police Station and then to D.S.P. Office, Junagadh.
8.2 In view of the fact that the daughter was already studying in standard 10th, the document which was most available and could have been relied upon was the school certificate of date of birth as while taking the admission, the birth certificate would have been produced by the parents or any guardian and there would have been a reliable document for the age in the situation when the doctor could write in medical document that the age of the girl was 17 to 18 years, and deposed her age to be between 18 to 20 years.
9. In the case of Mahadeo son of Kerba Maske v. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 637, it has been held that the yardstick applicable to determine the age is to be done by following the procedure laid down in Rule 12(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children), Rules Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined 2007. Para 12 of the said judgment reads as under :-
12. We can also in this connection make reference to a statutory provision contained in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, where under Rule 12, the procedure to be followed in determining the age of a juvenile has been set out. We can usefully refer to the said provision in this context, inasmuch as under Rule 12(3) of the said Rules, it is stated that :
12(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, by the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining--
(a)(i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof;
(ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof;
(iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a Panchayat;"
Under Rule 12(3)(b), it is specifically provided that only in the absence of alternative methods described under Rules 12(3)(a)(i) to (iii), the medical opinion can be sought for. In the light of such a statutory rule prevailing for ascertainment of the age of a juvenile, in our considered opinion, the same yardstick can be rightly followed by the courts for the purpose of ascertaining the age of a victim as well.
Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 12, considers the matriculation or equivalent certificate, if available as the main document, in absence, the date of birth certificate from the school first attended and in absence whereof, birth certificate given by a Corporation or Municipal Authority or a Panchayat and in absence of any of the above, medical opinion sought from a duly constituted Medical Board would prevail.
10. In the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2013) 7 SCC 263, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that though Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, was strictly applicable only to determine the age of the child in conflict-with-law, Rule 12 as a statutory provision should be the basis for determining the age even of a child who is victim of crime.
11. In Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat reported in (1973) 2 SCC 413; Section 361 of IPC as necessary, to appreciate the facts of the case to consider the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC, has been explained in Paragraph 10 as under :-
"10. The legal position with respect to an offence under Section 366 IPC is not in doubt, in State of Haryana v. Rajaram [(1973) 1 SCC 544 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 428] this Court considered the meaning and Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined scope of Section 361 IPC it was said there:
"The object of this section seems as much to protect the minor children from being seduced for improper purpose as to protect the rights and privileges to guardians having the lawful charge or custody of their minor wards. The gravamen of this offence lies in the taking or enticing of a minor under the ages specified in this section, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian without the consent of such guardian. The words 'takes or entices any minor ... out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor' in Section 361, are significant. The use of the word 'keeping' in the context connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control: further the guardian's charge and control appears to be compatible with the independence of action and movement in the minor, the guardian's protection and control of the minor being available, whenever necessity arises. On plain reading of this section the consent of the minor who is taken or enticed is wholly immaterial: it is only the guardian's consent which takes the case out of its purview. Nor is it necessary that the taking or enticing must be shown to have been by means of force or fraud, persuasion by the accused person which creates willingness on the part of the minor to be taken out of the keeping of the lawful guardian would be sufficient to attract the section."
In the case cited reference has been made to some English decisions in which it has been stated that forwardness on the part of the girl would not avail Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined the person taking her away from being guilty of the offence in question and that if by moral force of a willingness is created in the girl to go away with the former, the offence would be committed unless her going away is entirely voluntary. Inducements by previous promise or persuasion was held in some English decision to be sufficient to bring the case within the mischief of the statute. Broadly, the same seems to us to be the position under our law. The expression used in Section 361 IPC is "whoever takes or entices any minor". The word "takes" does not necessarily connote taking by force and it is not confined only to use of force, actual or constructive. This word merely means, "to cause to go", "to escort" or "to get into possession". No doubt it does mean physical taking, but not necessarily by use of force or fraud. The word "entice" seems to involve the idea of inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire in the other. This can take many forms, difficult to visualise and describe exhaustively; some of them may be quite subtle, depending for their success on the mental state of the person at the time when the inducement is intended to operate. This may work immediately or it may create continuous and gradual but imperceptible impression culminating after some time, in achieving its ultimate purposes of successful inducement. The two words "takes" and "entices", as used in Section 361 IPC are in our opinion, intended to be read together so that each takes to some extent its colour and content from the other. The statutory language suggests that if the minor leaves her parental home completely uninfluenced by any promise, offer or inducement emanating from the guilty party, then the latter cannot be considered to have committed the Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined offence as defined in Section 361 IPC. But if the guilty party has laid a foundation by inducement, allurement or threat, etc. and if this can be considered to have influenced the minor or weighed with her in leaving her guardian's custody or keeping and going to the guilty party, then prima facie it would be difficult for him to plead innocence on the ground that the minor had voluntarily come to him. If he had at an earlier stage solicited or induced her in any manner to leave her father's protection, by conveying or indicating or encouraging suggestion that he would give her shelter, then the mere circumstance that his act was not the immediate cause of her leaving her parental home or guardian's custody would constitute no valid defence and would not absolve him. The question truely falls for determination on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case before us, we cannot ignore the circumstances in which the appellant and Mohini came close to each other and the manner in which he is stated to have given her presents and tried to be intimate with her. The letters written by her to the appellant mainly in November 1966 (Exhibit P-20) and in December 1966 (Exhibit P-16) and also the letter written by Mohini's mother to the appellant in September 1966 (Exhibit P-27) furnish very important and essential background in which the culminating incident of January 16 and 17, 1967 has to be examined. These letters were taken into consideration by the High Court and in our opinion rightly. The suspicion entertained by Mohini's mother is also in our opinion, relevant in considering the truth of the story as narrated by the prosecutrix. In fact, this letter indicates how the mother of the girl belonging to a comparatively Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined poorer family felt when confronted with a rich man's dishonourable behaviour towards her young, impressionable immature daughter; a man who also suggested to render financial help to her husband in time of need. These circumstances, among others, show that the main substratum of the story as revealed by Mohini in her evidence, is probable and trustworthy and it admits of no reasonable doubt as to its truthfulness. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the conclusions of the two courts below with respect to the offence under Section 366 IPC are unexceptionable. There is absolutely no ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
12. For the offence to be made punishable under Section 363 of IPC, the same should be proved to have been committed if a female is under the age of 18 years. In the case of Thakorlal D. Vadgama (supra), the case of S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1965 SC 942 was taken into consideration and it was observed the facts and circumstances of Thakorlal D. Vadgama's case was not similar to those in S. Vardarajan's case. As per S. Vardarajan (supra), the observation with regard to the facts of the case would require a mention here to compare the facts of the present case :-
"11. On the view that we have taken about the conclusions of the two courts below on the evidence, it is unnecessary to refer to all the Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined decisions cited by Shri Dhebar. They have all proceeded on their own facts. We have enunciated the legal position and it is unnecessary to discuss the decisions cited. We may, however, briefly advert to the decision in S. Varadarajan v. State of Madras [AIR 1965 SC 942 : (1965) 1 SCR 243 :
(1965) 2 Cr LJ 33] on which Shri Dhebar placed principal reliance. Shri Dhebar relied on the following passage at p. 245 of the report:
"It will thus be seen that taking or enticing away a minor out of the keeping of a lawful guardian is an essential ingredient of the offence of kidnapping. Here, we are not concerned with enticement but what, we have to find out is whether the part played by the appellant amounts to 'taking' out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of Savitri. We have no doubt that though Savitri had been left by S. Natarajan at the house of his relative K. Natarajan, she still continued to be in the lawful keeping of the former but then the question remains as to what is it which the appellant did that constitutes in law 'taking'. There is not a word in the deposition of Savitri from which an inference could be drawn that she left the house of K. Natarajan at the instance or even a suggestion of the appellant. In fact she candidly admits that on the morning of October 1st, she herself telephoned to the appellant to meet her in his car at a certain place, went up to that place and finding him waiting in the car got into that car of her own accord. No doubt, she says that she did not tell the appellant where to go and that it was the appellant himself who Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined drove the car to Guindy and then to Mylapore and other places. Further, Savitri has stated that she had decided to marry the appellant."
From this passage, Shri Dhebar tried to infer that the case before us is similar to that case, and, therefore, Mohini herself went to the appellant and the appellant had absolutely no involvement in Mohini's leaving her parents' home. Now the relevant test laid down in the case cited is to be found at page 248:
"It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between 'taking' and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstance can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361 of the Penal Code, 1860. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what, she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian.Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined It would, however, be sufficient if the prosecution establishes that though immediately prior to the minor leaving the father's protection no active part was played by the accused, he had at some earlier stage solicited or persuaded the minor to do so. In our opinion if evidence to establish one of those things is lacking it would not be legitimate to infer that the accused is guilty of taking the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian merely because after she has actually left her guardian's house or a house where her guardian had kept her, joined the accused and the accused helped her in her design not to return to her guardian's house by taking her along with him from place to place. No doubt, the part played by the accused could be regarded as facilitating the fulfilment of the intention of the girl. That part, in our opinion, falls short of an inducement to the minor to slip out of the keeping of her lawful guardian and is, therefore, not tentamount to 'taking'."
It is obvious that the facts and the charge with which we are concerned in the present case are not identical with those in Vardarajan case. The evidence of the constant behaviour of the appellant towards Mohini for several months preceding the incident on the 16th and 17th January, 1967, completely brings the case within the passage at p. 248 of the decision cited. We have before us ample material showing earlier allurements and even of the appellant's participation in the formation of Mohini's intention and resolve to leave her father's Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined house. The appellant's conviction must therefore, be upheld."
13. The father PW6 in his cross-examination stated that when the incident had taken place, the age of his daughter was 18 to 19 years. He was referred to Muddamal photographs, total 14 in number, and he identified that in the photos, accused no.1 was along with his daughter. He stated that he was knowing that his daughter had written love letters to the appellant-accused. He also affirmed that his daughter had not informed him of any offence of rape against her and denied the suggestion that his daughter wanted to marry accused no.1, but since he was not in favour of it, therefore, had filed a false complaint. The mother of the victim Varshaben Kantibhai examined as PW7, in the cross- examination stated that they had gone to the Bilkha Police Station to give complaint of harassment, by the boys, faced by their daughter and her husband had given the complaint at Junagadh. The witness PW8 Rajnikanth Vrujlal was examined as a Panch for the production of Suzuki Motorcycle No.GCL 5322 by one Mahesh Dudhabhai, but had denied the said process and denied the Panchnama with regard to the camera. Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined 13.1 The evidence of the victim girl as PW9 shows that she has stated that some of the boys were harassing her when she used to go to the school. In the morning on the alleged date of incident, she had gone to the temple and had returned back from the temple. Thereafter, at about 3 in the afternoon, had gone to her friend's house and on the road, near the pool, she found Soma Bharwad and another one person and she identified that person as Prakash. According to the victim, Soma Bharwad and the another person had asked her to sit on the Honda and according to her, she was taken to one room in the field and thereafter, she has stated about the case of rape by all the accused, which has not been believed by the trial Court.
13.2 The evidence, in the cross-examination, affirms that she had written letters to the appellant-accused. The place where she had sat on the Honda was a public road. She had affirmed in the cross-examination that she wanted to marry appellant- accused Soma Bharwad. The case does not prove of any inducement from the side of the accused where he had made any plan to take her away from the keeping of her lawful Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined guardian. The facts of the case would suggest that she had voluntarily joined the accused person and more specifically, when the age of the accused could not be proved as less than 18 years, the case under Section 361 of the I.P.C to be punishable under Section 363 does not get proved. 13.3 In view of the evidence of the doctor as well as the fact that the birth certificate was issued after the complaint was filed and when no document has been placed on record from the school of the victim girl, where the father had affirmed that his daughter has studied up to standard 10 th and absence of the document, the age of the victim cannot be said to have been proved as under 18 years. The victim girl herself wanted to marry the appellant-accused. It had also not been proved that the victim girl was taken from the keeping of the father. The deposition of the victim girl would prove, that at that time, she was visiting her friend. No proof of any inducement by the accused is proved on record to consider that he had enticed the victim girl or had taken her away from the keeping of the father.
Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/388/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2026 undefined
14. In view of the evidence with the analysis and appreciation as per the provision of law, the prosecution failed to successfully prove that the victim was less than eighteen years of age at the time of the alleged commission of crime, thus the accused would get the benefit of the failure of prosecution. Further the facts and circumstances do not create any satisfying inference or create confidence to believe kidnapping.
15. In view of the analysis of the evidence made here-in- above and the law established, the learned trial Court Judge has erred in coming to his conclusion for convicting the accused. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Fourth Fast-Track Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No.48 of 1998 is set aside. The appellant-accused stands acquitted. Bail bond discharged. Record and Proceeding to be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI,J) PARMAR KRISH/1 Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by PARMAR KRISH JAYESH(HC02348) on Thu Mar 05 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 09 21:23:00 IST 2026