Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Odd Mayaben W/O Jitendrabhai Govabhai & ... on 15 April, 2015
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Vipul M. Pancholi
R/CR.MA/1023/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 1023 of
2015
In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 of 2015
With
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 of 2015
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Applicant(s)
Versus
ODD MAYABEN W/O JITENDRABHAI GOVABHAI & 2....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 15/04/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. This application is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Court acquitting all respondents accused for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 363 and 376 of IPC read with Section 114 thereof.
2. As per the prosecution case, respondent No.2 had committed rape on the victim girl Ms 'S' - P.W.2. She was below 16 years of age. Even otherwise, she was raped at knife point. When the relatives of the victim went to his house to scold him for such behaviour, all the accused started abusing the parents and maternal aunt of the victim and thereafter assaulted them giving kick and fist blows that is how the accused were charged for the above noted offences.
Page 1 of 3R/CR.MA/1023/2015 ORDER
3. The learned Sessions Judge in his detailed judgment discussed the evidence on record but found insufficient evidence of any force or coercion on the victim for commission of the sexual intercourse. He also did not accept the prosecution evidence to hold that the victim was below 16 years of age thereby making her consent wholly irrelevant. Looking to various contradictions, the other charges were also not believed.
4. As per the defence, the alleged incident did not take place at all. In any case false complaint was filed. In fact, there was an affair between the victim girl and the accused No.2.
5. Deposition of victim girl - P.W.2 was recorded at Exh.29. According to her, Mayaben, accused No.1, was a distant relative. She took the victim girl with her to Palanpur under promise that she will buy clothes for her. There she took her to a house. There, accused No.2, Mayaben's brother came there and started misbehaving with her. She tried to get out of the house but Mayaben locked the door from outside. Accused No.2 then committed rape on her at a knife point. Mayaben then brought her back from Palanpur to her village Tunvad. She, however, did not inform the parents about it. Some 15 days later, accused No.2 came to her village. When she was passing through the village he intercepted her and threatened her not to mention about the incident of Palanpur and slapped her a few times on her shoulder. She started crying and came home. When inquired by her mother she narrated the incident of Palanpur. Her parents and aunt therefore went to the house of Mayaben to admonish them about the incident. The accused picked up a quarrel and assaulted them. In the cross examination, defence suggested that the witness was even talking to the Page 2 of 3 R/CR.MA/1023/2015 ORDER accused on phone since they had friendly relations. She denied such suggestion but agreed that there was no direct bus between Palanpur to Tunvad. To reach Palanpur, one would have to first travel in a jeep from Tunvad to Harij from where one could get the bus of Palanpur.
6. With respect to the age, the trial Court found that there was no conclusive evidence that the girl was below 16 years of age. The School Leaving Certificate was not supported by any basis for insertion of the date of birth. The medical evidence suggested that the girl was between 16 to 17 years of age with possibility of error margin.
7. Looking to such evidence, considerable delay in lodging the complaint and looking to the other corroborative evidence, the trial Court found that the charges were not established. In a case of appeal against acquittal, it would not be possible for this Court to reverse the finding merely because another view is possible. Only if it is found that the trial Court has seriously erred in assessment of evidence leading to perversity, judgment of acquittal may be liable to b reversed. No such factors exist in this case. Application for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Resultantly, appeal is also dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 3 of 3