Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Savitaben W/O Babulal Madhavlal Patel on 9 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SAVITABEN W/O BABULAL MADHAVLAL PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHIT N PATEL(6045) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 09/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Appellate Court") in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 on 19.10.2010, whereby, the learned Appellate Court has set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sabarkatha Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined at Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 2004 of 2003 on 30.12.2009. 1.1 The respondents were charged for the offence under Sections 406, 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 120B, 494, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and at the end of the trial, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from the offence under Sections 406, 416, 494 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was pleased to convict the accused for the offence under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence both the accused to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as "the accused" in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 The complainant - Rajendrakumar Durgashankar Joshi was aged 38 years and was physically challenged and had difficulties for finding a marriage partner and had tried on a number of occasions to get married and had come in contact with the accused no. 1. The accused no. 1 had introduced the accused no. 2 as the President of Priyanka Marriage Bureau and both the accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and got the complainant married on 01.07.2002 to one Savitaben who a married woman and had taken an amount of Rs. 45,000/- from the complainant for the marriage. The accused in criminal conspiracy with each other had cheated the complainant and hence, the complainant filed a private complaint against six persons before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himmatnagar which came to be registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 13 of the 2003. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to pass an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and sent the Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined complaint for investigation to the Gambhoi Police Station and at the end of the investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against both the accused and three absconding accused whose names were shown in column no. 2 of the charge sheet which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 2004 of 2003.
2.2 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 34 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 35 and 36 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.3 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 8 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined recorded. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from the offence under Sections 406, 416, 494 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was pleased to convict the accused for the offence under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence both the accused to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for 30 days for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and rigorous imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven days for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 before the Sessions Court Sabarkatha at Himmatnagar and after the arguments of the parties were heard, the learned Session Judge, Sabarkatha at Himmatnagar was pleased to allow Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined the appeal and acquit the accused from the offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the impugned judgement and order dated 19.10.2010.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Appellate Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined
5. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Rohit Patel for the respondents. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
6. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant and witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Rohit Patel for the respondents has submitted that the Appellate Court has in a well reasoned judgement discussed the entire evidence and has appreciated the same in proper perspective and has acquitted the respondents as there was no evidence and the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court did Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined not appreciate the evidence properly and the judgement and order of conviction came to be passed but the learned Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence and no interference is required and hence, the appeal of the appellants must be rejected.
8. On perusal of the evidence on record, the prosecution has examined PW1 - Rajendrakumar Durgashankar Joshi at Exh. 45 and the witness is the complainant who has stated that he was married to Sangeetaben on 01.07.2002 and at the time of marriage, Sangeetaben had told him that she was unmarried but she developed some problem and the complainant had taken her to Dr. Dinesh Prajapati at Himmatnagar where it was found that a family planning operation had been performed on her and when they asked her, she told them that she was not a Brahmin but she was an Adivasi married woman and her husband was Shankar Sevji Pandit and she had one child aged four years old. She also stated that her name was not Sangeeta Maganbhai Rawal but Savita Nasia Chaudhary and she was a resident of village Lang, Taluka Mandvi, District Surat. The Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined complainant has produced the affidavit of Savitaben Nasia Chaudhary at Exh. 49 admitting all these facts and this document has been exhibited but the contents of the documents have not been proved as there is no iota of evidence that any person by the name of Savitaben Nasia Chaudhary is in existence. If the charge sheet is perused, the name of Savitaben Nasia Chaudhary appears in column no. 2 of the charge sheet as an absconding accused but during investigation there is no evidence found that any such person was existing. The complainant has produced the a divorce deed at Exh. 48 and if the deed produced at Exh. 48 is perused, it is the divorce deed executed between the complainant Rajendrakumar Durgashankar Joshi and Sangeetaben Maganbhai Rawal. There is no iota of evidence as to who this Sangeetaben Maganbhai Rawal was and there is no evidence about the identity of Sangeetaben Maganbhai Rawal.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 - Manjulaben Durgashankar Joshi at Exh. 54 and the witness is the mother of the complainant who has narrated the same facts Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined as stated in the complaint but in the cross examination has admitted that they did not verify about the person to whom the complainant had got married and nobody went to the marriage bureau at Ahmedabad. That in the stamp paper, an amount of Rs. 35,000/- is written and the marriage had taken place in a very simple manner on 01.07.2002. 8.2 PW3 - Yashwantkumar Durgashankar Joshi examined at Exh. 55 is the brother of the complainant and he has signed the agreement which is produced at Exh. 47. The witness has stated all the same facts as the complaint but in his evidence, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused were in fact involved in the marriage or that the accused no. 2 was the President of Priyanka Marriage Bureau.
8.3 PW4 - Kanubhai Girdharlal Rawal examined at Exh. 58 was known to the complainant and he too has supported the facts as stated in the complaint but there is no evidence on record that the accused were involved in any way in the marriage.
Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 8.4 PW5 - Vamanbhai Shivkumar Dixit examined at Exh. 59 was the photographer who had taken the photographs of the marriage of the complainant and the photographs are produced on record but there is no identity of the person with whom the marriage had taken place on record. 8.5 PW6 - Hariprasad Sankleshwar examined at Exh. 65 is the priest who had performed the marriage and in the cross examination he has admitted that he does not remember whether the school leaving certificates of the bridge and bridegroom were produced.
8.6 PW7 - Maheshkumar Shivkumar Dixit examined at Exh. 67 has also supported the facts of the complaint and has identified that the amount of Rs. 35,000/- was written on the document produced at Exh. 47. The witness has witnessed the document at Exh. 47 but there is no evidence on record that the amount of Rs. 35,000/- was taken by any of the accused.
8.7 PW8 - Dr. Dineshbhai Jyotaram Prajapati examined at Exh. 72 is the Medical Officer who has has examined Sangeetaben Rajendrakumar Joshi on 06.02.2002 and had Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined given the prescription which is produced at Exh. 73. The witness has stated that when he had checked the patient, it was found that a laparoscopy operation was performed on her and he had treated the said Sangeetaben Rajendrakumar Joshi.
8.8 PW9 - Kubsinh Phulsinh Zala examined at Exh. 75 is the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet against the accused after due investigation.
9. As per the case of the prosecution the complainant who was 38 year old unmarried person was enthusiastic about getting married and had met the accused no. 1 and through her the accused no. 2 who was the President of Priyanka Marriage Bureau. The documentary evidence on record is the marriage registration of the complainant at Exh. 46, an agreement at Exh. 47, the divorce deed at Exh. 48, affidavit of Savitaben Nasia Chaudhary at Exh. 49, photographs at Exhs. 60, 61 and 62, the prescription of Pooja Hospital at Exh. 73 and the order for investigation at Exh. 76. The prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence to show that any 'Priyanka Marriage Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined Bureau' was in existence and that the accused no. 2 was the President or Managing Trustee of 'Priyanka Marriage Bureau'. The complainant has thereafter stated that the accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 45,000/- from him and he had paid the amount and a deed to that effect was executed which is produced at Exh. 47. If the document produced at Exh. 47 is perused, it is a document executed between Yashwantbhai Durgashankar Joshi and Vinodbhai Maganbhai Rawal. The document states that the marriage would be performed as per the Hindu marriage rites between Rajendrakumar Durgashankar Joshi - the brother of the first party Yashwantbhai Durgashankar Joshi and Sangitaben Maganbhai Rawal - the sister of the second party Vinodbhai Maganbhai Rawal on 01.07.2002 and an amount of Rs. 35,000/- had to be given to the second party. This document does not mention the names of the accused and is not signed by any of the accused or the complainant. Hence, there is no evidence on record regarding the amount of Rs. 45,000/- being taken by the accused from the complainant.
Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined 9.1 On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution it is on record that the complainant had filed a private complaint before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against six accused and after due investigation the charge sheet came to be filed against the present two accused and three of the accused were shown as absconding in the charge sheet. As per the complaint the accused met the complainant on 28.06.2002 and the marriage was fixed on 01.07.2002. On 06.09.2002, the complainant took his wife i.e. the person with whom he had entered into marriage on 01.07.2002 to PW8 - Dr. Dinesh Jyotaram Prajapati as she was not well and he came to know that he was cheated and thereafter, a divorce deed produced at Exh. 48 was executed on 09.09.2002. The complaint has been filed by the complainant on 18.02.2003 and there is a delay in filing the complaint which has not been explained by the complainant. There is no iota of evidence that the accused no. 2 was running any marriage bureau and there is no evidence on record that the accused had accepted the amount of Rs. 45,000/- from the Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined complainant. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence, there is no evidence that the marriage had taken place at the behest of the accused and no evidence of the first marriage of the absconding accused Savitaben and as to whether the person with whom the complainant had entered into marriage was actually the said absconding accused.
10. The learned Appellate Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Appellate Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Appellate Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Appellate Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court. Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/108/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/07/2025 undefined This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2010 on 19.10.2010, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Mon Jul 14 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 14 21:28:31 IST 2025