STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARSINHBHAI KANUBHAI GADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.1 of 1998, whereby the respondent -accused was acquitted of the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that: -

(3.) IT is submitted by Ms.Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the State that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court of learned Additional sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice She submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence on record and committed error in acquitting the respondent -accused. She also submitted that learned Judge has not properly appreciated the deposition of the victim at Exh. 21, wherein she has clearly stated victim was threatened by the accused and with clear intention to have illicit sexual intercourse she was kidnapped and taken at various places like Ahmedabad, Surat, Chotila, Junagadh and Rajkot. Therefore, so far as evidence of victim is concerned, she has fully supported the prosecution case. She submitted that the learned Judge has committed error in holding that complaint of complainant is not supported by version of victim. She also submitted that the learned Judge has committed error in holding that victim has gone with accused voluntarily. She also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that as on date of incidence the victim was aged about 15 years and 11 months. She further submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated deposition of Savitaben at Exh.15, who is mother of the victim and deposition of Nagjibhai at Exh. 9, who is brother of Savitaben, these both prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case that respondent -accused induced and enticed away the minor victim from her lawful guardian and thereby committed offerce under sections 363 and 366 of I.P.C. She also submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of PSI, Shri Kasiri at Exh. 24, wherein he has also stated that on 19.5.97 while he was discharging his duties at Adalaj Police Station a complaint was registered and statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded, and as there was sufficient evidence against the respondent -accused complaint was filed before the learned Court. Therefore, so far as evidence of this Investigating Officer is concerned, he has also supported the prosecution case. She also submitted that the reasons given by the learned Judge while appreciating evidence as well as while acquitting the accused are improper, perverse and bad in law and the learned Judge has taken irrelevant facts into his consideration while appreciating evidence on record. In view of these submissions, she submitted that impugned judgment is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeals is required to be allowed.