STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BIPINBHAI NANALAL JANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By preferring this Criminal Appeal under Section 378 [1] (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State of Gujarat is in appeal against the order of acquittal dated 29th September 2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2002 made below Exh. 115.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, the complainant, origin of village Navda, Taluka Dhanduka, District Ahmedabad, when was residing at Katargam, local area of Surat City alongwith her husband and other family members, at that time, her younger sister aged around 15-16 years was also working in a Diamond factory, where she was employed. The complainant came to know about ill motive of the accused No. 1, and therefore, she withdrew the victim from that unit and sent her in another unit. That, on 25th March 2000, the victim went to unit for work and came back at home for lunch at 12 noon, and thereafter, at about 2 O'Clock, she went back to the unit for work. However, at about 2:45 O'Clock, the owner of the unit where the victim was employed, made a call to the complainant informing about absence of victim from work after lunch hour. Upon receiving the message, the complainant went to the Unit and made search of the victim in and around the area, but she could not trace her. Therefore, she understood that the accused No. 1 with a view to fulfill his ill intention and with a view to solemnize marriage with victim had eloped with her. Thereafter, the complainant gave a complaint to Katargam Police Station against the accused on 28th March 2000 alongwith a zexox copy of birth certificate of the victim. On receipt of the complaint, the investigating Officer went at different places in search of the victim girl, and in the meantime, recorded statements of concerned witnesses. That, thereafter, the accused No. 1 and victim girl were found from Amreli District. They were consequently sent for medical check up at Surat. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused No. 2 helped accused No. 1 in fleeing away with the victim. It is also stated that accused No. 3 had provided information to accused No.1 and accused Nos. 4 and 5 remained present at the time of their marriage. That, the accused No. 6 had solemnized their marriage ceremony and that the accused No. 7 helped accused No. 1 to run away with the victim. That, the accused No. 8, who is an Advocate by profession, knowing fully well that the victim was minor at the time of marriage, had solemnized her marriage with the accused No.1 so also managed to register it by making frivolous documents. On these facts, further investigation was carried out and on completion of the same, accused persons were charge-sheeted to stand trial for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471, 477 [a], 341, 342 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

(3.) At trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution led evidence and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Presiding Officer, 4th Fast Track Court, Surat in Sessions Case No. 138 of 2002 acquitted all the accused by an Order dated 29th September 2005; which is impugned herein.