STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMRUT @ AMUJI MATHURJI THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, City & Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.117 of 2003, whereby accused no.1 has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, and in default of payment of fine, accused no.1 was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, accused no.1 was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. Accused nos.2 to 4 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2005 is preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused no.1, while Criminal Appeal No.88 of 2005 is preferred by the State against acquittal of accused no.1 from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC. Criminal Appeal No.2168 of 2004 is preffed by the State against acquittal of accused nos.2 to 4. Since these appeals are arising out of one case and evidence is common in all these appeals, the same are taken up for hearing together.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:

(3.) So far as Criminal Appeal Nos.88 of 2005 and 2168 of 2004, which are preferred against acquittal of the accused persons are concerned, Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP has taken us through the evidence and contended that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused inspite of voluminous evidence against them and contended that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused. She submitted that though the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses and also produced 12 documents in support of its case, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated them and acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. She submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons. She submitted that even the medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution. She submitted that the victim was minor at the time of the incident, therefore, even if she was a consenting party, the accused would not have been acquitted on the basis of this fact. She submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective, therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing present appeals.