STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KANGASIA JAYANTIBHAI SOMABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed by the appellant State feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 1.5.2006, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.9 of 2006, whereby the trial court was pleased to acquit the respondent accused from the charges for which he has been tried.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Kamuben was residing with his father and brother at Gosaikunj society, Kalol, who was dealing in the business of cutlery items. She was married with one Bhikhabhai Kalubhai prior to two years as per their custom. The case of the prosecution further is that on 19.6.2005 at about 10.00 O'clock in the morning while she was going along with her uncle-in-law Virambhai at that time, accused Jayantibhai suddenly came in the rickshaw, snatched her and flew away from the spot in the said rickshaw. The complainant shouted but, she could not succeed and thereafter, as per the version of the complainant, accused told her uncle-in-law to go away from the spot as he would like to marry with her. Subsequently, they went to Modasa and thereafter at Shamlaji and then, to Bhilvad and stayed at various places and during this span, the accused committed forcibly sexual intercourse and this incident in question has resulted into filing of the complaint before the Kalol City Police Station which was registered as I-C.R.No.75 of 2005.

(3.) Ms.Hansa Punani, learned APP for the appellant State has vehemently contended that the order of acquittal passed by the trial court is erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. It has also been contended by learned APP that the age of the prosecutrix was not certain. On the contrary, at the relevant point of time, when the offence said to have been committed, she was below the age of 16 and therefore, in any case the offence is made out and proved by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt. Learned APP has further drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of PW-4 Vijaybhai Hasmukhray Vyas, who was examined at Exh.12 and has tried to substantiate the case that this witness has proved the age by pointing out the entry form of Birth and Death Register maintained by the local body. Learned APP has further submitted that the PW-7 Chaturbhai Tapubhai, who was examined at Exh.17, has substantially supported the case of the prosecution. Learned APP has further drawn the attention to the medical evidence in the form of deposition of PW-15 Dr.Pravinbhai Gandalal, who was examined at Exh.35 and has contended that age of the prosecutrix is opined between 15 to 17 years and therefore, taking this evidence in mind also, the trial court ought not to have granted benefit of doubt to the respondent accused. Even otherwise, as per the say of learned APP, there are sufficient and cogent judgments, which would not support the conclusion arrived at by the trial court and therefore, ultimately requested the Court to reverse the judgment and order of acquittal and inflict appropriate punishment upon the respondent accused. No other submissions advanced by learned APP.