Petty Family Quarrel Not Dowry Harassment | Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal In Abetment Case | Court Finds No Evidence Of Cruelty In Wife’s Self-Immolation
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused in a case involving allegations under Sections 452, 376, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the evidence on record did not substantiate the prosecution's case of rape and criminal trespass. Consequently, the Court upheld the acquittal, observing that the circumstances clearly indicated consensual sexual relations between the prosecutrix and the accused and not forcible sexual intercourse.
The criminal appeal was filed by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal judgment dated 15/04/2013 rendered in Sessions Case No.34 of 2011 by the Sessions Judge, Amreli. The accused, a resident of the same locality as the prosecutrix, was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and Gujarat Police Act for allegedly committing repeated acts of rape upon an 18-year-old girl and threatening her with dire consequences to prevent her from disclosing the incidents.
According to the prosecution’s case, on 15/08/2010, the victim, aged 18, filed a complaint with the police alleging that while she was alone at home—her parents being daily wage labourers away at work—the accused forcibly entered her residence and committed rape. It was further alleged that the accused continued to sexually assault her on multiple subsequent occasions when she was alone in the house, eventually leading to her pregnancy. The complainant, examined as PW-8 during the trial, stated that she had not informed anyone about the incidents or the pregnancy until the seventh or eighth month of gestation. It was only at the advanced stage of pregnancy that she informed her parents about the accused’s actions.
The police registered a case for offences under Sections 452 (house trespass), 376 (rape), 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The victim was medically examined and the doctor who conducted the examination opined that she was habituated to sexual intercourse. Following the completion of investigation, the police filed a chargesheet and the trial commenced.
The accused, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, denied the charges and claimed that he and PW-8 were in a consensual romantic relationship. He supported his defense by producing joint photographs with PW-8 as evidence.
The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 21 exhibits. However, the trial court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.
Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the State filed the present appeal before the Gujarat High Court. The matter was listed under “critically old matters” and was taken up for final disposal in 2025. The respondent (accused) did not appear despite service of notice.
The Division Bench perused the trial court record and heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Krina Calla. Upon careful consideration of the evidence, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the findings of the Sessions Court.
The Bench recorded: "Admittedly, the victim who is examined as PW-8 is a major aged about 18 years." It further observed: "Though it is stated by her at the first instance that while she was alone in the house that the accused has trespassed into her house and had forcible sexual intercourse with her, there is absolutely no medical evidence on record to prove that any forcible sexual intercourse was performed on her by the accused against her consent."
The Court noted that according to PW-8’s own version, there were repeated acts of sexual intercourse over a period of time, yet she did not disclose the matter to anyone until she reached an advanced stage of pregnancy. "Even after she became pregnant also, she did not disclose about the incident to any of her family members," the Court stated.
Regarding the allegation of criminal intimidation, the Court stated: "Either at the first instance or at any subsequent instances, she never informed either to her parents or to her elder brother or elder sister or any of her family members that the accused trespassed into her house while she was alone and raped her and threatened her with dire consequences."
The Court concluded that the conduct of PW-8 suggested a consensual relationship: "The conduct of PW-8 in remaining silent throughout for a considerable period of time till she became pregnant and till she reached the advanced stage of pregnancy clearly proves that it is a clear case of consent and not at all a case of rape or having any forcible sexual intercourse on her without her consent."
Additionally, the Court took note of the medical findings: "It is pertinent to note here that the doctor who examined her had clearly testified to that fact that she is habituated to sexual intercourse." It added: "So, it clearly proves that she has indulged in the act of promiscuity and it is not at all a case of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code."
On the allegations of house trespass and criminal intimidation, the Bench found no supporting evidence and observed: "No offence of criminal trespass of the house under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code or criminal intimidation under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code is also made out from the facts of the case."
The Court also considered the subsequent development wherein the prosecutrix had married another person and was residing with him at the time of trial.
The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision without reservation. It stated: "Therefore, considering the evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case and said subsequent events and on appreciation of the same, the trial court has rightly recorded a finding that the accused is not found guilty for the said charges levelled against him and accordingly acquitted him."
Further, the Division Bench concluded: "After considering the said evidence on record, we are also of the considered view that no case of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or Sections 452 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code or under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act is made out from the facts and circumstances of the case."
In conclusion, the Bench directed: "Ergo, the appeal is dismissed affirming the impugned judgment of the trial court. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled." The Court also directed that the record and proceedings be returned: "Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the concerned court."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Ms. Krina Calla, Additional Public Prosecutor
For the Respondent: Respondent served; no appearance recorded
Case Title: State of Gujarat vs. XXX
Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:34390-DB
Case Number: R/CR. A/1038/2013
Bench: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice D. M. Vyas
