Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.A/1730/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1730 of 2009
=========================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
MANISHABEN
W/O BHUPATBHAI DAMJIBHAI RATHOD & 1 - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DC SEJPAL, APP for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1
2
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 11/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI)
Admit.
Bailable
warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees five thousand only] each be
issued against the respondents accused.
Having
gone through the judgment and order passed by the Ld. Presiding
Officer, F.T.C. No. 3 & Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot, on
19/6/2009 in Sessions Case No. 152/2008 and having considered the
submissions made by the Ld. APP Mr. Sejpal for the appellant
State, this Court is of the opinion that it will be failing in its
duty if the Registry is not directed to place the judgment and order
of the trial Court before the concerned Unit Judge and Hon’ble
the Chief Justice for consideration for the reasons that we have
noted that the mode and manner of appreciation of evidence adopted by
the Ld. Judge, prima-facie, appears faulty and erroneous. The
prosecution case as well as the evidence adduced by the prosecution,
oral and documentary, reveals the age of the prosecutrix at the time
of the incident to be 15 years. Despite this, in para. 23 of the
judgment, Ld. Judge observed that it was not necessary to discuss as
to whether the prosecutrix was minor or not. The Ld. Judge appears to
have misread the evidence of witnesses, more particularly the
evidence of the prosecutrix as well as the medical evidence on
record. We are conscious about the fact that the appeal is listed
today for admission and, therefore, the above prima-facie
observations are made only with a view to see that the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Ld. Judge may be brought to the
notice of the concerned Unit Judge and Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
necessary consideration.
[
RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.]
[
J.C. UPADHYAYA, J. ]
*
Pansala.
Top