Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Rakeshbhai on 28 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Rakeshbhai on 28 April, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/13029/2009	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 13029 of 2009
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 2252 of 2009
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

RAKESHBHAI
ARVINDBHAI VASAVA & 3 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
KP RAVAL Ld. APP for Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 1
- 4. 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 28/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. The
present application for leave to prefer appeal is directed against
the judgment and order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 84/2008, whereby, the accused
have been acquitted for the offence under sec. 363, 366, 376, 504,
506(2) and 114 of IPC

2. We
have gone through the judgment and the reasons recorded by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge. We have also considered the record and
proceedings and heard the learned Learned APP for the State.

3. It
appears to us that the age declared by the victim at the time when
caesarean operation was undertaken, is of 22 years. Further, in
medical history, she has stated that she has voluntarily left with
Rakesh and stayed together for about 7 days and there was physical
relationship by volition. Under the circumstances, if the learned
Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not been able to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the same cannot be said to be
erroneous.

4. Hence,
leave does not deserves to be granted and, therefore, not granted.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)

(Z.

K. SAIYED, J.)

mandora/

   

Top