Gujarat High Court High Court

State vs Sumanbhai on 7 April, 2010

Gujarat High Court
State vs Sumanbhai on 7 April, 2010
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable Z.K.Saiyed,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/11061/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 11061 of 2009
 

In


 

CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 1692 of 2009
 

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

 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

SUMANBHAI
FULABHAI SOLANKI - Respondent(s)
 

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


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

The
present application for leave to Appeal is directed against the
Judgment and order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 202 of 2008, whereby
the accused has been acquitted for the offence under Sections 363,
366 & 376 of I.P. Code.

We
have considered the Judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned
Special Judge. We have considered the record and proceedings. We
have heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

It
appears to us that so far as offences under Sections 363 & 366
are concerned the evidence has come on record that the guardian of
victim had voluntarily sent the victim to the place of the accused.
Further, it has also come on record that she was living in free
condition and she had enough opportunity to go back to the guardian,
inspite of the same she has not gone. The aforesaid fact shows that
the ingredients of offence under Sections 363 and 366 of I.P. Code
could not be satisfied. Further, so far as the offence under Section
376 of I.P. Code is concerned, as per medical evidence, no marks of
injury are found on the body of the victim. The age of the victim
was above 16 years.

Under
these circumstances, if the learned Sessions Judge has found that
the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the
same cannot be said to be erroneous.

Hence,
leave does not deserve to be granted, therefore, not granted.
Application disposed off accordingly.

(JAYANT
PATEL,J.)

(Z.K.SAIYED,
J.)

sas

   

Top