STATE OF GUJARAT vs GAMBHIRBHAI KABABHAI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/2034/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493772005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2034 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
GAMBHIRBHAI KABABHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 22/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
1. Here is the Appeal by the State under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
against the judgment and order of acquittal.
2. Being dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar at Mahuva, passed in Sessions
Case No.176 of 1992 dated 04.05.2005, acquitting the accused from the
offences punishable under Sections 376, 348 and 342 read with Section
114 of the IPC.
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 14:11:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2034/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493772005)
3. We have heard Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP for the appellant-
State.
4. Brief facts giving rise to file the present Appeal are that, the victim
about four months prior to 13.06.1992, when she was alone in the house
at Village: Sendarda, the accused Gambhir Kababhai Makwana forcibly
took her on the cot and committed rape upon her and at that time, the co-
accused Saviben Gambhirbhai in order to facilitate the principal accused
in commission of rape, closed the door from the outside and ran away. In
such circumstances, the FIR by the sister of the deceased (PW.1) came to
be filed with respect to the offence of rape, trespass and illegal
confinement. Admittedly, the victim at the time of FIR, got pregnant and
gave birth to a boy on 03.09.1992. After completion of investigation, both
the accused were chargesheeted and case was committed to the Court of
Sessions at Mahuva.
5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges to which the accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution has examined as many
as 10 witnesses and relied on the documentary evidence as referred in the
judgment.
7. On conclusion of oral evidence, the Trial Court recorded further
statements of the accused as provided under Section 313 of the Code,
wherein, they claimed their innocence and stated that they have been
falsely implicated in the offence.
8. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating and examining the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 14:11:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2034/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493772005)
oral as well as documentary evidence, acquitted the accused herein for the
offences with which they were charged, on the ground that, the victim as
well as her family members have not supported to the case of prosecution
and as such, there is no evidence connecting the accused herein.
9. In such circumstances, the Trial Court while acquitting the accused,
held and observed that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
charge against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
10. During the pendency of this appeal, the principal accused against
whom charge of rape being framed, has passed away on 22.08.2017.
Thus, the appeal qua accused no.1 – Gambhir Kababhai stands abated.
11. Mr. Rohan Raval, learned APP appearing for and on behalf of the
State, assailing the judgment and order of acquittal, has submitted that the
findings of acquittal are contrary to law and evidence on record and the
findings recorded are palpably erroneous and based on the irrelevant
material; that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that, the accused
Saviben, in order to facilitate the principal accused, by remaining present
at the place, had closed the door from the outside and then ran away.
Thus, there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge against her for the
act of abatement.
12. In such circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court is
unreasonable and findings are perverse, which has resulted into
miscarriage of justice and therefore, it has been submitted that this is a fit
case to admit the appeal.
13. In the present case, the issue falls for our consideration as to
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 14:11:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2034/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493772005)
whether the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused?
14. We have carefully examined the oral as well as documentary
evidence and perused the findings of acquittal rendered by the Trial
Court.
15. Before proceeding to address the rival submissions, we would like
to place on record the scope of interference in an appeal against the
acquittal and when the same is justified. In exceptional cases, where there
are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to
be perverse, the Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment of
acquittal. The Appellate Court should bear in mind the presumption of
innocence of the accused and further that, the trial Court’s acquittal
bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine
manner, where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there
are reasons for interference.
16. In the facts of the present case, the principal accused, during the
pendency of this appeal, has passed away and therefore, the scope of
appeal is very limited to examine the role attributed to the accused no.2 –
Saviben. In the case on hand, the complainant (PW.1) Vimliben,
neighbour Madhuben (PW.2), uncle Jadubhai Sidibhai (PW.3) and victim
(PW.4) have not supported to the case of prosecution and after declaring
them hostile, they have not admitted the contents of their statements
recorded by the police. Even the forensic evidence produced before the
trial court does not point out that the accused Gambhirbhai was the
biological father of the child. So far as accused no.2 is concerned, there is
no iota of evidence on record to prove that she had in any manner, abetted
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 14:11:19 IST 2026
R/CR.A/2034/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/10/2026
(GJHC240493772005)
the principal accused in commission of the crime.
17. Thus, after reanalysis of the evidence, we are of the considered
opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against
the accused no.2, either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence
beyond reasonable doubt.
18. In the result, we do not find any perversity in the impugned
judgment and in absence of substantial and compelling reason, no ground
exists to interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial
Court and therefore, in our view, the Trial Court was justified in
acquitting the accused.
19. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. R&P, if any, be sent back
to the concerned court forthwith.
Sd/-
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
Sd/-
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by TAUSIF SAIYED(HC01401) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 14:11:19 IST 2026