Gujarat HC Upholds Paying Guest’s Acquittal On Kidnapping And Rape Charges After Victim Said He Had Not Abducted Her

The State appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the respondent’s acquittal of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code

The prosecution alleged that the respondent, who had lived at the complainant’s home as a paying guest, left a bus with the complainant’s minor daughter near Vadodara on 15 October 2002; they were later found at the respondent’s residence

The trial court acquitted the respondent.

On appeal, the High Court noted that the complainant’s evidence disclosed strained relations with the respondent over rent and that the complaint was lodged about six months after the incident.

It also noted the victim’s evidence that she had eloped and married another person, and medical evidence indicating no injuries and that she was habituated to sexual relations.

Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC defined the offences charged, while Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC provided the basis for the State’s appeal against acquittal.

An appellate court may review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must account for the double presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471; Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149; and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, including the principle that interference requires cogent grounds for rejecting the trial court’s reasoning.

The High Court considered the material witnesses and medical evidence and found that the victim’s testimony did not support the prosecution’s allegation that the respondent had abducted or confined her; the evidence instead indicated that she had eloped with and married another person.

The Court also noted the delay in the complaint, the lack of corroboration for the complainant’s asserted search efforts, and the strained relationship between the complainant and respondent.

On reappreciation, it found no credible evidence connecting the respondent to the alleged offences and no basis to conclude that the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or legally erroneous.

The appeal was dismissed, the trial court’s acquittal was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.